HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:04:56 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <pa142548.409.721347434@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In the first place who said they couldn't "carry concealed" - they
>>could apply for licenses and get the guns. 
>
>The Texas State Legislature and Govenor.  For all of her "wild west" PR, the 
>Lone Star State has some of the most frighteningly totalitarian anti-gun 
>laws in the nation.

I don't want to flame someone who I more or less agree with but this
statement is simply not true.  Purchase of guns in Texas is not restricted
beyond federal regulations - including full-auto guns.  Carrying of
long guns (rifles and shotguns) is not restricted much either.  You
can carry a loaded shotgun on the seat of your car - or in gun racks
like I see lots of people doing.  The laws get kinda weird when it
comes to carrying handguns however.  Basically you can't carry one.

>
>>Hell, they sell them
>>in department stores here in Georgia!  
>
>Texas is not Georgia, and getting a conceal carry permit in Texas is no easy 
>thing.  You have to have "a compelling reason."

"No easy thing" is a bit of an understatement.  There is no such thing
in Texas, they are not available, you CAN'T get one.  I suppose there
are exceptions for security guards and such but a normal person can't
get one.



-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:49:07 GMT

In article <40801@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
>People in the newsgroup are talking about the upcoming gun bans.  
>Has Clinton outright said that he supports bans of "assault" rifles
>and semi-autos?  How realistic and soon are the gun ban threats?
>....

This is a scary topic. Let me make sure that I understand the issue.
For example, if they ( whoever can be ) decide to ban Colt Sport HBAR
and/or Beretta 92FS, does it mean:

(1) We cannot buy them any more.

or 

(2) We have to turn them in, if we own them.

If (2) is the case, are you guys really going to turn them in? Thanks.

The American people have voted for a new start -- a new start for the
increasing instability in our neiborhood!

David
-- 
 K. David Lin, Ph.D.              | E-mail: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com  
 Communication Services Research  | Defend your life with style! -- Beretta
 U S WEST Advanced Technologies   | Disclaimer: Only personal opinions
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx12.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:36:42 GMT

In article <lairdb.720847525@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P.  
Broadfield) writes:
> I'm not so sure; I've been mentally doodling this spot for a while 
> (just a rough, this'll be the first time I've written it down.):
> 
> FADE IN
> A petite nurse, in whites, sneakers, and perhaps a coat, is walking 
> toward us through the slight drizzle in this inner-city hospital
> parking lot.  She's aware of her surroundings, but not in the 
> terrified sense.  She reacts to something we don't hear by turning 
> her head to look back over her shoulder and giving a slightly
> puzzled frown.  We
<much deleted.>

> CUT TO our bright, sparkling Nurse Jones, no longer nearly as bright and
> sparkling as she stands in a dumpy grey-blue jumpsuit prominently  
stenciled
> "PRISONER" with a hard-faced matron at her shoulder.  With a disgusted  
but
> slightly defiant expression on her face, she listens as an unseen judge
> sentences her to "two years in state prison, sentence reduced to 120  
days
> subject to good behaviour."  (Or whatever the proper terminology would  
be.)
> As she is led off past the prosecution bench, we see the prosecutors 
> congratulate each other.  We

More Realistic Scene:  Nurse Jones is Sentenced to two years in
prison with no chance of parole or early release.  (see gun
laws in MA and NY).  Her assailant is given a suspended sentence
and back on the streets minutes after his trial.

Robert K.
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:47:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu

In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov11083440@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <40801@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
]>
]><   Also, would the Brady bill reduce the waiting period here in the
]><   People's Republic of California from 15 days to 5?
]>
]>	No, all versions of Brady clearly do *not* supercede
]>	existing state waiting periods.
]>
]>	Thus, Congressional reps from those states which already 
]>	have such foolishness are in the position of voting on a
]>	bill which will not affect their constituents.
]>
]>	Cute, no?


	Any information on the other provisions of the Brady Bill
versions besides the waiting period?  For instance, the provision
that sends the paperwork to your local police chief -- is this
superceded in states with a longer waiting period?

Joan V
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:46:31 GMT

People in the newsgroup are talking about the upcoming gun bans.  
Has Clinton outright said that he supports bans of "assault" rifles
and semi-autos?  How realistic and soon are the gun ban threats?

Also, would the Brady bill reduce the waiting period here in the
People's Republic of California from 15 days to 5?

				Matt Harrington
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: You can't fast forward through the next four years
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:28:59 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

>Actually, I think the message that voters sent to Congress was "If you
>can win your primary, I'll still vote for you regardless of *anything*".

Not a flame of the person who wrote this or anything, and I may be showing 
may age here but: 

Send a message ...
Send a message ...
Send a message ...
Send a message ...

How about sending a letter?  Messages are letters, telegrams and phone 
calls.  If the election was 'sending' a message, it was awfully ambiguous.
Everybody is still arguing over what the message was.  Three million letters,
(one from each NRA member, for starters) would be a very 'clear message.'

Sorry to vent at the net, but I've just heard to much of this 'send a message'
crud, both here and in the media.   It's driving me nuts.... (I know, short 
trip...)

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The "Invisible" Glock Mythology
From: hayes@brandonu.ca
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:36:45 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

I have read several references to the Glock pistol and the mythology of its
non-existant signature in an X-Ray machine (obviously referring to an airport
installation)...I am sure someone has to have pointed out (on the net) that
such information is fallacious....it just isn't true...it is hogwash...etc.
Unless there is a new development of which I am unaware, the Glock, in all
of its models, still shoots bullets...all readily identifiable even in the
simplest and lowest level of discrimination in airport X-Ray equipment.
If there is an X-Ray machine attendant who doesn't recognize bullets for what
they are, then commercial aviaition is in deep distress beyond its financial
problems.  Secondly, the Glock is still a high percentage of X-Ray detectable
metal and its configurations, even when dis-assembled are fire arm specific.
The suggestion that there is an "invisible firearm" is hype, unsupported by
fact, and specific to an anti-gun brainwash public disinformation system.
Some one will point to the Time, or was it Newsweek, pictures of a Glock from
an X-Ray run through of an antique system, not in use in any airport in 
North America today, and say SEE!  Nope!  If the person looking at the X-Ray
has had any training, is not visually disabled, is interested and attentive
to what they are doing (they should not be theree is they aren't), then they
will catch the Glock without any problem.

PERSONAL OPINION/standard disclaimers

D. Hayes   (Hayes@BrandonU.Ca.)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: You can't fast forward through the next four years
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:16:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.01638.15165@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>I am an NRA member too. And I did get a letter that in my opinion endorses
>Bush (although they didn't officially endorse anybody).
>I happen to agree with the letter. And even though I can't stand Bush, I
>voted for him. Because he was the only candidate with a chance to win that
>wouldn't aggressively go after our Second Amendment Rights.
>Well Libertarian voters, I haven't heard much about your "message" sent
>to Congress. Can anybody help me? Show me how your vote helped the RKBA cause.
>right...

And how did _your_ vote help that cause? Bush lost, and even if the
hypothetical "everyone in the NRA" had voted for him, he still would
have lost. At the same time, your voting for Bush _did_ send a message
to Congress: "I'll still vote for you, regardless of your position on
gun control." I just hope enough gun owners voted against Bush (I'd
have prefered for Marrou, but for Perot would do for this purpose), 
to counter the message you sent. I _hope_ Congress doesn't conclude
we can safely be ignored: We are going to need every possible bit
of congressional influence we can get.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:46:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
>pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>> Texas is not Georgia, and getting a conceal carry permit in Texas is no
>> easy thing.  You have to have "a compelling reason."
>
>I thought that there was no legal way for a civilian to carry concealed
>at all in Texas.

Texas does not have a concealed carry permit. So, except under some
technicalities, there is no legal way for an ordinary citizen to legally
carry a handgun in Texas.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
From: 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: When they break down your door (Was: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:11:04 GMT
 <1992Nov5.193203.1664@igor.tamri.com> <1992Nov9.205335.17309@ttinews.tti.com>
Distribution: usa

In  article  <1992Nov9.205335.17309@ttinews.tti.com>,  hollombe@polymath.tti.com
(The Polymath) says:
>
>[...]  Innocent  people  get  killed  trying  to  defend  themselves  in  those
>situations. Criminals know the score and surrender. They survive.

Wrong, and silly.

In  the scenario  under  discussion it  is  presumed that  the  police have  NOT
identified themselves  in any  way, but  simply burst  in yelling,  waving guns,
possibly  shooting. All  the homeowner  knows in  such a  situation is  that his
person, home and family are under criminal  assault by an armed force of unknown
strength/origin/intent.  No prudent  person in  such a  situation would  present
himself to  such intruders. A much  more reasonable approach would  be to employ
necessary force in the defense of the lives of those in the house and (now don't
laugh)  hope the  police  arrive in  time to  arrest  the obviously  drug-crazed
assailants.

It is  not, and never was,  a discussion of  ways and means whereby  a homeowner
might wittingly offer armed resistance to the police.

W. K. Gorman
NRA Life
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Subject: Re: Re: Sign seen at Bush rally
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:16:40 GMT


|> In talk.politics.guns, hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser) writes:
|> 
|> ... They were talking
|> HRL> about MUSKETS!  They were writing about the kind of weapon 
|> HRL> for which you load a ball, load in powder, tamp it down, lay
|> HRL> a fuse on it, ignite the fuse with a burning ember... 

First of all, no musket I've ever seen has been very effective when you put the
ball in before the powder.  Unless of course you measure effectiveness by how
many people chuckle to themselves when you load the ball first!  Second, by using
a fuse, you are obviously referring to artillery pieces; does that mean we
can only own cannons?  Third, ignition with burning ember refers to an ignition
system known as a "matchlock".  These were pretty much replaced with the
flintlock by the time the Bill of Rights came about.  Maybe you need to do some
more research before you try and convince us that you know what you're talking
about?

-- 
Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
Santa Clara, Ca              
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Laws in your state
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:35:54 GMT

In article <9211021631.AA26228@alaska.et.byu.edu> bigdog@bones.et.byu.edu (Dan Canfield) writes:

}This year in Utah, probably a dozen young kids under the age of twelve
}have accidentally been shot.  ...

I don't want to minimize such a tragedy, but you might want to compare it
to things like drownings, poisonings and motor vehicle accidents before
getting too excited about it.

}Now, I am rabidly against gun control, but I don't think there is any 
}excuse for a gun owner leaving a loaded gun where it can be reached by
}a child.

Amen.

}My question is what kind of laws if any do other states have in place for
}this kind of thing.  ...

As of this year, California has exactly such a law. (Improper storage of a
firearm allowing an unauthorized person to get to it and cause damage with
it is now a felony).  At least one case is currently in the courts.
It's much too early to tell what effect, if any, this will have on such
incidents.

}... Gun education is one thing, but for an 8 year old,
}that is a little tough. ...

Not necessarily.  My XSO's son was shooting trap and skeet at age five
(5).  Winning, too (in his age class, of course).  The NRA sponsors
extensive "gun-proofing" programs for children, tailored for all ages up
through 6th grade.

}... Age 12 is when most kids take the "Hunter Safety"
}courses and here in Utah that is about 80% of all kids, both boys and girls,
}but the accidents that worry people most are with those under the age of 12.

Apparently, you need better education of the under 12 group.  Call the NRA
and ask about their Eddie Eagle program.  It's available, free of charge,
to any school that requests it.

(Flame retardant:  Eddie Eagle _doesn't_ teach kids to shoot.  The main
theme of the program tells children that, upon encountering a gun, they
should (1) Stop.  Don't touch. (2) Leave the vicinity. (3) Tell an adult).

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jstrait@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (strait jeffrey c)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:07:46 GMT

matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (William E. Sadler) writes:

>>If (2) is the case, are you guys really going to turn them in? Thanks.

>Indications are that the answer to this question is no.  Look at what happened
>in california when they banned and required owners to turn in.  Estimated at
>over 300k guns banned, only 30k turned in.  Owners told govt to shove it.

>Which is, in my opinion, the appropriate response.

The Polit Bureau of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia didn't ban
poss. of semi-auto... they banned future sales, and they instituted
manditory registration.  Only ORDER[10k] guns of the estimated 300k
were registered... which caused them to decrease their estimate
of the number of guns.  Realizing that registration is a prelude to
confiscation, compliance has obviously been a problem.

I think the (now dead) DeConcini AW ban was similar to Kalifornia's
law.            ^
		|
		the law is dead, not DeConcini.
-- 
Jeff Strait                  |  jstrait@uiuc.edu
Coordinated Science Lab      |  or strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu 
1308 West Main Street        |  (217) 333-6444
Urbana, IL 61801             |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:24:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.

In article <1992Nov12.135827.15925@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>	Out of control because of gun control or out of
>control because of the flow of drugs into this area. As you
>know the majority of crimes in this area have been the result
>of drug wars between rival dope dealers.

Let's accept that and see where we go.

>They have been using
>a variety of automatic weapons that should be outlawed

Done - in 1934.  It didn't work, but it has been done.  Does that
experience tell us anything useful?

>making it possible for the imposition of larger prison terms for
>them.

Hmm.  Bing thinks that drug dealers who kill a bunch of people with
weapon-X should be treated differently than drug dealers who kill a
bunch of people with weapon-Y.

If he wants severe penalties for killing a bunch of people, wouldn't
it be easier to have severe penalties for killing instead of fixating
on he weapons?

There's no good sentence for weapons possession.  If the sentence is
severe, then you have to hose people who've done nothing else wrong.
Since there's no benefit to doing so, that's a bad idea.

However, if lesser sentences simply won't affect real criminals
because DAs won't bother.  If the sentence for murder is 10 years, a 1
year sentence for gun possession can't have an effect.

Of course, if the sentence for murder is 60 days, then maybe a 1 year
sentence for gun possession would make a difference to the sentence
for killers.  Then there'd be the other problem - DAs would ignore
murder....

>This has nothing to do with gun control but more to
>do with the socio-economics factors.

Then why agitate for gun control?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:35:49 GMT

In article <40801@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
>People in the newsgroup are talking about the upcoming gun bans.  
>Has Clinton outright said that he supports bans of "assault" rifles
>and semi-autos?  How realistic and soon are the gun ban threats?
>
Realistically?  Our only remaining "strength" and I use the term loosely, is 
in the senate, where we can still filibuster.  I is still technically 
possible to block anti-civil-liberties legislation.  We also have a number 
of tame congresscritters on several committees and can work to block action 
on the committee level.  It depends on what Slick Willie is willing to give 
up to get his gun bans.

>Also, would the Brady bill reduce the waiting period here in the
>People's Republic of California from 15 days to 5?

No a chance.  Once Sarah gets her 5-7 day waiting period, state law can 
mandate a longer one, but not a shorter one.  Besides, she'll start jacking 
it up as soon as it proves useless.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:29:47 GMT

In article <1dmub8INNdrp@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!natinst.com!not-for-mail
>From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
>Date: 9 Nov 1992 18:04:56 -0600
>Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
>Lines: 32
>Message-ID: <1dmub8INNdrp@eagle.natinst.com>
>References: <1992Nov6.140706.23686@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <pa142548.409.721347434@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
>In article <pa142548.409.721347434@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>In the first place who said they couldn't "carry concealed" - they
>>>could apply for licenses and get the guns. 
>>
>>The Texas State Legislature and Govenor.  For all of her "wild west" PR, the 
>>Lone Star State has some of the most frighteningly totalitarian anti-gun 
>>laws in the nation.
>
>I don't want to flame someone who I more or less agree with but this
>statement is simply not true.  Purchase of guns in Texas is not restricted
>beyond federal regulations - including full-auto guns.  Carrying of
>long guns (rifles and shotguns) is not restricted much either.  You
>can carry a loaded shotgun on the seat of your car - or in gun racks
>like I see lots of people doing.  The laws get kinda weird when it
>comes to carrying handguns however.  Basically you can't carry one.
>
>>
>>>Hell, they sell them
>>>in department stores here in Georgia!  
>>
>>Texas is not Georgia, and getting a conceal carry permit in Texas is no easy 
>>thing.  You have to have "a compelling reason."
>
>"No easy thing" is a bit of an understatement.  There is no such thing
>in Texas, they are not available, you CAN'T get one.  I suppose there
>are exceptions for security guards and such but a normal person can't
>get one.
>
>
>
>-- 
>-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Mea Culpa.  I was thinking of the City of Dallas, proper, wherein I have had 
my experiences, and those were vicarious.  (A friend of mine was a victim of 
Dallas for a number of years.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns