HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:32:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep28.194112.23992@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
(Mr. X) writes:
>In article <2926687349.1.p00056@psilink.com> "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com>
>writes:
>>>	You IDIOT, don't you know ANYTHING?!  They call 911, of course.
>>>	The police will be there in a jiffy to thwart the evil criminal.
>>>	Sheesh, some people...
>>>
>>>	-Andy V.
>>
>>Hmmm to flame? Thats is the question, whether Tis be a satirical comment
>>by Andy V. or in truth he doth believe.. What the hell.. Andy V. do you
>>really believe that trash you've typed.. 
>
>	Does the Pope shit in the woods??!  Does a bear live in the Vatican??!
>	Of course NOT!  I was being SARCASTIC!  I case you have not noticed, 
>	or are fairly new to this group, I say LOTS of sarcastic things in
>	hopes of bringing to some form of light the sheer idiocy  and danger
>	that the Guv's War on Rights is.
[...]
>	So again, no I most certainly do NOT believe the trash I typed.  Nice
>	to see that you recognized it for the trash it was, though you lose
>	points for missing the sarcasm.

Just goes to show I'm right:

Draughn's Rule of Usenet Sarcasm:

     "No matter how obviously sarcastic your statement seems to you,
      someone somewhere will have witnessed that very thing stated
      in all sincerity and with great earnestness...and that person
      will flame you for it."

Be careful out there...
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
 
Q: What's the Saudi Arabian national anthem?
A: Onward Christian Soldiers.
-- Joke told by Gulf war soldiers, reported by P. J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Handguns 'n' Long guns (Was: Re: Libertarians, guns, etc.)
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 15:20:48 GMT

 >Mark Draughn wrote:
>Naturally, handguns are forbidden in Chicago.
>Hunting rifles are perfectly legal in Chicago.
>I think there are three basic reasons for this state of affairs: (1)
>Hunters have a better lobby than self-defense folks, (2) self-defense
>is often ignored as a reason to own a gun, and (3) gun control
>promoters tend to ignore the utility of guns and just focus on the
>negative aspects, so since handguns are used in more crimes, they are
>more heavily regulated.

 Actually Mark it's just a simple case of divide and conquer. If the 
antis went after long guns and hunters all of the target shooters 
selfdefense gun owners in short all gun owners would band together and 
the antis would loose. But they instead go after one typep of firearm at a 
time (handguns, semi-autos) and rely on the media to smoke-screen their 
real purpose and confuse those who would join the fight against them. 
 They tell hunters that they don't want to outlaw firearm that have a 
sporting purpose but they don't tell them that their firearms are next.
look at the animal rights activists and tell me they won't junp in bed with
HCI in a heartbeat. Because if they ban hunting then no one will need that 
high power bambi killer rifle.
 Our own senator Terry Sanford has sent me letters saying that he is not 
against hunting or people owning hunting weapons. Yet he has voted for 
every anti hunting and gun control bill, and against any pro hunting bill.
This is why the NRA finally gave him a F rating. If I remember correctly
the last time he ran he got an A from the NRA.     
   Myron Petro
  NRA, USPSA 


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Gun climate in Washington State
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:19:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.025429.26626@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>
>On the down side, class III weapons are banned.  And there is a five-
>day waiting period for people without a CWP.

According to the 1991 Machine Gun Dealers Bible in Washington machine
guns may not be privately owned, silencers are "restricted" (whatever
that means), other Class III weapons (short barrel rifle, short barrel
shotgun, "any other weapon", and destructive devices may be privately
owned.

I've read in Machine Gun News individuals in the Washington State
National Guard are able to privately own machine guns.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:06:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <83662@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> We've probably been talking at cross purposes.  The history of the 2nd was
> directly linked to attempts to limit the power of the federal government,
> even to outlaw a federal standing army in peacetime.  The compromise language that
> ultimately emerged was much stripped down in order to prevent the Antifederalists
> from losing everything.  There is little question that the "militia" mentioned
> in Article I was the same "militia" mentioned in the 2nd.  At least, in my
> mind.  It looks to me like some hair is being split here that I don't perceive
> yet.  As far as I can tell, the Antifederalists tried to use the 2nd as a 
> vehicle for cancelling out some federal powers in Article I, and they failed.

But given that you're such a big proponent of re-interpreting the
Constitution in light of the contemporary meaning of the words, perhaps
they DID succeed, and the language just hasn't evolved far enough yet.
Think about that while you're trying to sleep tonight.

> What kind
> of militia training do you envision for this militia and who should be 
> responsible for organizing it? 

What's wrong with us being responsible for organizing our own?  Are you
still waiting on the local parish priest to do it?

> One writer suggested that I "impeach" my
> governor.

Probably just on general principles.  Keeps 'em on their toes, etc.

> When I pointed out that the natural concept of
> a militia is that of an organization trained to military tactics, asking whose
> responsibility it was to guarantee that aspect of militia training, I was given
> the "impeach your governor" solution.

Ah, he IS responsible for guaranteeing it under the Constitution, as the
guy at the top who is nominally in charge of what goes on during his watch.
That's not to say that he's the only guy who can do it, or has the authority
to do it.  Anybody else who does it on their own is simply pulling your
governor's constitutional fat out of the fire.

> So now, apparently, you have built up in your minds that it is possible to
> resurrect the now-defunct concept of a "Minute Man" style of militia.)

Defunct, is it?  Consider your local police department.  Aside from the
fact that they are rarely capable of getting to the scene within a minute;
but then again, it was hyperbole in the Colonial days 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: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Cause and effect - (Was Re: Freaks And Self-Defense)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:02:27 GMT

In article <1aebi9INNsih@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen) writes:
> ...
>At historical-reenactment get-togethers such as the buckskinner rendezvous
>I mentioned, admittedly, most of the arms on site are black-powder...but
>they are still live, lethal firearms.  And I have never heard of anybody
>running amuck at such an event.

  Black-powder is OK, because the writers of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights knew about black-powder.  It is the modern, evil
"assault" powder - *smokeless* powder that is responsible for clouding
the mind, for people running amuck and for the destruction of the
ozone layer.

--henry schaffer
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 6 Oct 1992 13:49:58 CDT
From: Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting period == harassment
 <8110285@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> <1992Oct2.155109.10631@news.yale.edu>
 <1992Oct2.161640.12332@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>

In article <1992Oct2.161640.12332@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com
(John Kapson) says:
>Anybody in the Chicago area receive an FOID in under six weeks?
>
>John Kapson    NRA ILA

Does DuPage count?
My dad's was done in four, mine took six and I mailed mine a day after his.
What's the ILA and how do I join?

Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "I love my country,
SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |   it's my government I fear!"
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Armed bobbies in England
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:25:11 GMT

alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

>Everyone knows that many English police officers ("bobbies") are
>generally unarmed.  And everyone knows that the police have special
>teams of armed officers who respond to situations calling for lethal
>force.  But this past weekend I learned something new about the
>British system.

>It seems that these special teams are required by law to identify
>themselves by shouting "armed police!" rather than just "police!"
>when they encounter a suspect.

	Yes, that does indeed seem silly and counter-productive.  I
have a slightly different question, though, that I hope can be
answered in the same thread.  Whenever I see a movie or TV show that
was shot in Britain, the bobby (isn't that what they're called?)
pulls and blows a whistle while running off to chase down the Bad Guy.

	Of what use is a whistle?  A loud "Tweet!" doesn't appear to
be for much more than alerting other bobbies that a suspect is
afoot and quite probably running.  So, what is the number of bobbies
per square block, or per 50 meters, in London versus in New York?

	I've long been a fan of the beat cop, the guy walking around
the neighborhood and keeping an eye on things.  In America, the
vast spaces of the country have rendered this somewhat useless, or
so we are told.  I'm just wondering if Britain has more or less
police per block than the USA, and from there we can hopefully
argue the effectiveness and cost of such a system.

<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: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Alleged murder in Brattleboro VT
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


Last week there was an (alleged) murder in Brattleboro VT.

The story could be very lengthy, but I'll try to keep it short.

A woman left her boyfriend, and started a relationship with another woman.  
The spurned male made a bunch of threatening actions, and the woman went 
to the Windham County Sheriff's Office, where the woman was told that the 
police couldn't do anything until the guy actually _did_ something to her.

According to the woman's new lover, she was so sure this guy was going 
to kill her that she arranged for a burial place.

A few days ago, when the woman's girlfrined picked her up after work, they 
noticed that this guy was following them.  They drove around a bit, and 
then pulled into a gas station and asked the attendant to call the police 
for them.  At this point the man allegedly opened the car door and stabbed 
the woman repeatedly with a large knife.


I post this story as an example of situations when it would be nice
if the person being threatened had the option of buying a handgun 
without a waiting period.  I know this is anecdotal evidence, but a 
few months ago when I posted something supporting the idea of waiting 
periods, I was persuaded through e-mail (as opposed to the BS that was 
posted in response) that there are some situations when a waiting 
period would be a major problem.

I have no idea if the police recommended this woman arm herself, or 
if there is a waiting period of any kind in Vermont.

I just can't understand someone being so scared they're going to get 
hurt that they buy a funeral plot but don't buy a gun.  That man should 
have been dead the minute he touched the car door with knife in hand.

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov)
Subject: Re: A Case History of Newspaper Bias re: Firearms
Keywords: sensationalism slant
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:44:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.200235.25637@ncsu.edu> hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>  OK - this stuff gets more and more confusing.  Does any army use the
>AR-15 as a military weapon?  Is there any possibility that soldiers
>smuggled AR-15s into the U.S. from the Gulf?  Then there is the problem of 
>calling the AR-15 and the AK-47  "powerful".  
>
> ...
>  The AK-47 and the AR-15, a rifle that resembles the U.S. military's
>M-16, are not automatic weapons as the News & Observer reported
>Friday.  Both are semiautomatic rifles, which fire as quickly as the
>gunman can pull the trigger, while automatics fire repeatedly as long
>as the shooter holds down the trigger.


I had some experience with AK-47 (AKM to be exact), it has two positions
OO (_odinichnyi _ogon' - means single shots) and AO (_avtomaticheckii _ogon': -
means automatic).  The AKM is 7.62 mm against 5.65 mm (or so) of M-16.
The problem of AKM was that it was heavy and has an unnessary power, so
it was replaced by similar 5.65 mm AK-74. So, AKM is really POWERFULL.
I heard that you cannot be protected against AKM fire behind wooden logs.
I do not know about M-16.


-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:02:30 GMT


|	Vote a strait ticket?  Feh!  I'd rather eat a one-course meal
|or have to choose only one gun to use!  Single-issue voting is for
|those who can't evaluate the records of their congressmen.

It depends. In Chicago, voting a "straight ticket" i.e. Republican
simply ensures that you voted against every single friggin city
politician...

However, there are some exceptions which would cause me not to vote
a "straight ticket" currently. Chief among them is our Crook opps...
COOK COUNTY State's Attorney Jackass O'Malley (R) who is running
against Pat O'Conner. O'Malley is a 100% anti-RKBA ex-cop scumbag,
and I believe if we're going to have an anti-RKBA States Attorney,
we might as well make it a Democrat. That way, when next election
comes around, we can once again have a choice. There is no way in
hell that the Democratic Party in Crook County is going to run a
pro-RKBA candidate, so, the only way is to change the Republican
candidate.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:53:55 GMT

fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes:

>One of the things thats intriqued me is the method by which
>a criminal[Felon] can have his second ammendment rights amongst 
>others removed but still retain other rights. If I am correct
>a convicted felon looses his/her right to: Vote, Firearms,
>Property ownership, public office. Is this true or false.

	False.  A felon loses the right to vote and to firearm
ownership during incarceration in many instances (if not all), but
the former is returned upon leaving prison, and the latter can be
returned in cases of non-violent felonies.  The property ownership
and public office rights are never revoked that I know of.

>And if so where is it written that your constitutional rights
>can be revolked. 

	I believe that falls under protecting the general welfare,
thus a criminal isn't trusted with the weapons that serve for the
common defense or allowed to vote while incarcerated (again, I
believe there are some cases where voting is allowed, but this is
most likely a state-by-state thing or for certain elections).

<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: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
Date: 1 Oct 1992 08:06:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen) says:

>

>On a related note, I read above a post from someone in Iowa City who was
>angry at all gun owners because of Gang Lu's senseless rampage in Iowa
>City.  One question I have never heard these people even address, much less
>answer to anybody's satisfaction, is: if guns or other weapons _cause_ this
>sort of behavior, why is it unknown at gatherings, such as the SCA's
>Pennsic War, or "buckskinner" rendezvous, where everybody can be assumed to
>_be_ armed?

Pardon me for not being clearer here...at Pennsic, all firearms are banned,
although I know not whether it is because of Pennsylvania state law,
liability problems or just SCA policy.  However, most people on site are
carrying live steel, and there's always a lot of it around.

At historical-reenactment get-togethers such as the buckskinner rendezvous
I mentioned, admittedly, most of the arms on site are black-powder...but
they are still live, lethal firearms.  And I have never heard of anybody
running amuck at such an event.

Comments?  Flames?  Anything?
-- 
Note to the Constitutionally impaired:  "...the RIGHT of the people to KEEP
and BEAR arms..." means EXACTLY what it says!
Vote Libertarian, Grassroots, or any third party...the Demopublicans are a
bipartisan evil!        "Technomad"  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Dangerous legal precedent in Ma.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:11:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.073400.24130@cs.umb.edu> dd@ra.cs.umb.edu (Dave Dunbrack) writes:
>  As most Ma. residents know, the local chief of police is the issuing
>authority on handgun permits; but the courts can intervene if the chief
>acts in an "arbitrary" manner. Unfortunately, the system doesn't always
>work. Frank Campbell, a long-time member of Braintree Rifle and Pistol
>Club and Treasurer for the Painter's District Council 35 was denied 
>renewal of his permit for protection which he had been issued many times
>prior to this renewal. He took the case to court on the grounds that 
>Braintree's new police chief (Edward Flynn) arbitrarily denied him.
>A Quincy District Court judge (Lewis Whitman) said that while he felt
>that the license would be issued in any other city or town, he refused
>to over-rule the chief! Whitman was quoted in a local newspaper as
>saying, "All I'm being asked to do is substitute my judgement on behalf
>of the police chief's and that I will not do".

This is a very old legal precident: If an elected or appointed official
acts within his legal discretion, the courts will not over rule the
decision. They consider the way an official uses his discretion to 
be a political issue, not a legal one. If the police chief provided
any even vaguely reasonable reason for refusing the permit, the judge
might have concluded that it was not an "arbitrary" decision, and 
therefore none of his business.

Of course, this would mean a vague legal protection againes "arbitrary"
decisions would be almost meaningless. Therefore, I'd have to 
say such a provision would _not_ be an acceptable protection, should
someone suggest it as a part of a "reasonable" gun control law: The
limits on an official's discretion need to be clearly spelled out
to be meaningfull.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: robinson@knuth.mtsu.edu (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: Alleged murder in Brattleboro VT
Organization: Dept. of CS, Middle TN State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:24:39 GMT

In <1992Sep28.141920.871@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes:

>Isn't the funeral plot tax deductable ?
>In most cases stupidity is not treatable and less and less
>people are born with common sense.
>-- 

Wasn't it Robert Heinlein that said something like, 'stupidity, like
hemophilia, if left untreated is self-correcting.'  ?  (If anyone has
the exact quote, I'd appreciate it.)  

----------- 
DISCLAIMER: sorry, this is not intended to represent insensitivity toward
hemophiliacs... or stupid people, for that matter.  Any perceived slur 
regarding hemophilia is purely coincidental... anyway it wasn't me that 
said it... it was Robert Heinlein... or not...  and he's dead, anyway.  
Furthermore, any misquotations are purely accidental and not an attempt 
to commit academic or intellectual fraud, or misrepresentation in any
shape, form, or previous condition of servitude.  Any explicit apologies,
or other self-abasements that have been inadvertently omitted herein
will be supplied in excruciating detail upon request... or upon the
least hint that some previously unappreciated opressed minority group
may find gratification in my self-flagellation... Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Where's my hair shirt?

(can you tell that I work for a University? :-)  


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 David Robinson                         |   robinson@mtsu.edu
 Automation Librarian                   |   615/898-2572 (voice)
 Middle Tennessee State University      |   615/898-5551 (FAX)
 Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132          |   P.O. Box 13  (snail)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Once "feelings" are established as the barometer of acceptable behavior,
speech (and by extension, thought) becomes only as free as the most
sensitive group on campus will permit.           -- Charles Sykes