HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Burglars, selfdefense & guns
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:49:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes 

>(Clinton would NEVER use
>anti-firearm proposals as a rallying call unless he were quite sure
>a large section if not the majority of the pop. would back him up no?)

Democratic Presidential candidates are not known for being especially bright
( is any politician? ). Dukakis tried this and we all know what happened to him.


>how do you justify your HAVING or being FORCED to invoke your right to 
>defend yourself by shooting dead some poor kid who breaks into your home
>to get a few bucks to buy his next shot?

The reason that someone is in my home is irrelevant. It's my home, dammit, those
are my bucks Dammit, and that person does not follow my directions to paste 
their face to the floor ( if I'm feeling safe enough to not shoot first 
and ask later ) DAMMIT, I will liberally apply deadly force until I feel that
there is no longer any threat. 

I am under no obligation to check an intruder's legal, social, medical, 
or any other status. Besides, one of the last things I want is some
unstable junkie in need of a fix to come visit'n. More dangerous than 
your average burglar I suspect.


Interesting note, my spelling checker does not recognize Dukakis as legitimate
( heh-heh-heh ) and suggests *Ducks* instead.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:03:15 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>In article <4400218@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
>(Rick Bressler) writes:

>Just a question here, was Tony trained with the MP5?  If not, why would
>they put a machinegun in his hands?  An inexperienced officer with a
>machinegun, and innocents to protect... (or for that matter, why do
>so even with an experienced officer?).  Why not a handgrenade?  (just
>being ridiculous, guys...).  A machinegun doesn't seem a logical choice
>for targeting, and stopping single targets... Too much chance of spraying
>around the room, and hitting non-combatants.  Something seems funny here.
>I think a semi-auto carbine would be a more reasonable weapon.  Any ideas?

Machine guns are good tools for getting rid of witnesses to
"mistakes".
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
gonnabees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:10:58 GMT



This reminds me of an old Matt Helm novel by Donald Hamilton (the novels
are very different and quite a bit better than the movies with Dean Martin
playing the lush secret agent).

There was a reference to the Kent State episode where some students were
killed by the Ohio National Guard unit sent there to "restore order" in
the face of one of the demonstrations typical of the era.  The Matt Helm
character says (approximately):

	When an armed force authorized by the government goes on a
	college campus and fires 100 rounds of live ammunition, there
	are exactly two acceptable results: (1) there should be 100 bullet
	holes in rioting students, or (2) there should be 100 bullet holes
	in trees.  Any other result suggests the soldiers simply couldn't
	be bothered to notice where their guns were pointing when they
	pulled the triggers.

Donald Hamilton is hardly in the bleeding liberal camp on "law 'n order"
issues.  His opinions here match mine.

All the discussion about how easy it is to pull the trigger under stress
just don't cut it.  If all this is known, why aren't the SWAT-persons
properly indoctrinated with the "KEEP YOUR F**KING FINGER OUT OF THE
TRIGGER GUARD" technique?  Even better, why don't the officials who order
these raids stop and ask themselves "does this situation *really* justify
the use of this kind of force at this stage?".

Any other result suggests those in charge simply can't be bothered to
worry about the innocent citizens they "serve and protect".
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx09.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: General Population
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:33:32 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug11.194850.23398@wts.com> jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)  
writes:
> In article <1992Aug7.232401.8127@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com  
(Don Baldwin) writes:
> >
> >Considering that about half the households in the US are believed to  
have
> >guns, and that a lot of people believe in RKBA but don't own any, I'd  
say
> >we're in the majority.
> >
> You are incorrectly assuming that the households who have guns all favor
> RKBA.  Some of the most vocal opponents of gun ownerships own guns  
themselves.
> Carl Rowan springs to mind....
> 
> Jens Fiederer

There is also a tendency for gun owners to only feel protective
about the guns they own and the reasons for ownership which
they hold.  This apparent fact is one reason why gun control
advocates always target (often arbitrarily defined) classes of
firearms for control or banning.  They know that large numbers
of rifle and shotgun owners will stand aside when they try to
ban handguns.  They know that skeet, trap, and sporting clay
shooters will often not oppose a ban on semi-automatic military
look-a-likes.

This is why it is so important if you are a pro-RKBA activist to
let all your firearm owning acquaintances know about Rep. Major
Owens' (D-NY) resolution to repeal the 2nd Amendment and other
broad firearms control proposals.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:48:51 GMT

In article <1288@pdxvme.pdx.csd.mot.com>, brian@pdx.csd.mot.com (Brian Vandewettering) writes:
>In article <14106@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>
>>Hmmm. Did they have rocket launchers and semi-automatic rifles when the
>>second amendment was passed?  Just wondering?
>
>No, they didn't have these items.  However, they did have rifled muskets 


	As a matter of fact, they did have, and also used, Rocket launchers.
	As for Semi-Autos, if you expand the definition to include small
	arms that fire more than once without reloading, yes those were
	used at the time.
-c
-Chris L
*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 
* Remember, only mere mortals need sleep!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:24:38 GMT

smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:

>cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes...
>>(James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>>...
>>>	As for the rights/need argument.   Rights are the things you
>>>don't have to justify with "need".  When a police officer wants to look 
>>>around in your house w/o a warrant, you don't say no because you "need" 
>>>privacy, you say no because it is your house.  
>> 
>Doesn't this sound like
>>you've got something in your place that you don't want the authorities
>>to see? look.. i plan on signing on with my country's police force
>>next time. and it's RIGHTS like this that would make my job of keeping
>>the peace and ensuring public safety more DIFFICULT than it already is.

>You seem to have the police-state mentality that many police have.

>Rights! 
>What rights? !
>I don't need no damn rights!
 then why do i feel more free than you? why do i have less problems with
my own security and trust in my govt than you? it could be that singapore
has a proven track record for peace , growth and all round stability but
i'm sure you chalk it all up to propaganda and how we MUST actually be poor
starving , oppressed , ignorant and mislead as compared to you eh? 
>:-(
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:28:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Robert M. Straubinger writes:
>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>
>>In a letter to the editor from Lisa Catapano, managing director, NAMES Project
>>Foundation came this reply to the ad:
>>
>     [deleted quote stating that the NAMES project is in no way
>      affiliated with "Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation"]
>
>What is the position of 'the AR movement' on "experimentation on animals to
>find a cure for AIDS" ?
>
>Bob Straubinger 

There are many voices to the "movement", thus no one position.  The one I
take is to invest heavily in education so that transmission can be prevented.
IS there anything wrong with this approach too?

Rob U, there are many diseases that animal experimentation hasn't cured too
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett)
Subject: Re: Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) & 2nd Amendment
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:03:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.023746.23113@news.cs.indiana.edu>,
	Paul Hager <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:

> For the record, it is my view that the federal government has no
> constitutionally delegated power to regulate citizens' access to "arms"
> but that individual states do.  I have no reason to assume that my 
> view will prevail with the commission nor do I assume that my position
> will remain unmodified -- e.g., I used to be an ardent gun controller
> but found that position to be intellectually unsupportable and
> abandoned it.

Do individual states have a right to regulate religion, free speech,
the press, or free assembly?

Do individual states have a right to quarter soldiers in their
subj^H^H^H^H er, citizens' homes?

Do individual states have the right to make warrantless searches?

I hope you see the progression here.  To put it another way, is tyranny
at the state level any more acceptable than tyranny at the federal level?
Does not *all* government in these parts derive its powers from the
consent of the governed, and is not the keeping and bearing of arms
relevant to preserving that relationship?

The ACLU fights to keep the state out of the religion business.  Even
when the religion in question is popular and inoffensive.  *And it should*.

It fights to defend outrageous and offensive speech, by groups and
individuals it deems odious.  *And it should*.

It fights to exclude evidence seized in warrantless searches, even
when that evidence shows that the searchee really is guilty.  *And it should*.

It fights to maintain the privacy of individuals, even when they are
doing things the government doesn't want them to do.  *And it should*.
(Hint: the third amendment isn't about balancing the Army's budget.
Troops were quartered in the homes of dissident colonists as a way
of suppressing undesired activity.  No privacy.  No subversive activity.)

It *ought* to fight to allow peaceable citizens to keep and bear the arms
they would need should they ever have to take power back from an
oppressive government.  "Sporting purposes" is not a relevant test.
Look at the histories of organizations like the CIA, FBI, IRS, and BATF.
Look at the invasive nature of our present-day government.  Look at the
precedents being set down in our courts that condone kidnapping, torture,
warrantless searches, and forfeiture of assets without trial or charges.
Look at the NSA's insistence that using codes that they cannot easily
break be considered a crime.  Look at the FBI's insistence that the
next generation of phone technology be *designed* to facilitate
tapping any connection from their offices and under their control.
Then try to tell me, with a straight face, "it can't happen here".

A little bit of subversion is a necessary ingredient of a properly
functioning democracy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:24:49 GMT

	If someone in a mask, or a police uniform for that matter, busts into 
	my house, they will probably not leave the premises vertically.  I
	will probably make their wives widows and their kids very unhappy and
	I will not be glad about that at all, but I will NOT submit to such
	treatment under any circumstances.  I will shoot whomever I feel I
	must and I will not miss.  If they cannot or will not do the job in
	a correct manner, then let them die, one by one.  To hell with them
	and their miserable, corrupt lives.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:53:46 GMT

 
 Pat Weber wrote :
>Rememebr PUSH in Philadelphia? 
 Don't you mean MOVE? That was the group that all took the same last
 name "Africa" 
 They were burned out after one of them killed a Philly cop, and refused
 to surrender to police.
 The cops weren't stupid enough to charge them. They just surounded them
 and a tear gas canister just happened to start the building on fire.
 (If you believe that I have some fine New Jersy swamp land for sale)


    Myron
  NRA, IPSC


 *************************************************************************
 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19390 talk.rape:2189 rec.martial-arts:11142 misc.consumers:15262
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Want to put together a collection of info on NEJM "study"
Keywords: new england journal of propaganda
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:16:04 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

For the anonymous ftp rkba archive Karl Kleinpaste and I maintain
I want to put together a collection of articles on the New England
Journal of Medical Propaganda Seattle/Vancouver study.

I currently have the article "Guns and Sputter" by James Wright,
and an open letter from Blackman to the NEJM, and an old post by
David Chesler which he reprinted from "The Message" of Feb. '89,
and some demographic stats recently posted by Dean Payne.

If you have anything else which could be added to this subject
please send it to me.

Thank you,
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Rock Island & Dalton Cases
Date: 21 Aug 1992 00:30:47 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug20.110330.24652@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>      I see it as stating flatly that the [federal] government has
>NO "enumerated power" or constitutional basis to register guns;
>any guns. It states that the only reason the government ever could
>register machine guns was because it taxed them; in the absence
>of any statutory taxing scheme on machine guns, the government is
>powerless to regulate them! 

Not exactly: According to Rock Island, the federal government may only
regulate firearms when doing so is "necessary and proper" to help
enforce some other, enumerated power (e.g. specifically granted in
the Constituion. The "necessary and proper" part is also a clause
from the Constitution.) Taxes are one of these enumerated powers,
and the government can regulate firearms to assist in collecting
such a tax (ignoring possible conflicts with the Second Amendment.)

However, taxes are, by no means the only enumerated power that 
could be used as an excuse for a federal gun control law. The 
authority to regulate interstate commerce, for example, has been
streched to inculde almost anything over the last century.

These recent rulings say, basically, that Congress must make _some_
excuse for gun control laws and at least pretend to follow the
Constitution. In the case of the 1986 machine gun ban, Congress
forgot this and, essentially, got cought in a lie. However, the
rulings are not really a barrier to future laws: They just mean
that Congress must be a little more carefull drafting such laws.
(Although they may cause alot of trouble for the machine gun ban...)

					   Frank Crary
					   CU Boulder
					   (even though I'm
					   still posting from
					   my UC Berkeley account...)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:05:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <71480@apple.Apple.COM>, earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
> Let's say the chief says the buyer is a bad guy and stops the sale of the gun.
> Is there any "punishment" of the chief if he lies?  Does the chief has to
> prove the buyer is bad or can he just say "he's bad" and thats it?  How many
> times do we see someone in these higher offices doing something that is
> outright criminal, but they never get punished because of the "wording of
> the law"?

This is really off the subject originally raised.

I don't see why a chief who falsely and maliciously tells a gun dealer
that someone is a felon should be any more or less at risk than a
chief who tells ANY third party falsely and maliciously that someone 
is a felon.  The same remedies are available to the victim in both
cases, under an entirely separate law.
-- 

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:28:58 GMT

From article <hv+yf3l@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
> Ferrell, let me say that I bear you no malice.  I don't give a damn
> what you post and where you post it.  I'm not trying to be net.police
> or anything.  However, I do consider it to be rude for you to drop
> your propaganda and not reply to any followups, since t.p.a is a
> debating forum.
>
>      However, let me say that it's indeed nice for you to say that you
> will stop posting here based upon a democratic vote.  That strikes me
> as a very fair offer on your part, and I respect you for it.  And just
> to keep you honest, how about if everyone sends *me* a carbon copy of
> their vote?  That way I can make sure that your calculator didn't
> accidentally have a power surge or something. ;-)

I've sent my comments to Farrell, but I didn't send you a carbon 
copy.  Farrell's free to decide for himself whether to keep my 
message private or to share it with others, including you.  He's 
also free to decide for himself what he will or won't post, just 
as the rest of us are entitled to decide, as individuals, what we 
will or won't read.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:09:38 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Aug13.212521.42344@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.e
du (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>If ever you get over your basic cowardice and foolishly decide to challenge me
>just give me a call.  My number is in the book.  If would give me something to
>do besides sit here trying to find a way to penetrate into the iota of brain
>tissue inside the sponge that must fill your skull.


I've been hooked up to this network for about 6 months now, and this is the
first time I've seen offered a challenge to another to a physical fight!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.politics.guns
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:53:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.011514.883@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>
>Rob U, is jacklighting an ethical hunting practice?
>
>p.s.  My high school was Benson High and our mascot was the "Bunnies", and,
>      yes, I have hugged a few in my days.......
>--
>-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
>-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
>-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
>-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -

Using lights is both legal and accepted when hunting racoons in SC
since most racoon hunting is done at night. Also, the state will 
issue permits to farmers whose crops suffer excessive damage from
deer which allow deer to be harvested out of season. This is usually
done at night with spotlights. I don't guess this could really be
considered hunting, though.
 Florida allows spotlights to be used by hunters to locate alligators
during the night since they are mostly nocturnal. So, I guess the
answer to your question is both yes and no and depends on the exact
situation. 

Keith

-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: 2 questions for the AR types
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:42:49 GMT

Somebody named SK writes:

[reams of stuff deleted]
>	a.  hunters often cite the use of animal products by 'indians' but
>            *rarely* live a lifestyle that shows the same respect for animals
>            or environment (this is true of most americans today, but hunters
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>            are pegged because 'indian' reference is often used as a defense
>            of their actions)

Mighty big of you synthetic-garment-loving AR folk to include
yourselves in these ranks.  Proof once again that no matter what is
discussed, some folks just don't [want to] get it.


>SK (one more for the Earth)
>skeating@titan.colorado.edu


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--