HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:28:02 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <lairdb.718866492@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>In <1992Oct8.164442.10551@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>>In article <lairdb.718315415@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com

>>You have a right to a Jury trial, but only if you are not on public
>>property...  You have protection against "searches and seizures",
>>but not when you travel on public property...  (this may already be
>>happening...; That your protections against searche and seizure are
>>claimed to be invalid, because you're on public property).
>
>>Here, you begin to tread dangerous ground.
>
>Ah, not at all.  This is what the agreement between me and the government
>(the Constitution) is all about: an agreement about how I may conduct
>myself on the property-of-all-citizens which is administerd by the gov't.

Wrong.  It is NOT an agreement about how you may conduct yourself on
the property-of-all-citizens, it isn agreement between you and the government
about how THE GOVERNMENT may conduct itself!

Read the thing comprehensively sometime.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.114703.6510@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>
>I would go further and hazard a *guess* (since they're not around to
>ask and I've seen no direct quotations on this point as yet) that the
>founding fathers never envisioned in their wildest dreams that
>anyone would propose repealing any of the first ten Amendments
>to the Constitution.  I also tend to believe that the Founding
>Fathers worded the first ten in such a way that they were intended
>to be read and comprehended by the *average* person with no
>extensive need for Judicial interpretation. 

I'd go further yet.  Since it was the claim of the Federalists 
that the bill of rights was redundant and merely guaranteed rights
that weren't being threatened by the body of the Constitution, and
the power to usurp any rights was not granted to the govt in the
body, I think they'd feel that those rights (the ones in the Bill
of Rights) couldn't be lawfully infringed on at all, amendments
or not.  And the Anti-Federalists would probably consider any
attempt to restrict those rights as a direct threat to the
populace warrenting dissolution of the Union.

And some people think that the NRA is radical! 8^}

				Dave Schabel


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Schabel         | Opinions and comments contained herein are mine and  |
schabel@calspan.com  | do not necessarilly reflect those of Calspan Corp or |
                     | its customers.                                       |
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The third 'box' (was: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...))
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:25:12 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Oct8.164442.10551@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>

>Or the 4th box... (the first 3 are Ballot, Soap, and Jury).

My boxed set only includes Ballot, Soap, and Cartridge.
The Jury Box must be a hit or miss deal or simply too
expensive for the average citizen.

Using the Soap and Ballot Boxes together seems so
negligible and a glance at the Jury Box seems far
too restrictive and difficult to obtain.

The Cartridge box is useless without planning and
cohesiveness...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:02:22 GMT
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia

In article <bob1.718912856@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>Oh, really? Funny but it reads to me that; 1) people [as in 'we the
>people'] have a right to keep and bear arms, 2) the government shall
>not infringe that right, and 3) on good reason for not infringing
>that right is the need for a militia to protect the state [state then
>being all 13 (ex) colonies].
>
>Now, I don't claim to be a professor of English grammar, but I do
>recall seeing an analysis of the 2nd here on t.p.g that was done
>by a reputable and acknowledged scholar. He essentially said the
>same thing that I did above. If someone has that article on file
>it might help to re-post it in order to help our less literate
>brethren.

It is available via anonymous ftp in the file:

archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/unabridged

Here's a short description of "unabridged" from the INDEX file:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: unabridged

The Unabridged Second Amendment, by J. Neil Schulman

An interview with Roy Copperud, retired professor of journalism at
USC and author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus".  Copperud
offers his professional opinion on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: tmi@netcom.com (Peter Alan Kasler)
Subject: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:08:58 GMT

In <7115@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.222727.18432@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>I had much the same discussion with someone who actually helps run the
>course.  Here was her (his?) response:

>--------------------------------------------------------------------

>LFI-1 is the only training program I know of that both
>a) recognizes that if you are ever involved in a shooting, no matter how
>justified, you will have to go through two battles: the incident itself,
>and the legal aftermath, AND
>b) has a curriculum designed to take this fact into account.  That is,
>it teaches you how to fight both battles.

	There is another: Threat Management Institute.

>Mas has an amazing amount of experience in the courtroom testifying on
>behalf of police and civilians.  He is one of the few instructors in the
>country who guarantees, in advance, to testify on behalf of any graduate
>of his who is later involved in what he is convinced is a justifiable
>shooting.  

	Actually, all legitimate firearms and use-of-force instructors
in this country make the same offer to their students. Many are
qualified expert witnesses, although few are as qualified as is Mas
(but at least one of us is :^)).

>In short, depsite the name, you can't be BETTER prepared for the legal
>aftermath than by taking LFI.

	True, but you can do at least as well with TMI. :^)

-- 
     Peter Alan Kasler                            Fax: 707-939-8684
     Threat Management Institute                Voice: 707-939-0303
     800 West Napa Street                     TMI BBS: 707-935-1713
     Sonoma, CA  95476                     Internet: tmi@netcom.com
From: kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mark Kinney, Attorney at Chaos)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Anyone see "Doogie Howser, M.D."?
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:15:07 CDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Oct9.205347.15016@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
> 
>   I happened to catch a couple minutes of "Doogie Howser, M.D." last night &
>   was wondering if the show was as anti-gun as it looked like.
> 
>   Synopsis: Doogie & Vinnie get mugged by an armed robber, Doogie decides to
>             get a gun, he's shown at the range, being "egged on" by the in-
>             structor (?) to "go for the chest", &c., 
His speech before that ("A gun is a last resort" etc, and the control
bit) were reasonable sounding and pretty much true, though.

>	      but all he can think
>             about is all the gunshot wounds he's seen and treated as an MD.
This could swing either way: it either says "Guns kill: don't use
them" or "Guns can kill: handle with care".  If Doogie didn't want the
responsibility, fine, but my gut reaction (and the reaction more
influential in people who take everything TV doles out to them) was
more along the lines of the former.

It ends with Doogie not buying the gun, and enrolling in a self
defense class.  Not a bad move in any case, but the overriding message
seems to be "Don't arm yourself; learn karate!"

Will karate do much good if/when the US Army becomes the enemy? 
-- 
Mark Kinney [KINNEMA@WKUVX1.(BITNET)(WKU.EDU)] | Give me Slack OR KILL ME!
PhoneNet: (502) 745-4246   (Bowling Green, KY) | K A /\ /\ I E T I
Quote of the week: "So how can you tell if she's made of wood?"
		"Build a bridge out of her!"
			-- "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:26:20 GMT

In article <84952@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>Frank Crary (FC) writes:
>
>FC> Clearly, saying that a right "shall not be infringed" means the government
>FC> may not dictate how that right may be peacably exersized. If the 
>FC> protection from the government is to be at all meaningfull, the government
>FC> cannot control details, such as who provides the arms or how they are
>FC> kept.
>
>We disagree completely on this.  The government regulates everything that the
>Amendments protect, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press.  
>The courts have historically expanded those freedoms by using their power of
>interpretation to invalidate and reverse laws that had been seen, in a
>previous era, to be consistent with the Constitution.  The courts are always
>erasing lines and redrawing them.  If you believe that your freedom of speech
>is unregulated, then go shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium and explain it
>to the judge.

     The speech itself is less "regulated" than the consequences of the 
speech.  Speech which causes harm to others can be regulated, because it
is the harm to others the government has authority to regulate, not the
speech.

>FC> The militia (as distinct from the federal army, a distinction very
>FC> clearly made by the Constitution) currently exists _only_ as the
>FC> unorganized militia of all able-bodied citizens. So I'd have to say
>FC> it is _extremely_ dependent on the participants bringing their own arms.
>
>OK.  We've gotten nowhere on this point and might as well drop it.  The 2nd
>does not say "A well-regulate unorganized militia, being..."  But that is the
>interpretation that you would like to impose on it.  Fine.  We'll let the
>courts decide.

     The amendment also does not say, "A well-regulated state militia,"
either, yet this is specifically the intepretation you have proposed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mark Kinney, Attorney at Chaos)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:25:43 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <9210100110.AA17574@intercon.com>, mauser@INTERCON.COM (Richard Chandler) writes:
>> From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
> "foreign attack"?  And don't tell me that the National Guard isn't part of 
> the Federal Army, the Governer of Louisiana tried to say that before Desert 
> Storm and the Supreme Court told him to get stuffed.
> 
Also, note that over the left breast pocket of any Guardsman's
uniform, it says not "National Guard" but "US Army".

Need any more proof against the "We have the National Guard" ravings?
-- 
Mark Kinney [KINNEMA@WKUVX1.(BITNET)(WKU.EDU)] | Give me Slack OR KILL ME!
PhoneNet: (502) 745-4246   (Bowling Green, KY) | K A /\ /\ I E T I
Quote of the week: "So how can you tell if she's made of wood?"
		"Build a bridge out of her!"
			-- "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:30:27 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) / 11:38 am  Oct  9, 1992 /

>No.  I understand the problem; I've always hated LFI's name, myself.  If

At least they talked him out of the 800 number he wanted, 1 (800)-DIE-SCUM.:-)

>your neighbor opened a gun school in his basement in his spare time and
>called it Lethal Force Institute, then yes, you'd be in big trouble if you
>went there and later had to shoot someone because the prosecutor would
>make you out to the jury as some kind of crazed, dangerous Dirty Harry
>wannabe.  So why is Mas Ayoob's LFI different?

<excellent comments deleted> 

I have to pretty much agree with the advantages several individuals have 
posted in response to the original thread that attending LFI could be 
viewed in a negative light.  There truly is one negative that nobody has 
mentioned.  After this (and in many cases for some of us, more advanced 
training) you, like the police (should be?), will be held to a higher 
standard of care.  

This is much like the poor untrained bozo who is held harmless when 
he paralyzes a crash victim by pulling him from a burning car where a 
doctor would be sued, we are held to a higher standard of care, because we 
above all people should know the proper application of deadly force, just 
as the doctor should be aware of possible spinal injuries.

On the other hand, we ARE better trained, so we truly should be making better
decisions.  As Mas stresses: With power comes responsibility.  On the balance, 
I have to agree with those who consider attendance of LFI, or any reputable 
school who will stand by you, a net plus.  

Btw, according to Ayoob, he doesn't do anywhere near 300 cases a year.  He is 
fond of relating that he can pick his cases from the entire United States, 
unlike lawyers who are limited to an area they are licensed/certified in.
Even so, he claims there aren't enough innocent people charged to keep him 
busy full time.....

Rick.

Reduce violence in America, and improve your IQ.  Kill your TV.  Do it today.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:07:17 GMT

In <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>First let me tell you that I am a Libertarian and no great lover of
>Government interference in the private lives of citizens. However...

	Alright, I'll temper my response a bit...

>However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
>ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
>not private gun ownership.

	First, I *AM* the militia.  25 years old male, prior military
experience, no felony or even misdemeanor convictions.  The militia is
not under Federal or even State control, though we can be trained by
them.  Thus, I cannot rely on the State or Federal government to supply
me with arms.  Furthermore, statutes from the time of the Constitution
consistently show sword, powder, shot, and other weapons and supplies
were expected to be furnished by each militiaman and that he was to
have a specific amount of each in addition to other posessions such
as a bedroll, canteen, knapsack, etc...  In short, a militia is to be
self-armed and self-equipped, and not subject to governmental
dependence.  This is all because of the second point: the government
is not here to protect you, and has no obligation to do so.  Also,
the oath is to protect the Constitution against _all enemies, foreign
and domestic._  A tyrranical government is a domestic enemy, and one
that should be overthrown and replaced with new government devoted to
the principles which best serve the People it governs.

	Asking for the government to protect me while I am disarmed
is like asking Jack the Ripper to babysit.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control (Spelling)
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:13:10 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <15573@suns4.crosfield.co.uk> pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) writes:
>Private posession of guns in Britain is regulated by
         ^^^^^^^^^
         possession

>1) You are a "fit person" to poesess.  (ie not insane or have a
                              ^^^^^^^
                              possess.

Sorry about that (and the others).  I guess my fingers get
ahead of me sometimes.

Paul
-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin +  Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.  +44 442 230000x3357 +
+             +  Opinions expressed are mine! (Yours for a small fee) +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Academic bias (tests)
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:41:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>
>>She went on to claim that the NRA is responsible for the murder rate in 
>>the U.S.
>
>	If she put this in writing, could not the NRA sue for slander, or
>	must her note have been a public announcement?

It is nearly impossible to win slander suits.  First, you must prove
that the person actually had malicious intent -- a difficult thing to
prove.  Next, you must prove that the comment was untrue, which would
be impossible to prove in this case.  Finally, you must show that the
statement damaged you in some material way; how was the NRA materially
damaged by this comment?  What dollar amount would you say they lost?

As a rule, public figures and organizations have no recourse against
this type of attack.

Finally, you must remember that the NRA is (correctly) more concerned
with their public image than with ridiculous charges like this.  They
have little to gain and much to lose by going after gadflies -- it is
more important to focus their efforts on the real fight.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
In-reply-to: rjk@world.std.com's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:07:00 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:23:39 EDT

There was a good post just recently that pointed out, legally, what the
militia is. To summarize: militia = anyone who can be called on to defend
the country. That means if you are registered in the Selective Service,
you are part of the militia, and your right to bear arms is supported by
both the "milita" interpretation _and_ the "people" interpretation of the
second amendment.

--
  __________/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu  Carl T Donath \________________
 / Why do people assume that this is the first time things have ever     \
/ been this way and things will stay this way forever?                    \
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court allows New Jersey gun seizure law
Keywords: supreme court, legal, gun control, social issues, state 
    government, government
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:48:47 GMT
Distribution: usa

Question:
If the Florida man had been on a trip "through" New Jersey to another state
where his loaded handguns would have been legal in the vehicle, wouldn't that
change the outcome of this case? In other words, I assume NJ was the mans 
destination right? 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Faircloth/Sanford on RKBA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:49:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

From The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C., Tuesday, Oct. 13, 1992, p. 2B:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Issues '92, Waiting period for handgun purchases

Do you support the so-called Brady bill, which would require a five-day
waiting period for potential handgun purchases to allow for a police
check of a buyer's background?

Candidates for U.S. Senate --

Terry Sanford:		Yes.  "I think that we need to keep a line on
			who can go buy a pistol."

Lauch Faircloth:	No.  "Because it's a clear infringement upon
			the 2nd Amendment."
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:21:13 GMT
 <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com> <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu> 
 <1992Oct13.181026.22134@jetsun.weitek.COM>  
 <ATAYLOR.92Oct16082104@von_neumann.nmsu.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct16082104@von_neumann.nmsu.edu>
ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

> 	Begging the question; the majority of congresscritters
> 	who are identified as "liberal" voted in favor of Brady.
> 	Indeed, the majority of people polled by Gallup who
> 	self-identified as "liberal" support Brady: thus,
> 	the previous posters assertion about "liberals" is
> 	false.

Actually, I believe the split on the gun-control issue correlates more
strongly with urban/rural districts than repub./democ. districts.  This
doesn't contradict your statement, but it may affect the conclusions
one should draw from it.