HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: felons
Keywords: felons
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:46:33 GMT

In article <BxH1Lq.ILx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.183508.14711@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.153642.10302@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>>>
>>>NPR did a story on this, claiming that felons were being "re-armed at
>>>taxpayer expense".
>>>
>>>There is a procedure (probably in the '68 GCA) by which persons
>>>disqualified from purchasing a firearm may have their rights restored.
>>>There is a division of the BATF staffed to deal with such requests (hence,
>>>the "at taxpayer expense" bit).  I don't know the details of the procedure,
>>>but I find it difficult to believe that persons convicted of violent
>>>crimes with firearms would qualify.
>>
>>A former felon whose civil rights are restored after incarceration may
>>indeed buy firearms.  This applies to even person convicted of violent
>>crimes.  The procedure varies by state, some restore civil rights immediately,
>>some require a waiting period of a few years of good behavior, some never
>>restore their civil rights.  Federal law states a felon may own a firearm
>>if their civil rights are restored by their state, or (this part I'm fuzzy
>>on) if they receive permission from BATF.  BATF publishes the names of the
>>people they approve in the Federal Register.

Larry, you've written this before, but do you have a cite in federal
law for this? I can't find it. The BATF has always maintained that
they didn't give a damn what the state did; only Presidential
pardons and relief from disabilities from the Secretary of the
Treasury were the only legal means for ex-felons to ever again
own firearms.



>>>Apparently, the latest thrust is to eliminate this administrative
>>>procedure to restore firearm purchase rights.  What I haven't seen
>>>is any claim that anyone whose rights were so restored went on to
>>>commit a violent crime.
>>
>>Josh Sugarman's book "NRA: Money, Firepower, Fear" has some examples of this.
>>Whether or not Sugarman is lying I don't know ...
>>-- 
>>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
>
>-- 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
> | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+


-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:14:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
} So let's look at Killeen, again. There are no laws restricting the
} right of honest, law-abiding citizens to buy weapons.  Or on anyone
} else since it is in infringement of our rights to even ask us who
} we are, or make us wait while they see if the id we have is real.
} So maybe 50% of the people in the restaurant in Killeen were sitting
} there comfortably with .38's on them.  And the guy walks in with
} a semi-automatic rifle.  Do you agree that a nut would be more likely to
} do just that - go for the big weapon.

No.  First of all, how would such a guy know that 50% of the people
there were armed, let alone armed with .38's?  And even if he did know,
and intended to do them harm anyway, he would likely end up very dead
no matter how he was armed.

Secondly, in interviews among criminals serving time in prison, the common
theme was that what they feared the most was their intended victims being
armed.  Reality is that criminals do not go for bigger guns to face people
with smaller guns; they prefer to avoid armed people, period.

} > You make the *very* common and faulty assumption that something can
} > be eliminated by legislating it away. This didn't work for
} > prohibition, isn't working for the war on drugs, and won't
} > work (doesn't work in places which have already legislated it
} > like DC, NYC, Chicago, etc.) for guns.
} ... 
} And yet we have laws against murder - even though we can't "legislate
} it away".

Apples and oranges.  Murder is an action; a gun is an inanimate object.

} You also make the faulty argument that since something is
} going to happen anyway - we shouldn't control it.  I've heard so
} many arguments like "More people are killed by drunk drivers then by
} guns, so let's eliminate the laws on gun".

Again, driving drunk is an action; a gun is an inamimate object.

A more appropriate analogy would be that shooting a gun indiscriminately
is like driving a car while drunk.  Punish the indiscriminate shooter;
don't ban the gun.  Punish the drunk driver; don't ban the car.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: allan@microware.com (R. Allan Kirkhart)
Subject: Re: I HATE to vote for Bush! But...
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:40:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.155850.3085@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov5.00759.13720@ms.uky.edu>, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>|> Congrats Libertarian voters! Clinton's in the White House and Congress is
>|> "shaking" from the resounding "message" that was sent.
>|> <cough>
>|> Looks like Perot did the message sending.                               
>|> 
>
>
>Perot did indeed send a message, and I happy for it.  When we do finally
>get vote totals for the Libertarian ticket, I'd be interested in calculating
>votes/$$ spent for all four campaigns.  I also think the 45% of *registered*
>voters who stayed home sent a message, but nobody is tuning into it.

	The only message sent by those to lazy or ignorant to excersize their
right to vote, is that as long as the republicrats keep nominating the same
old politicians, they will never have to worry about addressing the issues
of that 45%.  Makes it a lot easier for them to address the issues of
the lobbyists without concern for losing the vote of the silent.

	Do you think they will be as likely to ignore the registered voter
who did vote for Perot or Marrou?  These are votes that will be cast
again next year, and you can beleive the republicrats will consider ways
to pick them up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and do not reflect those of my employer.
From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 20:13:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Crises (was Re: Boot camp?)
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Keith A Lewis:
> Forced labor (even conscription) is currently illegal in the US.  Let's keep
> it that way.

Since all men between 18 and 45 are members of the militia, and since
Congress has the power to regulate the militia, military conscription is
not illegal.

- Steve Kao
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.japan
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Yoshi Hattori / UPI
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:08:28 GMT

In article <4ezo_qO00iV0M_3BpJ@andrew.cmu.edu> ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rikiya Asano) writes:
>So what are we going to do now,  Mr. Richmond, 
>
>     
>                          Play tit for tat. Your an evil individual. You
>are the racist. Using this woman tradgety just to show that a "Japanese
>National" could rape. We already know this. Is this your revenge. If
>your sources are not sure why are you posting this bullshit. You are an
>Evil in individual Japanese do have to be protected from your(people
>with your personality)kind. 
>
>I had not doubt that one of you were wait for something like this, to
>save face for your boy. 

Mr Asano, before you get all worked up, re-read the post. At the very end,
you will find that Mr Richmond explained that it is just POSSIBLE that there
was no assault, as most of us would consider it. It is POSSIBLE that what
happened was in reality and argument/disagreement between a prostitute and
a customer. It is entirely possible that Mr Richmond posted the article to 
indicate agreement with MY article (a part of which he included) where I
stated the Japanese government should educate ALL of its citizens travelling
overseas to the dangers they may not be expected to encounter in Japan.

In short, I did not get the feeling that Mr Richmond passed a value judgement
on the incident due to insuffucient knowledge of the event. I believe you
owe him an apology.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Keywords: To purchase, or not to purchase....
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:05:04 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

> I hope you're right.  My guess is that the Supremes are a bunch of statists 
> who are going to refuse to hear any firearms cases that come before them.

Well they did hear the Thompson/Center case this year and decided
against the position of BATF. There have also been some favorable
decsions in lower courts concerning automatic weapons.

(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:07:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.041425.24217@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>Guns are a lot different from knives.  I can sit a block away with
>a knife and be considered a mild threat - but a gun makes me a 
>major threat.  I've had this argument before  "oh then let's ban
>steak knives" - tell that to the people in Killeen.  If that guy
>had a steak knife 90% of his victims might be alive.  Guns are
>a very different matter.
>

*Sigh*, if the folks in the restaurant had been able to carry
concealed, then most probably the incident in Killeen would never
have been on the national news in the first place. The unreasonable
restriction of their RKBA kept them from defending themselves
and others in this situation. This situation was more of
a defeat for the HCI crowd than the RKBA crowd if you think about
it a bit. I *know* there are a lot more folks in this forum who can/will
probably jump on this assertion of yours with additional
evidence/facts relating to that case. All of this has been rehashed
here in tpg *numerous* times.

You make the *very* common and faulty assumption that something can
be eliminated by legislating it away. This didn't work for
prohibition, isn't working for the war on drugs, and won't
work (doesn't work in places which have already legislated it
like DC, NYC, Chicago, etc.) for guns. All it does is create
a new criminal class from some formerly law abiding citizens
and make the rest *more* likely to become victims of the
WOD and the criminal class. You can bet that if it is profitable to 
bring illegal drugs into the country, it will be just as profitable to bring
illegal guns into the country. It would also be relatively easy
to set illegal manufacture of fully automatic submachine guns
domestically (much like the basement "labs" manufacture LSD,
PCPs, and the "crack" variant of cocaine).

IMHO more laws are not any kind of solution for much of any
contemporary problem.
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Act Now!
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:14:29 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

IZZYOE8@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Daniel) writes:

>AM I JUST RETARDED OR DO I HAVE A POINT?
>DANIEL

	Good name, Daniel.  Are you retarded?  No, but I'll use that
to give you a gentle reminder to use lower-case when at all possible.
Certainly UCLA computer systems ahve that capability.  That dispensed
with, you do have a point.  The problem, as I see it, is that letters
to newspapers are short and printed at the whim of the editorial board.
Your chances of getting one printed that has not been edited to fit,
or even printed at all, is incredibly low.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: felons
Keywords: felons
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:04:03 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <BxHBpL.9pK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>Larry, you've written this before, but do you have a cite in federal
>law for this? I can't find it. The BATF has always maintained that
>they didn't give a damn what the state did; only Presidential
>pardons and relief from disabilities from the Secretary of the
>Treasury were the only legal means for ex-felons to ever again
>own firearms.

I don't have a cite in federal law for that.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer
reported it, and gave several examples of states where felons rights are
restored (a) immediately, (b) after a "waiting period", or (c) never.
The PD also reported two states (don't recall which, maybe Iowa) moved
from (a) to (b) when just released felons bought a handgun over the counter
and murdered someone with that weapon.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:36:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

Michiaki Masuda  writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.005859.18489@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>>Mandatory education is too easy to turn into a gun ban and wouldn't
>>affect criminal misuse anyway.
>
>   Doesn't it contradict your proposal of the mandatory firearm education
>at high school?

No.  Two different things being discussed:

 1. Mandatory firearm safety education in high school.

 2. Mandatory firearm safety education as a prerequisite
    for legal purchase/ownership of firearms.

The first, like high school driver safety programs tries to give the student
some notion of safe use of firearms.  No effect on ownership or acquisition.

The second can easily be used as a tool to implement a de facto firearm
purchase ban simply by things like:

	a. severely limit class size
	b. raise cost of attending class to prohibitive levels
	c. "forget" to provide public notice of scheduled
	    class sessions
	d. fail to allocate funds for classes

There are ways to implement such classes so that the state can't easily
use them as a bar to ownership...but having the state be the sole supplier
of such classes isn't a good way.  (Various states have had a nasty habit
in the past of following a given gun-control law with another that does
something that was specifically prohibited in the initial law.)

Hope Masuda-san is reading this group, btw.


--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Life under Clinton
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:30:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.143616.3462@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
> Of course several major psychics have predicted that Clinton won't live to see
> day one of his presidency.  That would leave us with President Gore running
> things.  What does happen if both the president, and vice-president elect die
> BEFORE they are sworn in?  Does the speaker of the house take over, or is there
> another process??????

Before the term begins, it isn't really clear what would happen: Technically,
Clinton isn't anything more than a private citizen until the Speaker
of the House anounces the electoral college's vote on the third of
January. If a dead man (e.g. someone who isn't "qualified" as per the
20th Amendment) gets a majority of the votes, then I _think_ the
the House of Representatives would vote for a President, just as if
none of the candidates had gotten a majority. (E.g. none of the
qualified candidates would have a majority.) Until they got their act
together and elected a President (if Bush left office before they did, 
that is), the Vice-President elect (Gore) would _act_ as President.
If neither the President elect nor the Vice-President elect are 
"qualified", then an acting President is whoever "Congress may by 
law provide for..." I think they passed something making the Speaker
of the House the next in line. However, all these positions are
_temporary_. The eventual, until-1996 President would be elected by
the House of Representatives.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

> >and aggressive group who are probably card-carrying NRA members use the
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >natural fear of crime as way to encourage people in the US that any form
> >of gun-control will take away the right for Americans to kill anyone from
> >dangerous criminals to suspicious intruders to less-than-suspicious looking
> >tuxedo-wearing boys.  You now see why gun-control advocates have such
> >a difficult time in the US.
> >
> >-- Makoto
> 
> Just for the record, Makoto-kun, I -- a card-carrying NRA member -- was
> one of the first people to criticize the shooting.  Perhaps you should
> put your predjudices aside before you read netnews...
> 
> John Kapson   NRA ILA

Actually John, the observation was rather more accurate than either of
you noted. The distorted, ridiculous position that Makoto-san wrote about
IS the reason why GC advocates have such a hard time. 

80% of solving a problem is getting the problem statement right!

For the record, a shooting outside of the walls of one's home is considerably
more difficult to justify if you can retreat inside and wait to see what
the bad guy is going to do. I think that this case will be a loss to the
homeowner. 

Ron Miller
also a card-carrying NRA member (it has all the great 800 numbers on it!)
NRA, NRA-ILA, SAF, CCRKBA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:04:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.164907.1603@advtech.uswest.com> kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:
>
>If (2) is the case, are you guys really going to turn them in? Thanks.

Yes indeed!  Why, to not do so wouldn't be right.  As a matter of
fact, I'd want to turn all of mine in before some desperate criminal
broke into my house and stole them...


Baaaaaaa.  Baaaaaaaa.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: Gun control laws proposed in Colorado
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:59:50 GMT

In article <22313@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <22271@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>} There were some recent tragedies here in Colorado.  In separate incidents,
>} two teenagers and a state trooper were shot and killed.
>} As a result, State Senator Regis Groff and a few others are pushing for
>} state wide gun control laws -- specifically a waiting period on handguns
>} and a ban on so-called "assault weapons".
    A handgun waiting period exists here in Massachusetts, but they don't 
stop underaged gangers in Boston from obtaining handguns illegally and using 
them.  

>I neglected to mention some information.  Sen. Groff said, "I know our
>forefathers had no knowledge of, or in their wildest dreams ever dreamt
>that there would be such a thing as an AK-47."  You guessed it, in none
>of these shootings was anything like an AK-47 even used.
>
>} Governor Roy Romer said, "I
>} feel we need something like the Brady Bill in WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES"
>} [emphasis mine -- dlo].

   According to the 11/10/92 issue of the Boston Globe, a spokesman for the 
Mayor of Boston came out and said that a local version of the `Brady Bill' 
is needed in Boston if one isn't passed on the Federal level.  FYI, the 
state gun laws in Massachusetts are already at least as restrictive as the 
`Brady Bill'.  When has the truth ever got in the way of a good sound bit?

>The alledged killers were already underage, so a waiting period would not
>have helped matters, since it was already illegal for them to purchase
>these weapons in the first place.
>David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
>"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
> about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
> Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92

From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 00:10:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Piet van Oostrum asks:
> But how many times, say in the last 200 years, have guns be used against
> government oppression in the USA, compared to being used to shoot innocent
> people?
> Maybe in the Civil War by the Southerns? But then they did not succeed.

Well, after the Civil War, the KKK went around lynching blacks except
for those blacks who used guns to defend themselves.  In the 1890's and
early 1900's, Italians and Jews were being stoned and their places of
worship desecrated, except for those Italians and Jews who used guns to
defend themselves.

While the gun control laws implemented in the old South and New York
state were not active government oppression, I claim that they were
covert oppression in the sense that they attempted to allow white
Protestant majorities to oppress the blacks, Italians, and Jews with
impunity.

How many times were guns used against oppression?  I don't know.  I
suspect people defended themselves with guns from a group of bigots many
more times than was ever reported.  In the old South, the local sherriff
was often one of the bigots in the white sheet.

- Steve Kao