HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Can dishonorably discharged gays stay in the NRA?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:18:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <C0LyvF.4qI@news.cso.uiuc.edu> by cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini):

> Kirk Hays writes:
> >>The only persons excluded from membership are felons, ex-felons, and
> >>persons with a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.
> >
> 
> It was then posted that people can get a dishonorable discharge
> simply for being gay. This is incorrect. The discharge in those
> cases is an Honorable Discharge, with some subtext. I believe that
> in the Navy the exact same wording is used for discharges of
> women who get pregnent as for those who are discharged for being
> gay. Dishonorable Discharges are only used for what would be criminal
> acts, regardless of the sexual orientation of the person involved.
> 
And it is of course going to become a moot point anyway, at least if Clinton
keeps his campaign promise.  There wouldn't be an gays turned down for being
dishonorably discharged for being gay... because presumably, there won't be
any gays discharged, dishonorably or otherwise, for being gay.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Subject: Re: This Chris Luchini person
X-Spook-Fodder: hero heroin tree shrub bush birth life death FBI CIA NSA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:59:21 GMT

In <1in2q7INNt7m@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>On the other hand, publicly announcing a boycott, or that I am in your
>kill file, or publicly calling me a bigot or an idiot, especially after
>replying to a posting, is not such a mature thing to do.  Let me for
>the record state that I think many of Mr. Luchini's views are wrong,
>maybe even extreme or fanatical at times.  Having fanatical views might
>make one a bigot, but I don't think he is one.  It certainly doesn't
>make one an idiot.  I respect Mr. Luchini's opinions sometimes and his
>intellect always.  You shouldn't boycott his postings, because he
>sometimes has interesting things to say.

you are missing the point. its a matter of integrity and accountability.
anonymity is acceptable in instances wherein a person's safety and/or
security may be compromised by having their identity revealed.

posting anonymously otherwise leads some to believe that the poster may
not actually stand behind the words he/she posts; may be attempting to
stir conflict for its own sake; my not be merely one correspondent but
several pooling their resources to achieve an unfair rhetorical advantage
(which is obviously not the case here, evidenced by the relatively
unsophisticated arguments and rhetorical methods employed); or may simply
be a genuine coward.

i will grant that there is minutely greater integrity demonstrated by 
posting overtly as "anonymous" than in posting under a sobriquet or
nom de plume that leads people to believe that the poster *isn't* 
anonymous.

however, it is little more than a paler shade of yellow.
-- 
paul theodoropoulos     damiel@netcom.com     (hooools@well.sf.ca.us)

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will have
 neither" - Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:05:47 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <4zyr59q@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>>When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens 
>>>can't get carry permits.
>
>>When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
>>shoot at somebody?
>
>
>So Rick, how many times have you used your seatbelt?  Does the low
>probability of your needing your seatbelt preclude you from wearing it?
>Or have you figured out when you're going to have a wreck and only
>wear it then?

That's kind of the wrong question to ask someone from Massachusetts.  It
is best to figure that your number is up every time you get behind the
wheel.  Just in the block I'm on, my neighbors and myself have had at
least 20 cars come crashing into our front yards in the last five years.

I've broken my back in two car accidents where I was standing still and
someone else crashed into me.

I always where a seatbelt.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The NRA has an image problem with gays
Date: 9 Jan 1993 10:16:35 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


It looks as if my advice (to give up) wasn't needed, because it seems
that people here are so comtemptuously unconcered with whether there is
homophobia in the NRA leadership that they basically have given up.
All the sudden it's up to me to prove my position that it's there and
it might cause the NRA problems.  I won't do it.  I gave it as my
opinion and there it is.  I will only prove that it's what I think.  I
hereby declare that it is.

If the NRA actually cared about showing that it isn't right-wing,
which it doesn't, then it would be just as concerned about attracting
gays to it as it is about attracting women and minorities.  I've
already seen a spate of "I wish I hope I pray there were more women
in the NRA" in talk.politics.guns.

Most gays, fanatic pseudo-libertarians excepted, have good reason to be
steamed with the NRA, because the NRA supports William Dannemeyer.
When a buck goes into Dannemeyer's campaign chest, it isn't earmarked
for "pro-gun efforts".  Dannemeyer can use that dollar for anything he
wants pertaining to his re-election, including writing anti-gay slurs
into the Congressional Record, although that particular act of his was
free.  And Dannemeyer isn't the only A-grade NRA Congresscritter who
hates gays enough to shackle them with the law.

So it would be good for the NRA to officially announce that they aren't
like the Boy Scouts, for example, where gays just aren't welcome.
But I seriously doubt they can get themselves to do it.  I doubt there
exists a single sentence of NRA literature that denies discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation.  I could be wrong, of course.
If I am I'll gladly eat my words.

On the subject of Jeff Cooper:  I don't want to libel anyone by
claiming he is an NRA director when he isn't.  I saw in the 
American Rifleman that a Jeff Cooper had voted on some internal
NRA resolution or other.  Who knows if it was the same guy.

If he isn't an NRA director, whether or not he hates gays is a red
herring, I suppose.  In an issue of Guns and Ammo I was flipping
through he seemed to be dwelling on Barney Frank's deeds and the fact
that they are illegal in several jurisdictions.  But maybe I was
reading too much into his sweet prose.


--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)   anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au    (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias) anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au     (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)     anon.post.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:11:35 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1993Jan10.200933.6461@leland.Stanford.EDU> kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>irrationaly in stressful situations, so nobody would want just any old 
>Joe carrying his favorite handgun, but why oppose a proposition which
>would allow an eligible citizen who has passed a comprehensive written
>test and demonstrated proficiency with a firearm to carry a concealed
>weapon?  It would be easy enough to design an objective testing system
>which could weed out those more likely to whip out their gun and shoot
>someone that ran a stop sign.  You could even have a law which would
>give police powers to temporarily revoke a person's permit for recklessly
>handling a weapon.

Sorry Daniel, got carried away in my previous post and didn't address
this well. The basis of such a test as you describe it is that
citizens will defacto be considered unworthy of self-protection and
must PROVE they are responsible enough. In such a situation, lawsuits
being and lucrative as they are, the city will write the test so as
to make it nearly impossible. Because if they are wrong and get sued
for it enough times by hotshot lawyers the city could be bankrupted.

Yes it would be easy enough to design such a system were REASONABLE
people running the system. The system as it stands now does not have
to be reasonable however, it merely worries about it's budget and
surviving predatory lawyers. Protecting citizens is not a priority since
you can't sue the police for not protecting you.

But just so we can put this on a cost/benefit footing, exactly how many
homicidal maniacs will we prevent from rampaging? How often does
it actually occur that makes it such a serious threat that tens of millions
of citizens must go unarmed? 

>But to ask the citizenry to go unarmed where the
>police themselves wouldn't consider going unarmed off-duty seems terrible.
>Police Officers surely aren't superior to the general population, as
>they come from the general population.  Most cops have much less 
>education than I and probably many on this net have.  And some cops
>I've talked to are just plain stupid--and they're quite capable of
>responsibly carrying a gun.

I would argue some of the plain stupid cops I've met should only be
issued rubber guns.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: I will only threaten the proven guilty
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:19:20 GMT

In article <1iviuuINNq3s@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.49@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

>> Hi guys.  I used to be anon.526, now I'm not.  I will respond briefly
>> and generally to some of the numerous responses I got:
>
>No, you're not, I am the former anon.526 - this anon.39 fellow is an imposter!
>
>> 
>> o Am I a radical pacifist declare that I will give another person
>> nearly limitless benifit of the doubt before using a gun?
>> 
>> In a way, yes.  I recognize that we live in a peaceful society.
>
>What rot - anyone can tell you are a sad, pale imitation of me.
>
>
>Ignore this anon.49 idiot - he's not me!!!!!

       Please go away.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:55:34 GMT


In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
writes:
>>>What was her reason for getting a license for the protection of life and
>>>property.  Business?  A substantiated attack?
>>
>>She shouldn't need a reason.  That she feels a need for resonable means of
>>self defense should be enough.
>
>And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.

No, the police are paid to arrest criminals after the fact.  A number of
cases, where people have sued a city whose police failed to protect them,
have beem thrown out or lost on the basis that the police don't have a
legal responsibility to protect individuals.  Even if they did, help from
a policeman is usually AT LEAST 10-15 minutes away...in which case, you
have to depend on your own resources to defend yourself.

>>>Well, you have to play the game since the state makes the rules.
>>>
>>Those rules are illegal under the US constitution.  You should not be "
>>playing by them,"  you should abide by them and work to change them.  Not
>>accept them because the "state makes the rules."  The state is the servant
>>of the people, not the master of them.
>
>Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?

The Supreme Court has to agree to take a case, you can't just add it to
their "in" basket.  So far, they haven't accepted a case whose issue was
deciding how much gun control a state can enact.  They did say, in a 1990
decision, that the right to own a gun is an individual right.

>>>And if you believe the recently published statistics, you wife is in
>>>the greatest amount of danger from you, and my SO is in the greatest
>>>amount of danger from me.
>>
>>Only if you have either a criminal record or a violent history.
>
>There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
>next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
>axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
>high tech firm.

On the other hand, when I was growing up an elderly neighbor saved her
husband from being beaten to death, by firing a rifle at his assailants.
I presume that they had owned that rifle for many years, without being
driven into a murderous frenzy by it.

>Cases like this have been happening all during 1992 in Mass.

Hey, I'd probably go nuts in Massachusetts too... :)

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Guns and Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:46:30 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>	automobiles are used to cause more deaths than firearms
>>	every year.

>><   I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>>,   psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>><   a handgun.

>>	Then why isn't Kelly also demanding licensing for cars;

>I don't know about the laws where you live but cars and drivers here are
>licensed/registered, and cars get a title search before the registration
>is granted.

	Your state requres a mental examination and references from
neighbors for an auto purchace?  Strange.  Most states have no restrictions
on the purchace of automobiles.

>The point is, for the city of Boston, if you ignore the crack dealers
>shooting at other crack dealers, then the number of actual violent crimes
>involving guns drops considerably.

???	And if you ignore criminals committing illegal acts, the number
of violent crimes involving guns, knives, spoons or anything drops
to zero.   By definition, if you exclude criminals there is no crime.

>If reported cases of gun violence are all sensationalized nonsense, then
>I guess no one needs guns.

	Sure, as long as there is no unarmed violence either.  Defending
oneself against armed criminals is only one tiny use for guns.

Jim Del Vecchio
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Funding & Flipping
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:34:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan6.140545.19004@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

> Liberals such as Don Kates, James Wright and Gary Kleck have made
> significant contributions to RKBA literature...

Oh yeah -- on this subject:

I've seen it said several times here that either Kates or Kleck started
performing studies under the funding of HCI or NCBH, then got cut off
when his results weren't squaring with the party line.

I have on file the text of an interview with Kleck where he says that
when he started studying the problem, he came at it from the typical
liberal academic gun-banner viewpoint, but changed his mind as a result.
But he doesn't mention anything about funding, much less whose he had.

So was it Kates, Kleck, or both?  Who was or were the original funders,
exactly?  And where can I find this documented?
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:13:34 GMT

In article <9301061609.11@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>satisfied with it.  Since I, a person with a minimum of shop training,
>>can relatively easily build many different types of weapons I think
>>that restrictions on what you can buy, and who can buy them are kinda
>>stupid.  I think age is the only relevant data a store owner should be
>>concerned with.  I also think that the only people who should *not* be
>>allowed to carry in public (aside from the previous age restriction)
>>should be the seriously mentally unstable, and convicted violent
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>felons.  What's really scary is the fact that we let those people
> ^^^^^^^
>>*drive*. 
>
>However, you must have a foolproof way of determining this.  The only
>way at present is fingerprints, FBI records, and police/court records.

Once again we see Kelly argue for a perfect valve on the end of a
leaky hose.  Sure, it might be a mechanical marvel, but it doesn't do
anything useful.

Controls on legal channels are like looking for your car keys under
the street light where it's easy to see even though you know that you
dropped them over in the dark.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:32:44 GMT

In article <9301021347.42@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!emory!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!think.com!spdcc!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
>Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:47:38 GMT
>Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Message-ID: <9301021347.42@rmkhome.UUCP>
>References: <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> <1993Jan1.003233.6757@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <0tsrqk_@dixie.com>
>Lines: 36
>In article <0tsrqk_@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>
>>>In article <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>What most people in this thread want is the right for anyone to just
>>>>walk into Fred's Gun Store, plunk down the money, and walk out with
>>>>the gun and ammo of choice.
>>
>>>Since there don't seem to be any benefits to policies other than that,
>>>what's so unreasonable about it?
>>
>>Yup.
>>
>>>>I maintain that I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, as it
>>>>would rapidly turn into a scenario like Beirut.
>>
>>Gee, Rick, don't ever come to Georgia then because any resident can 
>>just walk into any gun store, plunk down the loot and walk out with
>>a gun.  Not only can I buy a pistol any time I want, I can also
>>get a non-discretionary concealed carry permit just for the asking
>>and the payment of a small fee.  (non-discretionary in that the gov't
>>cannot withold the permit from people who meet the law abiding criteria.)
>
>So, do you carry a gun 24 hours a day?
>
When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens 
can't get carry permits.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Left/Right
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:34:12 GMT

I wonder if it could end up hurting the pro-gun cause, that Colorado's
controversial Amendment 2 could easily be confused with the Second Amendment
(speaking in terms of names, not content).

Speaking in more general terms, did anyone read the Random Shots article in
this month's Handguns magazine?  He makes a point that I have been hoping
to see in gun magazines:  that it may be a cause for concern that many
people in the pro-gun movement make it part of the hard right political
package.  While there's a great deal of merit to many conservative
positions, my feeling is that the GOP had better lose its far right
contingent, if it wishes to succeed in future elections...

     don

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape