HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skeeter@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:15:40 GMT

From article <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten):
> 
> In the first place who said they couldn't "carry concealed" - they

Correct me I'm wrong but don't you need a permit to carry concealed in
Texas?  I read an article that said one of the women shot HAD a handgun
in her truck outside, but that she had to leave it in the glovebox.

> could apply for licenses and get the guns.  Hell, they sell them
> in department stores here in Georgia!  I've never argued for a total
> ban on guns, just a reasonable policy, and I'm arguing against people
> who say that because the RKBA is mentioned in the 2nd amendment that
> no laws limiting them can be passed.
> 
> 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


I the "old west" damned near everyone was armed and hardly ever was
there an armed confrontation such as portrayed in so many movies.


I would prefer to see laws on people.  Start a "deputy" or "voluntary
cop" program where any non-felon can go through the police training and then
carry concealled.  Make sure to publicise the program.  The "bad guys"
wouldn't know who was carrying and would have to be more careful. 

Right now they are just wolves among sheep.
--
skeeter@skatter.usask.ca			no nifty .sig

The weight of one's wallet is inversly proportional to the size of
one's heart.   -- me 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Science Fiction (Was: I HATE to vote for Bush! But...)
Date: 09 Nov 92 22:26:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>
><  On the other hand, Democrat Tom Foley hasn't been seen supporting
><   any gun grabbing... 
>
>	On what planet? 
>
>	Foley endorsed the Brady Bill, now didn't he?

Tom Foley is one of two Washington state Democratic congressfolks (along
with Jolene Unsoeld) to receive an 'A' rating from the NRA.  Mr. Foley
is *definitely* pro-gun.

Let's try not to slander our friends, please -- we need 'em now more
than ever.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:23528 talk.politics.drugs:7278
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: berzerk idiot shoots at cops in Bellingham, gets shot.
Date: 1 Nov 92 05:41:10 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University


Saturday the 24th of Oct, a man shot at two police officers with
a shotgun.  Due to the poor aim of the officers, he is alive, shot
through the arm, and is resting in his new home, the Whatcom County
jail.    I'm suprised he didn't die, as he seems to have been attempting
to further the process of evolution.

	It started when he was refused admittance in an underage dance
club, for being a drunk idiot.  He was refused admittance in some bars
for that, plus being underage.   He was enraged and said "you're only
doing this because I'm black."  Then he came back with a shotgun from
his brothers car and threatened several of the bouncers who had evicted
him, saying "do you wanna die?", then ran amuck through some back yards, 
saying "do you wanna die?" to several people and pointing the shotgun at 
them.   After a time some police officers found him and ordered him to
freeze, but he instead asked them the magic question and fired at them.
About 10 shots were fired, and he was the only one hit.


	The papers didn't disclose his name because he is 16, but will
give it out if he is tried as an adult.  I was suprised to find out 
yesterday that I know the assailant.  He was a dishwasher at a resturant
I used to cook at last summer.   I was weirded out about it a little 
because he didn't strike me as the criminal type at all.  Mild mannered
and friendly, I used to joke around with him.   I thought he was an ok
kid.		He has proven himself 
to be a mad dog by acting like one, and now his life is ruined forever.
The other diswasher I ran in to said that he did it because he was high 
as a kite on cocaine.   Weird.   He used to do steroids too.   I'm trying
to figure out what could motivate such a stupid episode.   The chemicals
aren't responsible, the gun wasn't either.  He just decided to cross
the line and now he has to pay the price for it for the rest of his life.

		
Some solutions that have been offered to incidents like this:

Ban cocaine.  It's still here though, isn't it.
Ban guns.  Just like cocaine, they will go away once banned 8^).
Ban alcohol.  For a 16 year old, it is banned, but like anything else,
		banning it doesn't matter.

Ban stupid people.   This is not perfect, but it is the only one that
shows any promise.  This young gentleman is going to be banned from
society for some time to come, and during that time, he won't be doing
any encore preformances of last Saturday.   

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Da Media
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:55:29 GMT


Just wondering if anybody else out their has noticed two recent trends
on the National news broadcast.

Trend 1:

	Before the election all we heard was BAD economic news with
	just an occasional hint of good.  The good was almost always
	countered with disclaimers such as "But leading economist still
	say the the recession is bad. . ." type of stuff.

	After the election I've been hearing alot of good economic
	news like, "un-employment is down 7/10 of a %, which is the
	fourth month in a row which it has dropped". Or, "leading
	indicators are up again, signaling that the economy may
	be recovering. . ."

 It seems strange that the economy is making such a "turn around"
 in just 4 days.  Can you say "selective reporting" and "political
 agenda"?????


Trend 2:

	A rash of "Kids & Guns" stories on every major news
	network.  I think the media is gearing up to try and cram
	the Brady Bill through, now that Clinton is dictator. .
	err, president. 

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

------------------------------------------
Anti-Gun President, Anti-Gun Congress,
Better buy what you want BEFORE Dec 31.
----------------------------------------
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: felons
Keywords: felons
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:16:50 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

What about criminals put into the witness relocation program? Want to
bet that they can legally buy whatever they want?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
If convicted felons can't own firearms, then why in Hell
do we let GE make nuclear weapons?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:34:40 GMT

<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?

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: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:00:08 GMT

In article <matwesx.721432398@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (William E. Sadler) writes:
#kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:
#
#....
#>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.
#
#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.

This is a little different than my understanding. If memory serves right,
when sunny California banned so-called "assault rifles", they asked owners
to register their "assault rifles" before the dead line. After that dead
line, you couldn't register them any more and your "assault rifles" then 
became illegal. So, if the owners registered their "assault rifles" before 
the dead line, they can still keep them. Please feel free to correct the 
above statement if you think it is incorrect.

Now, a question follows: if you are asked to register your semi-autos if
they fall into a new compiled list of "deadly assault rifles", are you
going to do so? Look at what happened at NY city. Do you really trust
those politicians?

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

But, are we willing to pay the penalty when get caught? A few years of
jail time is no fun. ( cuz you can't shoot your guns there. ;) Another 
thing is that you probably won't bring these illegal weapons to a 
shooting range to practice anymore, due to the fear of being caught. So 
what good is it if you can't practice with them?

Note that I'm not making any judgement here. I'm simply soliciting opinions
on this topic to form my own. I don't know enough to say anything intelligent
yet.

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
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Support Right to 'bear arms'
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:11:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov6134804@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> <In article <1992Oct27.025307.2825@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
> <   In article <1992Oct26.020311.12962@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:<
> <   >Not according to the Supreme Court, federal law or the framers of the
> <   >Constitution. They define the militia refered in the Second Amendment
> <   >as "...all males physically capable of acting in consert for the
> <   >common defense..." (US v. Miller), "all males between 18 and 45 years
> <   >of age" (United States Code, Title X; paraphrase) and "everyone, 
> <   >except for a few public officials" (Col. George Mason) respectively.
> 
> <   >It would seem the militia refered to includes almost everyone.
> 
> <   Really?
> 
> 	Adolf has claimed that Title X has been interpreted
> 	to exclude women from the unorganized militia.
> 
> 	Perhaps she can provide a citation for this assertion?

What do you mean "interpreted?"  It's pretty damn clear from the language.

United States Code (USC)

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

  (a) The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
zens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned of-
ficers of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are--
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of
  the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
  and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists
  of the members of the militia who are not
  members of the National Guard or the Naval
  Militia.

-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control laws proposed in Colorado
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:05:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <urbin.7.721497590@interlan.interlan.com>, urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:
>     A handgun waiting period exists here in Massachusetts

I think it was you that said this before.  There is no such waiting period.
You must get licensed, and there is processing time required for that, 
but it does not apply to individual purchases.

>    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.  

What an asshole.  The Brady Bill WILL NOT APPLY to Massachusetts, since
Massachusetts already has an owner licensing system, and under Brady,
purchasers with state licenses are never required to wait or be rechecked.
-- 

cdt@pdp.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
id <m0mo1LO-0000N2C@crash.cts.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 92 17: 21 PST
	id <k762381@pro-amber.cts.com>; Sat,  7 Nov 92 17: 19 PST
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Subject: Re: Damage Assessment after Comrade Clinton's victory?
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 17:14:55 PST

Boxer did in fact take the election. IMHO no one won, we all lost.

_______________________________________________________________________________
ProLine:  rsopicki@pro-amber                      System Administrator
Internet: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com                    PRO-AMBER
UUCP:     crash!pro-amber!rsopicki                    619-460-9762
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:38:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> In the first place who said they couldn't "carry concealed" 

Texas law.  Next question?

> They could apply for licenses and get the guns.  

No, they couldn't.  

> Hell, they sell them
> in department stores here in Georgia! 

Do you know the difference between owning a gun and being allowed to
carry it?

> 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.  So what would the people do -
> make it routine to carry semi-automatic's and then the guy walks in
> with a fully automatic Uzi or Mac-10.

Sigh.  Hennard had a semi-automatic pistol.  Two pistols, actually.
You appear to be unaware of that when you throw around "semi-automatic"
as a "scare" phrase.

He walked around the cafeteria, blowing people away SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY
one by one.  He even stopped to reload.  He killed everybody he aimed at.

Do you REALLY think a room full of armed customers would have allowed
this to go on?

Do you REALLY think a fully automatic weapon gives someone some kind of
real advantage?  Especially against a number of armed opponents?

> This is what I'm trying to argue against - some kind of arms race
> on our streets where you can have any weapon you want, but can't
> send your kid to the burger king without an armed escort - lunchtime
> in Beirut.

Actually, what you're describing in lunchtime in Tel Aviv.  Given a
choice between that and lunchtime in New York City or Washington DC,
I'll eat kosher any day.

> And yet we have laws against murder - even though we can't "legislate
> it away".  You also make the faulty argument that since something is
> going to happen anyway - we shouldn't control it. 

Laws against DEEDS that hurt people are valid.  Laws against
POSSESSIONS that MIGHT be used by a criminal to hurt people are 
pre-emptive and invalid.  They assume everyone is a criminal.

> 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".

Have you?  Not here.  Sounds like a stupid argument to me, too.
-- 

cdt@pdp.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: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Keywords: To purchase, or not to purchase....
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.35227.12266@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:

>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov9.165550.14827@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>>>The government gives you money for newly banned firearms?!?!
>>>Speaking as a Canadian where several score firearms and all
>>>"variants thereof" were just banned, driving several 10s of millions
>>>dollars in firearms into the black market, why do you think
>>>a Clinton gov't would compensate you?
>
>>Mostly becuase of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution: "...[no 
>>person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
>>due process of law; nor shall private priperty be taken for public
>>use without just compensation." The current Supreme Court reasonably
>
> Yea, tell that to the victims of the DEA's confiscation policy. I believe
>it has to do wit something called the "RICO Act" ??? (is that right?).
>At any rate, not only has land, homes, cars, cash and other property been
>confiscated by the government, but in many cases done so without even
>charging the victim with a crime, or even going to court!!!

       It's a little goofy, here.  They're operating under the legal fiction 
that they're "arresting" the property as opposed to confiscating it.  (It's
garbage, yeah, but a different flavor of garbage.)

>In cases where local authorities (cops) confiscate property, the property
>is sold (usually for nothing at auction) and the proceeds go to the
>agency that made the bust! Talk about the fox in charge of the hen house.
>Guess the Fifth Amendment takes a rest here... Evil drugs ya know...

       Well, it just goes to show that no matter how clearly something's
written down there's always a way to abuse it.  I suppose their argument
would be that since they're auctioning it off they really aren't taking
it "for public use" and thus don't have to provide compensation.
       Which wouldn't surprise me, considering the dancing around that's
gone on with the rest of the Constitution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
From: uk09365@nx12.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:26:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <1992Nov5.184232.20993@cbfsb.cb.att.com>  
colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> More gray areas - what is a "threatening manner".  What about a guy
> in a klan robe with a rifle?  Is that a legitimate RKBA or a
> threatening manner?  I'm Jewish and I'd feel threatened - but another
> White Supremicist wouldn't.

	Will you feel less threatened if I show up with
	my Galil and Desert Eagle to stand beside you..?
	(not that I actually own either...)
        :-)

	<rambling> this does remind me of the (true?) story
	of the Rabbi who was introduced to the shooting sports
	and became quite a firearms afficionado.  His 
	liberal leaning congregation refused to renew his
	contract unless he agreed to a "no guns in Synagoge"
	clause.   :-)

	I had a great-uncle (a low level judge, now deceased)
	who probably had enough guns in his house to take
	on the entire KKK singlehandledly.  I think the bathrooms
	(and maybe not even there) were the only rooms of the
	entire house that didn't have several DOZEN (or more)
	rifles, shotguns, and pistols, even Class-III firearms
	racked, cased, hanging, etc.  He was an FFL, Title-II,
	and export licensed, too.  (and lived in NY ... of all things.)
	(did a bit of gun running and merc. work, too... all
	covertly sanctioned by the Nixon government... during the
	1973 embargo.)


Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Spraying Bullets with Dangerous Guns
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.153038.20973@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>Well yes, I thought about that too.  Given there are 60 or 70 million
>gunowners in the U.S. (estimates vary), and that under currently law,
>every single one of them is eligible to vote, how is it the gun control
>proponents can succeed?  They do so by divide and conquer techniques;
>propose something this year that the shotgun owners will go along with;
>then something next year the hunting rifle owners will go along with.
>As long as you can keep most of them apathetic ("this won't affect me
>or my guns"), you can chip away a bit at a time towards an eventual
>general ban.
>

This is the exact strategy of HCI.  The founder, Pete Shields, made a public 
declaration that the ultimate goal was to ban the private ownership of 
firearms, and that the proposed waiting period was just a "good start."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns