HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: The Ninth Not Dead Yet
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:29:38 GMT

<In article <1go0h3INN816@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

<   Last week, there was a discussion about whether it was reasonable
<   for the Supreme Court to establish new civil rights out of whole
<   cloth.  I argued that the process was underwritten by the Ninth, but
<   someone else argued that the Court considered the Ninth dead, and
<   went through some convoluted "emanation of a penumbra" argument to
<   get to the same place.

	Not quite; it was pointed out to you that if you endorse
	Roe v. Wade as a "good" SC decision, you are endorsing
	the concept that the Constitution is whatever 5 Justices
	say it is on any given day.

<   On alt.politics.usa.constitution someone posted a small excerpt
<   from Roe v. Wade that restores some of my faith in the Court.  It
<   seems that the Ninth WAS used, at least partially, as justification
<   for the "right of privacy."  From Blackmun's majority opinion:

<   "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of 
<    privacy.  In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized 
<    that a right of personal privacy, or of a guarantee of certain areas 
<    or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.  In varying 
<    contexts the Court or individual justices have indeed found at 
<    least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the 
<    Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of 
<    Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty 
<    guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment."
<   (Shapiro, Martin and Hobbs, Douglas S. : The Politics of 
<    Constitutional Law, Winthrop Publishers, Cambridge, 1974, p.491)
 
	So, because Blackmun paid lip service in passing to
	the Ninth in 1973, you maintain it is alive in 1992?

	Ok, name the Justices who concurred with this decision
	that are still sitting on the Supreme Court.

	Next, name a decision since Roe that cited the 9th
	as a serious element of the argument.

	I'm sure that, when HHS Secretary Shalala declares
	that only "gun-free" homes are appropriate for children
	and orders gun owners with children to remove all guns
	or be charged with child abuse, or when the CDC declares
	all guns as "vectors of violence" and issues orders
	for all doctors to report such vectors to CDC, or 
	when EPA declares all lead bullets to be "toxic waste"
	and requires anyone with ammunition to turn in their
	"waste" or face Federal charges.....

	the 9th will be a shield for us all....right?


	You betcha.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: les@ulysses.att.com (Leslie Johnson)
Subject: Re: Busted: Harry Connick Jr. in Illinois
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:47:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

In article <csjohn.725587679@watson.mtsu.edu> csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:
>Did you hear about Harry Connick Jr. getting arrested in an
>Illinois airport for trying to bring an unloaded 9mm pistol that
>he had received as a Christmas present home with him in his overnight
>bag?  This is no joke, and they are after him big time.  He didn't even

He was busted at JFK airport in New York City, according to CNN.
Susan Rook, the news anchor, described it as "an unlicensed handgun"
as I recall.  I was trying to figure out what license she was talking
about - NYC or NY state, I would think.



--
  - Les Johnson  (les@ulysses.att.com) 1+908-582-5493
       "One Bell System - It Works"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: flushing out queue for "dealing with police officer"
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:05:09 GMT

In article <199212190715.AA26635@ns2.CC.Lehigh.EDU>, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(PAUL N. RITTER) writes:

> #  From:           jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
> #  No, I'm not going to trust you on this and no I am not wrong.  I am quite
> #  aware of how far cops are allowed to push the Constitution these days.
> 
>    Who pushes the Constitution these days? Ice T, 2 live crew, porno
>    producers, etc., etc., etc. ever come to mind? How about the A.C.L.U.?

Gee...  I push it all the time!  Oh, you mean *violate* the
Constitution...  ;-)

Incidentally, *ALL*, police officeers are required to swear an oath
to uphold the Constitution.  Article VI, section 3:

   "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
    Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
    judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
    States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
    Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
    Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Police are officers of the executive branch....  (either that, or
they have no legal authority).  As such, they are required to _push_
the Constitution....  ;-)  (but not violate...)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:24:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) says:

>I have come to question the veracity of the statements which purport to
>say that fully automatic weapons are not really all that useful.  I speak


      Go to a full-auto shooting match.  It's hilarious.  I decided that
      I would much rather have the gang members be inexperienced full-auto
      shooters than experienced pistol shooters. 


>not from experience but from other data points.
>
>First of all, I note that the military has not yet decided to forsake
>automatic weapons in favor of semi-automatic weapons.  Could it be that
>short bursts are indeed useful?  I note that the M-16 is capable of
>3 shot bursts.
>
>Second, I take notice the arguments posed on rec.radio.cb and
>rec.radio.amateur.misc  For those of you who are not familiar with current
>FCC rules, CB's are restricted to 4watts.  Amateur radios (aka ham radios)
>can transmit as much as 1500watts.  In this analogy, CB's are the semi
>automatic weapons and Amateur radios are the fully automatic weapons.
>In rec.radio.cb, the posters are constantly arguing that increased power
>does not buy you a whole heck of a lot.  Most of the advantages come from
>a better antenna.  Thus, high power amplifiers are not useful and not a
>good idea.  On rec.radio.amateur.misc this is not an issue at all.  Better
>transmissions are achieve using both better antennas and higher power.  If
>hams were to take the "lessons" from rec.radio.cb to heart, all would be
>operating QRP (low power) and hoisting up mammoth antennas yet the typical
>ham transciever runs at circa 100watts output.  Only those interested in
>low power do so.  Those who are not transmit at far higher power levels.
>
>Could it be that the arguments saying that fully automatic weapons are not
>that useful fall in the same category as those found in rec.radio.cb ?
>I wonder.  Anybody care to comment?
>
>Criticism and comments to tpg.  Flames to me (and will be cheerfully and
>promptly stored in /dev/null).
>
>-- 
>411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
>418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
>Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
>(215) 662-6780         |
>
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The War On Drugs and the National Guard
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:09:49 GMT
	<ARCHER.544.725645101@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <ARCHER.544.725645101@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu
(T. Archer) writes:

   This releases the Guardsman from legal obligations and puts the
   onus of lawbreaking on his CO.  That way, line grunts can follow
   thier orders without worrying about getting sued.  Whether or not
   the CO can give these orders outside of a declaration of Martial
   Law is something I do not know about.  And I have some serious
   reservations about the constitutionality of marital law as well.

Seems to me that even this is a little problematic.  The Nuremburg
trials, as well as other war crimes trials, pretty clearly establish
that a soldier cannot plead ``orders'' when violating the human rights
of others.  Should the same not apply here?

I also question the constitutionality of martial law, by the way.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25528 talk.politics.drugs:8029 sci.psychology:4851
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:01:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) says:

>Newfoundland has one of the highest umemployment rates in Canada and the US.
>I think it's greater than 20%.  It probably also has a low crime rate which
>is another rebuttal that crime is caused by poverty.

   What studies have been done on the correlation between racial/ethnic 
integration and crime?   It might seem that people would be more willing
to perpetrate crimes on "outsiders" to their ethnic group than on people
they identify with more.   Given this, a region or area with more of a mix
might have more crime than otherwise.

   Any ideas?

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pumphrey@falcon.nrl.navy.mil (Kenneth Pumphrey)
Subject: GUN CONDOMS
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Physical Acoustics, Washington, DC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:40:19 GMT

	A little thought (no puns please).  

			GUN CONDOMS

	O.K. I got your attention, here's the thought.  Instruction is 
given to children of all ages in SEX education.  Some school system and public
health systems have even given out condums.  The current politically correct
intent is to educate our children on various issues of family, birth control and
prevention of disease (AIDS,HIV transmision).  

	Now, we are breaking down the TABOO barrier of discussing outloud in
and in public the Nations' problem with sex and contracting AIDS which kills 
as effectley a guns in the long term.

	Educate our children on guns, and protecting themselves in handling,
confronting and finding.  Our education system is the perfect media.  Banning
has little if any affect, (i.e. don't have sex before marriage). Just simply 
stating "if you find a gun, find an adult" (I know a lot of adults that 
can't tell the differance between a crossbow and a squirt gun) is not enough.

	Distribute GUN CONDOMS educate your children and educate our future.


[O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O][O]
 All statement herein are mine not the Naval Research Labs. nor SFA Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take all credit for all of my statements and opinions (1st Admendment)
I retain the right to keep and bear arms (2nd Admendment)
I will do what I want, when I want, and how I want, as long as my wife gives
 me permission (Barbara's Admendment)
| "of all the works of mice and men..."| He who dives with the most Toys WINS!?|
 
Kenneth A.Pumphery
Sysmgr Manager
SFA Inc. @Naval Research Lab.
E-mail: Pumphrey@mrpf1.nrl.navy.mil
        Pumphrey@falcon.nrl.navy.mil
        Oper1@mrpf1.nrl.navy.mil


From: vlj@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Victor Johnson)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:33:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Organization: Dances with Hawks
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:

> This brings to mind (for no obvious reason) a discussion I had a few nights
> ago with an obvious -- shall I say it?  Ok.. the L-word... -- liberal who
> was trying to justify legalizing drugs to make the problem go away.  Somehow, 
> I still don't understand the exact case he made, he used the pro-gun reasoning
> to justify his position.  The basics were the belief that if you outlaw guns,
> only outlaws have guns, and the same thing applies to cocaine and other
> illegal drugs.  I was stunned, but after seeing Clinton elected, this was 
> by far easier to grasp, I had been immunized to such obvious stupidity.
> 
> My response was simple..  "I see no Right to Bear Drugs in the Bill of Rights,
> so I don't think the people can claim they have any SPECIFIC right to drugs.

  As other posters to this thread have eloquently pointed out, the
  Constitution and Bill of Rights only list a subset of your Rights, not
  all of them.

  To illustrate the point:

  "I see no Right to Procreate in the Bill of Rights, so I don't think
   the people can claim they have any SPECIFIC right to procreate."

  Most resonable people I know would agree that the absence of this Right
  in the Constitution/Bill of Rights does not mean that States or the
  Federal Government are free to create all manner of legislation to 
  regulate procreation as they see fit.

  Cheers,
  Victor Johnson
  --------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Toy guns
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:26:07 GMT


I am essentially a civil libertarian with anarchistic leanings so my
stance on weapons should be pretty easy to figure out.  However, I
feel that toy weapons are not a good thing.  Many of my friends are
surprized by this and perhaps rightfully so.  But they are even more
amazed when I tell them that I would prefer to give a youth a real
weapon (with the proper attention to maturity, training, etc.).

How say you all?
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Effectiveness of gun control
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:00:31 GMT

From Vol. 325 No. 23 of the New England Journal of Medicine:

"Effects of REstrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in
	the District of Columbia"

Abstract

Background

Whether restricting access to handguns will reduce firearm-related homicides
and suicides is currently a matter of intense debate.  In 1976 the District
of Columbia adopted a law that banned the purchase, sale, transfer or
possession of handguns by civilians.  We evaluated the effect of implementing
this law on the frequency of homicides and suicides.

Methods

Homicides and suicides committed from 1968 through 1987 were classified 
according to place of occurrence (within the District of Columbia or in
adjacent metropolitan areas where the law did not apply), cause
(homicide or suicide), mechanism of death (firearms or other means), 
and time of occurrence (before or after the implementation of the law).
The number of suicides and homicides was calculated for each month
during the study period, and the differences between the mean monthly
totals before and after the law went into effect were estimated.

Results

In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided
with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms ( a reduction of 3.3
per month, or 25%) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month,
or 23%).  No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides
or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar
reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and
Virginia.  There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other
methods, as would be expected in equally lethal means were substituted 
for handguns.

[The body of the study contains many graphs and tables documenting the
 claims above.  It also discusses why the intuitive idea that gun
 availability through the black market would render controls useless
 does not actually pan out.]

-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (William E. Sadler)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Organization: Georgia State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:56:32 GMT

alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

>  1. The BATF has the power to search any gun store without warning or
>     warrant.  For FFLs who work out of their homes (like the now-famous
>     John Lawmaster), the BATF can search your house in this fashion.
The BATF is not supposed to search except during your stated business hours.
They cannot, for instance, enter a retail operation when they are closed by
busting down the door unless they have a warrent.  They can search and request
records when you are open, however.

>  2. FFLs are required to account for every firearm in their possession
>     in their official records.  While it is (in most states) perfectly
>     legal for a private citizen to own a "paperless" firearm, it is
>     *not* legal for an FFL to own one.
This is incorrect, I believe.  I'm a FFL holder, and there is no requirement
for my personally owned firearms.  When I 'sell' myself a gun out of my 
inventory, the same records are kept as for anyone else.  Anytime I buy a gun,
if the conditions permit, I can do so as either an individual, into my private
collection, or into inventory, where it is the businesses property and is
tracked by FFL paperwork.

If you have any reference that indicates this is not so, I'd appreciate a
reference, because it is not my understanding.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 William E. Sadler          |       Internet : matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 Ga State University        |                : acmwes@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 M.S. Computer Science      |   Internet/CI$ : 71005.1241@compuserve.com
                            |            CI$ : 71005,1241
 (404) 413-1957             | Public Keys    : by request or
                            | RIPEM, PGP 2.0 : finger matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Flashlight bans discussusions in Detriot  (and you wants guns?)
Summary: saw this on Rec.martial-arts
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:45:56 GMT

Saw this over in rec.martial-arts.  Seems that you won't even be able to get 
a flashlight in Detroit, let alone a gun...

In article <1992Dec17.190309.22993@zip.eecs.umich.edu> lauren@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Brian T. Murray) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.235518.24589@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>> The CLUB is not a theft prevention device. It is a way to have a lethal
>> weapon handy while pretending it serves some legitimate function. Just
>> like those metal MAG-LITE flashlights.
>
>The trial of four police officers who beat motorist Malice Green
>to death with MAG-LITE-type flashlights is going on in Detroit right
>now.  There has been some discussion of regulating such flashlights here.
>
>-- 
>/***************************************************************
>* Brian T. Murray          |   LEARN something new every day   *
>*                          |   DO some good with what you know *                              ****************************************************************/
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom  Boxborough, MA   urbin@interlan.interlan.com   
These opinions are mine.  No one else will admit to them.	          
It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming mob pounding on a greasy spot 
on the pavement, where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:25:32 GMT

yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:

>On tpg it is frequently stated that fully automatic weapons are less
>than useful in a militia and that all one really needs is a semi-automatic
>weapon.  The only real use of a fully automatic weapon is to lay down a
>field of fire to suppress the enemy.  Fully automatic fire is difficult 
>to aim and that it only results in the waste of ammunition.

I'm not sure that you have the argument quite correct.  As I see it
there are two main points which have been raised to rebut the claims
of some anti-gunners that full-automatic fire is inevitably lethal:

1   In most conceivable scenarios where full-automatic fire is used
    (except for the area fire situation you mention) an _experienced_
    rifleman could achieve the same result with a semi-auto or in some
    cases even a bolt-action rifle with far lower expenditure of
    ammunition.

2   In the cases where there is a real need for full-auto fire, this
    can in practice _only_ be applied effectively by an experienced
    rifleman.

>I have come to question the veracity of the statements which purport to
>say that fully automatic weapons are not really all that useful.  I speak
>not from experience but from other data points.

I have no combat experience, but I have used both the FN 7.62mm and the
M16 5.56mm on the military range.  Obviously, the FN is only semi-auto;
with the M16, I don't think I ever succeeded in keeping more than 2 rounds
of a full-auto burst on a torso-sized target at 100 metres  -  and I am
an experienced target shooter!  Even the military guys spray the 
landscape as well as the target.

That is not to say that full-auto fire and burst fire don't have a
place in the military repertoire;  obviously, they do, but a full-auto
capability does not automagically turn a mouse into a lion.  Training,
experience and skill are the requirements.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns