HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:33:15 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <1743@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
}In article <1992Aug14.202216.22911@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

}>... under California law, if anyone gets hold of one of your guns and
}>injures or kills themselves or someone else, _you_ get to spend three
}>years in jail for "improper storage of a firearm", a felony. ...
}
}I wonder if Kalifornia has had any pressure to enact any laws making
}it a felony charged against the owner of a car, or other potentially
}dangerous tool if someone gets hold of it and injures or kills themselves
}or someone else?  ...

Pretty much been that way for years.  The owner of the vehicle is
responsible for damage caused by it, even if they aren't in or near
it at the time.  You loan your car to a friend.  They have an accident.
_You_ are liable for damages.

"I couldn't make that up," as someone or other once said.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Academics for the Second Amendment
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:46:14 GMT

I recently ran across an open letter on the second amendment from
"Academics for the Second Amendment".  The only contact info I have on
them is "Box 131254, St. Paul, MN 55113".

The signers are: Charles Rice at Notre Dame, David Vandercoy at
Valcaraiso (or Valparaiso) Law School, Roy Wortman at Kenyon College,
Joseph Edward Olson and Richard T. Oakes at Hamline University Law
School Richard Morgan at Bowdoin, David Mayer at Capital University
Law School, Nicholas J. Johnson at Franklin and Marshall, Robert Batey
(or Baley) at Stetson, Patrick J. Basial at Duquesne, William B.
Allen at Harvey Mudd, Akhil R. Amar at Yale Law, Thomas E. Baker at
Texas Tech, Randy E. Barnett at Illinois Institute of Tech, James E.
Beaver and David Engdahl at University of Puget Sound School of Law,
David Beito at UNLV, Herman Betz at University of Maryland, Albert P.
Blaustein and Robert J. Cottrol at Rutgers-Camden School of Law,
Charles L. Cantrell at Oklahoma City School of Law, Catherine Clarke
at Loyola Law School, Raymond T. Diamond at Tulane, Edward J. Erler at
Cal State San Bernadino, Smith Fussner at Reed, William E. Garland at
Seton Hall, J. Gordon Hylton at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Michael
Krauss at George Mason School of Law, Sanford Levinson at University
of Texas, Roger McGrath at UCLA, F. Thornton Miller at Southwest
Missouri State, Daniel D. Polsby at Northwestern Univ School of Law,
Jeremy Rabkin at Cornell, Gerard A. Rault (or Rauit) and James E.
Viator at Loyola, Judith Schafer (or Schater) and George M. Strickler
at Tulane, William B. Stoebuck at University of Washington, Glen
Thurow at University of Dallas, Lynn Wardie at Brigham Young, Michael
A. Wolff at St. Louis University, and "Professor Michael Kent Curtis"
with no listed affiliation.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:15:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
>In article ...(Ronald N. Voss) writes:

>>>Voss disagrees.  He thinks that a gun law succeeded if a fatal
>>>shooting is replaced by a fatal stabbing.
>>
>>Right.  They'll switch to drive-by stabbings.
...
>There will be nothing positive about any proposed law to further
>regulate guns and certainly nothing as whimsical as a "drive-by stabbing".

A friend, an RN at a local hospital (Everett, WA) treated a driveby
stabbing victim just last month.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20342 soc.culture.french:6297
From: hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:58:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

As promised, this is my first in what I hope will be a series
of progress reports on our Indiana Civil Liberties Union (the
Indiana state affiliate of the ACLU) commission on the 2nd
Amendment and Gun Control.

For people who may have missed the first post, I and some others
in the ICLU have been pushing for some time for the ACLU to
take a position on gun control.  Regrettably, national has
demurred.  Therefore, we are moving at the state level to 
develop a rational policy on this subject.

At the present time, the commission consists of 3 people:

	Paul Hager (me)		Commission chair
	Earl Singleton		I.U. Law professor
	Bob Cross		PhD candidate in history, Purdue

I will be meeting with Earl tomorrow to discuss how we will 
proceed -- I spoke with Bob by phone earlier today.  It is my
view that a thoroughgoing treatment of this issue will require
an analysis of American political history, Common and Constitutional
Law, and public and social policy.  To round out our group I would
like to find a good con-law specialist and a sociologist/political
scientist, both having a good knowledge base in the area of 
firearms regulation and firearms' place in society.  I would like to
keep the commission from getting too large -- although, so far,
that is clearly not a problem.

It is not my intent to prejudge the commission, but it seems reasonable
to expect one of the following outcomes:

o	the 2nd amendment permits state regulation of firearms via
	the "well-regulated militia" clause but prohibits federal
	regulation;

o	some state regulation is permitted but ultimate citizen 
	RKBA IS protected by the 14th amendment;

o	if the commission concludes that outright gun bans and the
	like ARE unconstitutional, it might conclude that on public
	policy grounds, the 2nd should be amended or repealed;

o	the commission might conclude that, even though large numbers
	of Americans are killed by firearms each year, as a practical
	matter this social cost is offset by personal freedom and
	individual rights that are bound up in citizens constituting
	a militia-in-being.  This is somewhat analogous to the role
	of the automobile in affording citizens the power to freely
	travel (a recognized right) despite the fact that its use 
	kills 50K+ people every year.

From private discussions I've had, I know that some ICLU members may
not look favorably on any outcome that restricts the power of the
state to control firearms.  However, I believe that most members are
open-minded and will be receptive to good data and good reasoning and
will consider a result that may go against their preconceptions.

Our tentative goal is to complete our work and present our final
report for action by the state board by next Summer.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:11:45 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <BtI5Lz.5I9@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>[Note followup.]
>
>In <1992Aug24.054700.8995@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>If memory serves, "Fletcher's Political Works", pub'd in 1749,
>>>defines a "well-regulated militia" as a body of armed citizens
>>>not under control of an executive (when under control of an
>>>executive, presumably they are an army).  
>>Bully for Fletcher. Unfortunately for the NRA, the 2nd doesn't read
>>"A well-regulated militia (as defined by Fletcher) being necessary..."
>
>Unfortunately for you, you don't understand that what Fletcher did was
>to set down how terms were understood in the period (much closer to the
>writing of the Constitution than we are today).  Neither do you understand
>that the Founding Fathers were unlikely to use the same words to mean a
>different thing.
>
>Now, we can argue as to why they wanted this, but the intent is clear,
>and until revoked, it *is* the law of the land.

WRONG.  Read the 9th and 10th Amendments.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Police Approval?  Why?
Keywords: HR5633
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:25:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.030638.6550@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com
(Larry Cipriani) writes:
[A copy of H.R. 5633, which I'm using as a starting point...]
[...]
>		"(iii) the application includes a written statement which --
>
>			"(I) is signed by the chief of police of the
>			locality, or the sheriff of the county, in which
>			the applicant conducts or intends to conduct such
>			business, the head of the State police of such
>			State, or any official designated by the Secretary;
>			and

This was about gun dealers.

In many jurisdictions, you need local police approval to carry a
concealed weapon.

In some places, you need local police approval just to buy a gun.

How did all this start?

I don't need local police permission to buy a car, build a house,
drive a car, operate a chemical plant, or run a newspaper.  Why do I
need police permission for gun-related activities?  In particular,
what is the justification for giving this power to the local police
without any need for a courtroom or a judge?  What kind of idiot gives
this kind of power to the police without requiring a fair trial?

The police should enforce the law.  If a prospective gun buyer is
violating the law (e.g. purchase of a gun by a felon), the police
should get a warrant and arrest the gun buyer.  Controlling gun
ownership is not law enforcement: Either the buyer is breaking some
specific law and can be arrested on the basis of that law, or the
buyer is not breaking the law and the police should get out of the way.

How did the police ever get into the business of administively
controlling guns by giving permission, rather than by enforcing laws
about guns?
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Free NRA memberships
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:05:18 GMT

[Well, now that Bart Simpson is an NRA member...]

Have you always wanted to join the NRA but never had the money?

Have you wondered what the NRA is all about?  What they really stand
for, and what they do?

Here's your chance.

My name is Kirk Hays, hays@ssd.intel.com (internet).  I run a
program to broker NRA (National Rifle Association) memberships.
Essentially, I match people who would join the NRA, but haven't due to
some financial restraint, with people who are willing to pay for one
year memberships, which normally cost $25 each.

I represent 35 anonymous sponsors, who, with myself, are offering over
130 sponsored memberships, all for financially needy people who are
not current members, and who are eligible for membership.

I make no money from this at all, just tremendous personal
satisfaction, which is shared with the anonymous sponsors.

On a quasi-monthly basis, I distribute this message, along with the
following information:

June 4th, 1992 (inception) to August 28, 1992:

Memberships applications received: 45
	Applications refused: 3
	Memberships awarded: 36
	Applications in progress: 6

Current NRA membership: Will reach 3 million by election day, November 3rd.

If you think you are eligible, send me an email letter explaining, in
a paragraph or two, why you think the RKBA is important and why you
should be sponsored.  Give any information (biographical, situational,
or otherwise) you think might influence a sponsor into choosing you.

I will acknowledge receipt of the letter.

Include your name as you would want it to appear on any membership
awarded, your mailing address, and an indication of your age
(over/under 21 is sufficient).

Recipient names will be confidential, except for myself and the final
sponsor.

If you are selected to receive a sponsored membership, you will be
notified after it has been purchased.

If you know someone who'd be interested, but lacks email access,
please help them as a go-between.

Feel free to redistribute this message in it's entirety.

Disclaimer:

This is not a program of the NRA - I thought it up myself, it's being
done on my own time.

My employer does not endorse this project.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life. hays@ssd.intel.com
"Judge each day not by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant."
-- Robert Louis Stevenson

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Strong reason to vote for Bush  (was:
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:50:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.171014.13254@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com writes:
>|I'm not too enthusastic about judicial restraint: This philosophy also
>|holds that the Court shouldn't interfere with Congress' interpertation
>|of the Constitution. However, there aren't too many other choices:

>I'm not to sure that this is a corrolary of "Judicial Restraint".  Further
>the current court has no difficulty throwing out any laws that they see
>as conflicting with the constitution (for example, take flag burning)
>regardless of congressional opion.

I should have been a bit more specific: Just about everyone agrees that
the Court should throw out laws that clearly and directly violate 
the Constitution. However, there are a lot of grey areas and many
cases where the application of the Constitution, to modern situations,
isn't clear. As I understand it, there are three schools of thoughs:

First, making the best effort possible to determin the intended
meaning of the Constitution and applying it as objectively as possible
(unpopular these days, because this can be a very difficult job for
judges and because literal application of the Constitution would
interfere with "popular" government programs.); 

Second, "Judicial Restraint", considers interperting the grey areas
of the Constitution to be little better than guessing, or injecting
the judge's own biases. If anyone is going to guess about such
things (the theory goes) it should be Congress: They are best aware
of the will of the people (and all government must follow from the
consent of the governed) and a mistaken congressional interpertation
can be more easily corrected than a Court presedent. While supporters
of this view will definately overturn clearly unconstitutional laws,
they prefer to sustain laws of uncertain constitutionality.

The third school of thought, "Judicial Activism", isn't worth going
into: It basically supports filling all grey areas of constitutional
law with (essentially) the Court's political agenda. (This isn't
exactly a fair summary, but this also isn't misc.legal.supreme_court
or whatever...) Unfortunately, Judicial Activism is very popular
now and over the past half-century...

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Gun Purchase Laws
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:41:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.030146.409@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
>
>>Is there a FAQ list for talk.politics.guns.  One question I have
>>is in what states can you by guns without leaving a paper trail.
>>In California there is a 15 day waiting period thus a record of
>>you purchase.  I guess what I am getting at is in what states can
>>you buy a gun where the state does not get involved.
>
>None at all (at least not legally): All sales through a dealer
>require filling out a federal record of sale.

Not all sales have to go through a dealer!  Many states do NOT
track secondary, casual, sales.  Federal law only tracks dealer
sales.  I (in Ohio) have bought several firearms at estate auctions
and absolutely no stinkin' form 4473 were required.  You can buy
directly from individuals in Ohio.  Check the newspaper classified
ads, go to gun shows, and flea markets.  Of course, you're going to
have a hard time finding new guns, but you should be able to find
something you can live with.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:31:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson) writes:
>
>I would hope that this officer had the selector switch in the single shot
>position.

Nope.  According to Greg Canova, the assistant Attorney General who
decided not to prosecute this case, the weapon was in full-automatic
mode when Deputy Aston shot her.  This was one of the factors which
convinced Mr. Canova that the shooting was accidental: he believes
that Deputy Aston could not have _intentionally_ fired a single shot
when the weapon was in full-auto mode -- therefore it must have been
an unintentional accident.   [Source: Seattle Times 8/8/92, page 1]

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:16:48 GMT

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

>In article <PA142548.253.714853818@utkvm1.utk.edu
> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>Terminator/Rifleman who in the past has called me stupid, a communist,
>>>and a hoplophobe.  
>>       ^^^^^^^^^^  Was 'dat?

>As commonly used by our friend Colonel Cooper, a hoplophobe is one who
>fears guns.  

	One minor note from history: A hoplite was a Greek warrior, typically
of the landed class, and the hoplobe, as I recall, was all the gear he
carried into battle.  Being Greeks and somewhat ritualized when it came to
warfare, this consisted mainly of a shield and a spear or short sword,
greeves, and perhaps some layered linen armor or, if they were truly rich,
bronze breastplate and some thigh armor.  In short, it was the weapondry of
the militia, since the various Greek cities had no standing army and the
citizens were expected to fight the enemies of the city.  It is reported
that a slave serving in your stead meant you were not considered a citizen,
and thus didn't get the nifty benefits of citizenship such as access to the
food stores in times of famine.

	Anyway, I'd extend "hoplophobe" be to one who fears an armed
citizenry based upon my historical reading, regardless of the weapon most
favored at the time.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Mossberg   (was Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: 3 Sep 1992 04:50:43 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: License Number 5-76-079-01-5A-34756

In article <1992Aug25.200408.21293@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
|> "The gun owners protesting Ruger & Mossberg carried a big banner, but 
|> didn't make much of an impression."  Perhaps the 1993 Gun Digest will 

	I know about the Ruger "assault magazine" thing, but what's 
   the deal with Mossberg?  I haven't heard anything about Mossberg 
   being anti-RKBA and was considering getting a 500 or 835, but ... 

	Thanks. 

-- 
Jordan M Kossack  | You're so vain, you probably think this .sig is about you.  
 kossack@qvi.com  | You're so vain, I bet you think this .sig is about you. 
 +1 713 240 2073  | Don't you?  Don't you?  Don't you?      
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: crips's letter on clinton's gov't takeover
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 23:11:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug28.230341.8510@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.205730.4716@athena.mit.edu> jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger) writes:
>>Andy Freeman writes: 
>>>The measures proposed can't affect criminal access because they don't
>>>affect sources criminals use
>>
>>A good point.  This hadn't occurred to me, but it makes sense.
>
>Hold that thought.
>
>>>We get to decide whether [Clinton is] lying or stupid, but does it
>>>really matter?
>>
>>I don't think Clinton is lying or stupid, but perhaps just has a
>>different opinion than you on the issue.
>
>Remember "can't affect criminal access because they don't affect
>sources criminals use"?  That's not a matter of opinion.  Either it's
>true, or it isn't.  If it is true, then Clinton's "I support the Brady
>Bill because I want to reduce crime" is either a lie or it's an
>example of his stupidity.
>


It is clearly the latter as is the entire Bill an example of the stupidity
and naivete of the gun banners. It is an unworkable, unconstitutional
Bill and will be resoundingly defeated as it should.

-- 
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.