HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:23:06 GMT

In article <82739@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>It is wrong to look at the skewed, possibly
>incorrect, records of the debates and base modern interpretations on such weak
>theorizing.

Wowsers!  We should ignore the meanings of the words and phrases
used.  So, when trial means "combat", the 6th just makes sure that
it's in public.

>Do we now have anything like a militia that is supported by
>private gun ownership?  No.

Yes, we do.

>There are no more Minuteman militias, and there is
>no longer a pervasive fear of federal control over state militias.

There's no longer a pervasive fear of troop quartering, yet the 3rd
amendment still prohibits it.

In any event, that's a strawman because the 2nd isn't about state
militias.

>I ask t.p.g. why there is no "training," and I am advised to impeach my
>governor.

Since said governor is responsible for training, that's a reasonable
response.

If the state didn't teach people to read, they'd still have freedom
of the press.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Hand-loads for defens
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:16:08 GMT

In article <tmi.716092606@well.sf.ca.us> tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter
Kasler) writes:

   >This may not be the right group, but, to get capital punishment,
   >don't you have to commit first degree murder?  Does anyone have
   >to hand the definition(s) of the various degrees of murder and/or
   >manslaughter (usually accident I think???) or can they suggest a
   >good book with this information?

	   Every jurisdictin is slightly different, but obviously for
   those places with the option of capital punishment the crime must have
   been heinous. In some places there are acts other than murder that can
   qualify one for capital punishment. The difference between murder and
   manslaughter is not that manslaughter is accidental and murder is not,
   the difference is that a requisite element of murder that is not
   required for manslaughter is malice. There can is such a thing as
   intentional manslaughter.

In general, this response is (to my knowledge) correct; however, a
slight quibble.  A crime with intent to do harm, but not to kill, is
known in some jurisdictions as "voluntary manslaughter"; I am not sure
if anyone calls it "intentional manslaughter", but the usage seems not
impossible.  In addition, murder is sometimes invoked if a death
occurs (even without intent) in specific circumstances (such as in the
commission of a felony or while driving intoxicated).

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:11:45 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>
>	I would agree.  Boxing, karate, etc are nice hobbies, but they
>are just recreation.  They cannot hope to make up the difference between 
>115 and 230 lbs, nor between one person and a group of thugs.

     Just for the record, a karateka who used to train at my dojo 
faced a group of thugs, and came out unharmed while the thugs were
all incapacitated. A few days later a friend of the thugs went
after him with a handgun; the karateka recieved a minor hand wound,
the attacker ended up dead from masssive head trauma - his cranium
was introduced to the wall, then repeatedly to the ground, with high
velocity.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
                 "I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman."
                  -- Vice President Dan Quayle
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:00:07 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


> Cats simply do not cope well with cars.

Somebody's Moggie by the side of the road
Somebody's pussy that forgot his highway code
Someone's favorite feline that ran clean out of luck
When he ran onto the road and tried to argue with a truck

Yesterday he purred and played in his pussy paradise
Decapitating tweety birds and masticating mice
Now he's just six pounds of raw mincemeat that don't smell very nice
He's nobody's Moggie now

Now you that love your pussy, be sure to keep him in
Don't let him argue with a truck, the truck is bound to win
And upon that busy road, don't let him play or frolic
If you do, I'm warning you, it could be CAT-astrophic

If you let him play on the roadway, I'm afraid that will be that
You will hear one last despairing 'MEOW' and a sort of squelchy splat
And your pussy will be slightly dead -- and very very flat
He's nobody's Moggie -- just flat and squished and soggy
He's nobody's Moggie, now.       Hmmmmmmmmm.

Sorry.....Couldn't resist.  This is best sung in barbershop.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the 
effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of 
the state, unable to resist."
       - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:11:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Sep8.194641.20709@leela.cs.orst.edu> mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee) writes:
>Well, yes, that is certainly looking at one side of the equation.  But look at
>the costs: hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and a force ready-made

If it were necessary to maintain the kind of military we currently have
to prevent 10 million or even 1 million Americans from dying in an
invasion, I would certainly consider it worth a few hundred billion
dollars/year. Don't forget that in a war, the surviving civilians where
the war is fought are often not much better off than the dead, and that
many more die of starvation than of bullets.

I think you take too much for granted the fact that there have been
no wars fought on American soil in the last few decades.

My mother was in China when it was invaded by the Japanese.

>It might be instructive to see how many Americans have been killed defending
>the US, vs how many have been killed in foreign wars that had little or
>nothing to do with us.

Wrong comparison, the question is how many Americans would die
or suffer if the US were invaded.

How many Russians died defending their homeland during WWII?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Vote for Clinton: protect the right to keep and bear sporting goods.
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Seattle Buy Back & First Interstate Bank
Date: 5 Sep 92 12:56:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.

alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
RE: Seattle Gun Buy Back Program

>A *PARTIAL* list of contributing corporations includes:

>   KUBE (a local radio station)
>   the Bon Marche
>   McDonald's restaurants
>   Viacom Cablevision
>   U.S. West
>   First Interstate Bank 
>   the Seattle Seahawks   

 [ looks like the Broncos need to kick some butt this year :-) ]

 Let me tell you about First Interstate Banks.  Now called NorWest
 here in Colorado.  Last year, on Fathers' day, an armed man entered
 the main bank im Denver, which was closed that day, and walked out 
 ~20 minutes later with several thousand dollars. (50?). He left behind
 4 dead guards.

 Why did these guards end up dead?  Because it is First Interstate Banks
 policy that all guards MUST BE UNARMED.  No nasty guns allowed in the
 bank.  The killer shot one guard in the sub-basement, where the killer
 entered the building, and the other 3 up in the guard room.

 The man arrested and tried for the crime was a retired Denver police
 sargent.  (I'm sure gun control would have kept a gun out of his
 hands. NOT!) The cop was found not guilty, since the DA could never
 locate the cops service weapon, (the barrel to which, just seemed to have
 disapeared), nor the money.  The service weapon was of the same caliber as
 the weapon used in the crime. Alot of the feeling around here was that 
 the cop was the right person, but the DA just went to trial before getting
 what he needed (evidence), to convict.  Then again, maybe the cop
 really is innocent.

 What pissed me off that First Interstate Bank expected these four
 guys to protect their money, but wouldn't allow them the means to
 protect themselves.  There was alot of publicity about these guys
 being unarmed, and even the normal anti-gun media thought it 
 contributed to their deaths. [After all, the press has always thought
 that it's ok to have guns, just as long as your using them to protect
 the interests of the rich and powerful :-( ]  First Interstate Bank
 has stated that it is STILL their policy to have unarmed guard and
 that they will not change their policy.

 Maybe they should do something useful with the guns they buy in 
 Seattle, and hand them out to their guards.  I wonder how many
 of these _unarmed_ guards now slip a beretta .22 or a Black Widow
 into a inside jacket pocket.

 BTW: For one of the guards, it was his first day on the job.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Follow-up: the Seattle buy-back program
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:39:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.010535.19980@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

>Several weeks ago, I posted a news article about an upcoming gun buy-back
>program here in Seattle.  Yesterday was the first day of the buy-back, so
>the Post-Intelligencer naturally wrote an article about it.  I am posting
>this article (below) for your information.

[...]

>(Reproduced without permission from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
> September 2, 1992, front page.)
>
>
>          BUY-BACK NETS 200 HANDGUNS IN FIRST DAY
>
>            By Michael A. Barber, P-I Reporter
>
>
[...]

>They set the tone for the program's first day, in which more adults than
>youths traveled to the city's four police precincts to take advantage of
>the chance to anonymously turn in weapons.

[...]

>Godefroy said that she is not surprised that more adults than youths
>turned in guns.
>
>"We knew there weould be young people who felt a gun was so important
>that they would not turn it in," she said.

     I'm curious if it occured to them that despite claims of anonymity
and "no questions asked" that these youths did not consider $50 worth
walking into a police station and basically confessing to a felony.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:47:48 GMT

In article <fbPY02lS20ew01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>
>In article: <9209072023.AA08588@dg-rtp.dg.com>
>
>Bill Meyers signs off with:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#It has come to my attention that Mr Weaver's "crime" was having a shotgun
>#barrel too short by *** .1 inch ***. Certainly justification for all the
>#bloodshed that has and will occur over the matter. [sarcasm off]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It seems unfortunate to me Weaver
>was not slain before he managed to breed.  

	Well isn't that kind of you.

>The only thing worse than
>a racist asshole is a _religious_ racist asshole, except perhaps a
>religious racist asshole who may pass his perverted beliefs on to
>another generation. [No sarcasm to turn off]

	Intolerant little prick.  
	
	Please do us all a favor, go home, kill your kids, your wife, all
	your relatives and then, thankfully, yourself.

As you can see, two can play your little sanctimonious word game.  Who died and
left you in charge of determining what's right?  You claim to not agree with
racism, but your position is fundamentally  no different.
You just choose a different form of intolerance.  You are, by your words the 
mirror image of that which you claim to hate, only worse since your words
imply that YOUR point of view is somehow superior.  Talk about the pot calling 
the kettle black... sheesh.  You may wish to rethink your position on this just
a bit.  And I am not saying that you have to agree with racism.   I too 
disagree with it, but I suspect I do so for reasons that are very different 
from what yours may be.

You must accept and respect others for what they are, no matter how heinous
their beliefs may seem to you.  If you do not respect others, you merit none
yourself.  Where do you suppose this gets you?  Intolerance is intolerance,
no matter what clothing you wrap it in.  So if you are going to be against it,
then really be against it in deed as well as word.  Otherwise you will clearly
appear as a slobbering, empty headed buffoon to anyone with minimal active
intelligence.  Quite embarassing I'd say.

BTW, I did not mean any of the "go kill" talk.  Just thought I'd be painfully
clear on that in case you didn't gather as much.

	-Andy V.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:40:56 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 15296@cbnewsc.cb.att.com, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (ICOM IC-R70) writes:
>....
>My, how Wojick forgets: his argument style 4 years ago was based
>almost entirely on rhetorical retorts.
>
>|And how
>|many anti-gun netters respect you enough to even listen to your arguments?
>
>The ignorant ones, the fools, or the gun-haters?

No rhetorical retorts from you, eh, Morris?  I'm sorry, but you seldom make any
substantive points that could draw any other kind of response.  If you want
to debate the issues, then address what was said rather than your feelings 
about the person who said them.  I'm sure that you are quite capable of 
rational argument if you stop trying to play one-upsmanship with people.  It
is quite possible to have a conversation on the net without descending into
the adolescent flame game.

>| We have yet to see a single gun control
>| law overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 2nd.  They just don't
>| seem interested in the case made by the pro-gun lobby.  I think that, on this
>| point, at least, we all agree.)
> 
>You stumbled into one, Rick. Perhaps the corrallary is that the Supreme
>Court _IS_ interested in the arguments of the anti-RKBA lobby, eh?

I shudder to think of it, but you may be right.  My position is that the 
Supremes have a perfect right to uphold your RKBA, but they just don't seem
interested in it.  The current Court, however, is substantially different
from previous ones.  If you can't get the RKBA interpretation you want 
from this one, then you might as well give it up.  If you can, then I really
will feel compelled to support the repeal of the 2nd.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:09:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)

>> Fred Rivara, center director, said Charles
>
>I can't find any reference in the text as to what "center" this is...
>
>> Callahan, research associate, will try to
>> determine whether the guns were turned in by
>> "people most likely to misuse them."  The study
>> asks questions on age and sex, why the person had
>> the weapon and why he or she turned it in.
>
>I think this in itself is damned interesting.  If done by an UNBIASED
>source, of course.  (Exactly what "center" is this, again?)

Harborview Injury Prevention Research Center. 

>                                                             I'm quite
>sure it will show that the weapons were turned in by the innocent and
>the elderly.  Of course, if done by the "Center to Stop the Violence"
>or whatever "center" this is, someone will trot out some study saying 
>that the innocent and the elderly are at great risk for gun accidents,
>and the whole thing will be called a great success.

Note that Fred Rivara is a co-author of nearly all the various Seattle
gun studies published in the NEJM - the Seattle-Vancouver homicide
comparison, the followup suicide comparison of the two cities, and last
month's "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership."  (On a
mailing list, I incorrectly credited him with the 43-1 study.  He joined
the team later.)

Rivara ought to have a tough time finding much benefit.  The homicide
rates in Seattle, King County, and the entire state are well below
national averages, and have not yet been participating in the increase
experienced nationally.  The 1991 rates are among the lowest since I
have been keeping track.

Dean

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Sep 92 11:52:31 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:50:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.152125.29898@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Mr. X,
osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com writes:
>  Most
>	of these bar brawling asshole types will not fuck with you if they 
>	think they're going to have a wailing fight on their hands, unless you 
>	happen to be in a bar in Fresno.

>>But if they 
>>think you're able and willing to break kneecaps and smash teeth when
>>provoked, maybe they won't mess with you.
>
>	Unless you're in Fresno.
>>
>>Then again, maybe they'll whack you from behind and take your wallet
>>before you wake up.  Never can tell.  
>
>	Not in Fresno.

What's different in Fresno? I'm just curious...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Sep10.183006.4133@mtu.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:11:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.183006.4133@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles
Scripter) writes:

   Just a question here.  Do Federal Marshals have any authority in the
   sovereign States?  I thought their authority was limited to the
   _territories_ of the US, and Washington DC.

My understanding is that Federal marshals have authority on Federal
matters (such as the serving of Federal warrents and keeping order in
Federal courts) all over the country.  If the Federal marshals were
delivering a Federal arrest warrant when the whole Weaver thing blew
up, then they were acting properly (at least, to that small extent).

In general, Federal officers (includes marshals, FBI, Secret Service
(which includes BATF), and DEA) get assistance from local officers
when serving warrants and making arrests (they are not uniformed);
however, this is not required.  Some local cops feel strongly about
this, having almost gotten in fire fights with Federal officers making
arrests.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: marshall@seas.gwu.edu (Christopher Marshall)
Subject: Silly National Guard Argument
Originator: marshall@seas.gwu.edu
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:11:26 GMT

The National Guard is an arm of the government like the police or
the armed forces or the coast guard.  Why in the world would we need
an ammendment to protect THEIR right to keep and bear arms?
There is not a government on this earth that does not keep and bear
arms for itself!  The only rights that need to be protected are the rights
of the PEOPLE.
 
Note the precision of the founding fathers and despair, ye gun
controllers:
 
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
   State, the right of the PEOPLE (not government employees) to keep
   and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
How could anyone misinterpret that?
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:16:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Sep14.052851.10229@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.025543.21207@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>I seem to recall that 600 rounds/minute was an upper bound for most
>>automatic weapons - with the exception of the minigun type.
>
>The German G-11 fires 1200 (1500?) rounds/minute in three-round burts
>mode. (If anyone can explain, exactly, it is possible to have a
>higher three-round burts rate of fire than full auto, I'd like
>to hear the details...)

Barrel heating limitation?

The F-104 had plenty of power left at its maximum-permissable airspeed,
the limiting factor was heating of the engine's first stage compressor blades.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns