HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Beau Bridges, Jim Brady, and the Emmys
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:16:54 GMT

  The local newspaper TV & entertainment columnist noted that Beau Bridges
  made an impassioned plea for more "gun control" after the HBO special
  about Jim Brady (played by Bridges) won an Emmy.

  Anyone know what he said, and what the audience reaction was? 

  Of course, Sarah had poor ol' Jim there, to pull at the heartstrings of the
  Good Hollywood Liberals.


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20553 talk.politics.drugs:6134 alt.censorship:7358
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,alt.censorship
Subject: Libernet, an electronic digest and forum
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:12:34 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu

This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
(If you don't know what this means don't worry about it; nothing special
is required to receive batch mode messages).  These batches are published 
daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:21:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.041624.20987@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!manuel!sserve!ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!ghm
>From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
>Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
>Message-ID: <1992Sep2.041624.20987@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>
>Sender: news@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au
>Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
>References: <LAMBERT.92Aug27012957@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>        <1992Aug26.223723.10095@ms.uky.edu> <LAMBERT.92Sep1181500@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
>Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:16:24 GMT
>Lines: 91
>lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>
>>If you want to find out how often people stop crimes with guns there
>>are two obvious ways to find out.
>
>>1. You can ask people if they were victimized by a crime or an
>>attempted crime, and whether they stopped that crime with a gun.  This
>>what the NCS does, and gives rise to a an estimate of about 65,000
>>crimes stopped each year with guns.
>
>>2. You can ask criminals how often they were thwarted by armed
>>victims.  This is what Wright & Rossi did.  34% of the criminals that
>>they surveyed admitted this.  These criminals had an average of 10
>>prior arrests, so if the 34% who had been thwarted had an average of
>>two thwartings each, it would appear that being arrested is 15 times
>>as likely for these criminals as being stopped by an armed victim.
>>Combine this with about 988,000 arrests per year (this number from
>>Kleck's "Crime Control" paper) and we get a (very rough) estimate of
>>70,000 crimes stopped each year with guns.
>
>The extrapolation is a bit rubbery.  You're assuming, I think, that every
>crime results in an arrest, and I'd be very surprised if that were the
>case.  The important thing is not the number of arrests but the number
>of offences.
>
>Approach 1 also has a built-in bias, in that the person who illegally
>carries a gun for self-defence (and it's a sad fact that some people
>feel they need to break the law in order to ensure their survival) 
>will be less likely to report its use, even in a survey, and certainly
>not to the police.
>

I can speak in support of this.  I am directly aware of someone who has used 
a firearm twice in self-defense.  The first time was in Knoxville, TN, where 
it is a misdemeanor to carry "with intent to go armed."  He did not report 
this incident because it would have meant admitting to a misdemeanor 
himself.  The second incident was in NYC, the gun control capital of the 
East Coast.  There, it's a FELONY to be able to defend yourself.  Needless 
to say, he didn't report that one either.

[snip]
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Idaho was Premeditated Murder
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:27:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.larryd.715278478
Organization: University of Washington

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

[...]

>BTW, are we gonna talk about that fellow in Idaho and the government tactics
>used or is it considerd "OK" to hunt him down like a dog because he is
>a white supremist?

Well, so far they killed his dog, killed his 13 year old son (who was armed
at the time), and according to the account told to Gritz, shot and killed
his wife while she was standing in the doorway holding her 8 month old baby.  

The press description of the entire situation stinks.  I am beginning
to think we are witnessing political murders by the feds to cover up
the fact they have made a complete hash of the situation.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:04:22 GMT

In article <1751@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
|> Unfortunately, inside the front cover of this months _American Rifleman_
|> there is an ad from Ruger touting their Ruger Express turn-bolt rifle,
|> a 'nice' gun that someday will become a dreaded sniper rifle (or perhaps
|> it groups so loosly it will never make the definition).

	I laughed when I saw this ad yesterday.  

	"Every true hunter should own at least one rifle  
	 that is constructed without compromise." 

	Gee, I thought compromise/apeasement was Ruger's 
	middle name.  Or maybe they're trying to suggest 
	that Bill Ruger is uncompromising in his push for 
	a ban on "high capacity" magazines.  Sigh.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  A proper blessing for the Tsar:   
 kossack@rice.edu  |  "May The Lord bless and keep the Tsar   
  +1 713 240 2073  |                  ... far away from us!"
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:52:46 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <81248@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> In fact, it is the courts who decide what rights are yours and what rights have
> been ceded to government.  You don't have the right to interpret the law, 
> although you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what it means.  The
> right of interpretation is one right that clearly is ceded to the judiciary
> in the Constitution.

In fact, you DO have the right to interpret the law, if you are on a jury.

  John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in
  Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794:4., said: "The jury has a right to
  judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

  "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of
  both the law and facts." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme
  Court Justice, Horning v. District of Columbia, 138 (1920).

  "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
  - Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1796)

  "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to
  be decided." - Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice (1941)

  "The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of
  its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge ..."
  - U.S. vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20235 alt.politics.clinton:3238 alt.politics.bush:3175
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Attempt to Repeal NJ's Assault Gun Ban Dead
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:05:08 GMT

In article <92240.192447JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>   So after pouring money and volunteer hours into the Republican
>party for the past two years, New Jersey's gun owners have been
>screwed.   What should they do now?  Well for starters, they might
>vent their anger at former Gov. Tom Kean who is the Chairman of
>George Bush's reelection committee.  How about asking the Republican
>party to repudiate Kean and fire him from Bush's relection campaign.

How about organizing a rally to put 1000's of gun owners on the steps
of the State House.  The rally would conclude with each protester going to
the office of their representative and voicing their anger.  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:15:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175546.13885@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com
(Kirk Hays) writes:

> In article <81248@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
> (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> |> In article 3443@master.CNA.TEK.COM, richa@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM
> |> (Rich Amber) writes:
> |> >The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States DOES NOT
> |> >GRANT that right. The framers of the constitution felt that right was
> |> >given by God. We are born with a right to defend ourselves. The 2nd
> |> >simply guarantees that the Government cannot remove the right.
> |> 
> |> This is an important point and well worth remembering.  Our system
> |> of government
> |> is based on the idea that government has no intrinsic rights.  The
> |> people cede
> |> those rights to the government through the Constitution.
> 
> Still wrong - the government has neither "intrinsic rights", nor "ceded rights",
> but "granted powers."

Absolutely correct!

> A misunderstanding of this is behind many of the misconceptions expressed on the
> net of what our government can and should do.

Now boys and girls, open up your Constitution and see how many Federal laws
are being applied in excess of the powers granted to the Federal govt.  ;-)
(In particular, read the 9th and 10th Amendments).

> |> In fact, it is the courts who decide what rights are yours and what rights
> |> have been ceded to government.

This would imply that the government now has rights.  Only people have rights.

> |> You don't have the right to interpret the law, 
> |> although you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what it means.  The

But, the minute you sit on a Jury, and refuse to enforce a law based
on your *opinion* that the law is wrong, you have just *made law*.
(precedent plays an important role in court).

> |> right of interpretation is one right that clearly is ceded to the judiciary
> |> in the Constitution.
> 
> "Power of interpretation", not "right of interpretation."  Only people have
> rights.  And don't try that tired, old "courts are made up of people" argument.
> 
> Actually, juries have the power of nullification, as well, not just the
> judiciary, which can serve as an "all or nothing" interpretation of a law.

And thus, Juries have the power to interpret the Constitution (and the power
to refuse to enforce any law they find offensive).

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:40:29 GMT

In article <BtpHGy.7t4@wsrcc.com> wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:
>sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>As commonly used by our friend Colonel Cooper, a hoplophobe is one
>>who fears guns.
>
>And what does Cooper have to say about folks that hide behind aliases?

Unless I were on a police raid team invading someone's house, I'm sure
Mr. Cooper would affirm my right to privacy.

>You speak for a faceless nameless shadow that used to call itself "The
>Terminator" and now calls itself "The Rifleman".

Wow, what a caricature.  You must have too much free time if--not being 
able to criticize my political views or arguments against gun control--you 
must resort to name bashing.

You don't carry any weight with me.  Stay in school.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20328 soc.culture.french:6296
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Invitation to NRA Freedom Associates
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:42:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Aug27.011932.11330@uc.msc.edu> eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch) writes:
>previously meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) wrote
>
>"How?  Send ME your name and paper-mail address, and I'll (ahem) "nominate"
>you.  Or ask your local NRA member.  Or try calling NRA, at 800/368-5714.
>
>
>As much as I am in favor of ownership (legal or otherwise) of handguns and
>any other form of weapon, I've heard (and experienced) that the NRA isn't
>exactly a group of Rhodes scholars, if you get my meaning.  I called the
>number listed here, and got a voice mail system.  The voice mail system
>said to hit various keys if you have touch tone, or wait if you don't.
>Then (as I always do wait, rather than voluntarily enter a touch tone
>maze) it said "Sorry you are having problems, please call back later"
>and hung up.
>
>So then I called again, and entered 1 for annual membership renewal.
[bitch, bitch, ...]

So send _me_ your damn paper-mail address, and I'll hassle with NRA.
(Or isn't that really it ...?   :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: American Federation of Teachers on School Violence
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 16:00:34 GMT

skeeter@skatter.usask.ca writes:

>My understanding of the "Brady Bill" (named such to evoke sympathy for 
>Mr. Brady and his wife Sarah, founder of HCI.  THe sympathy is deserved,

 Sorry, but that is incorrect. HCI was founded by Edwin Wells (who retired
about 10 years early from the CIA to found HCI and NCBH) who grabbed
Pete Shields (whose son had been killed in the "zebra killings") and
made it look like Shields was the instigator (Wells dragged Shield around
Washington at first).

 In case you don't know, NCBH is the "National Coalition to Ban Hnadguns"
which has since changed its name...
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:59:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <PA142548.253.714853818@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu 
(T. Archer) writes:
>>Terminator/Rifleman who in the past has called me stupid, a communist,
>>and a hoplophobe.  
>       ^^^^^^^^^^  Was 'dat?

As commonly used by our friend Colonel Cooper, a hoplophobe is one who
fears guns.  

(I must say I'm not surprised to see that Lambert has taken it upon himself 
to never let the world forget I was "The Terminator".  Let those who
would discredit me know; I speak only for myself.)
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sunday, 23 Aug 1992 18:14:12 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject:    Police Vs Militia



 This is addressed primarily towards readers in Europe, or those knowledgeable
 in the history of recent western civilization, mainly of the Americas, in-
 cluding the United States.

 We omit the summary of events leading to the present;  but are interested
 in similarities between events in both communist/socialist countries as well
 as those practicing dictatorships and some formsof free governments which seem
 to parallel events in the United States.

 The focal point rests in the disarmament of the state organized militia
 (California National Guard) by their officers during the recent Los Angeles
 riots.  Please ignore the actions of the unorganized militia.

 Can anyone remember when a "state" organized militia has been disarmed by
 leader/officers, during a crisis in which they were supposed to help
 the "state" police, yet in which the police were NOT disrarmed.

 Please cite motives for this preferencial treatment, even if the motives
 are "possibilities", or suspicions.  Try to state BOTH sides of the
 situation.  Relate this to the country or state's Constitution, if applic-
 able.  State who was found responsible for the decision.

 Did/does this disarmament indicate/precede a "policy" shift by the federal
 government.  What are/were the consequences of this action and policy shift;
 as far as the nation/state was concerned, and as far as the President/Dicta-  /
 tor/etc. was concerned ?

 Thank you.
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:49:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.031022.5501@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:
>Here we go for another round. Sorry folks, but hard as I try, I can't help
>Mr Nosy, I saw an ad for a M16 in a Alaskan newspaper. Maybe this is
>a felony if I decide to buy it without going through all the process 
>that you describe, but the fact is: I can buy it if I want to.

We still don't know that it really was a full-auto weapon.  (The
seller can say anything he wants in an ad; the buyer can't complain if
it turns out to be a semi-auto only gun.)  We also don't know whether
or not the SELLER was going to follow the law.  If the seller is, it
doesn't matter what the buyer wants.  If the seller isn't, the law
doesn't matter....

In other words "I can buy it if I want to" may not be true and "it"
may not be a full-auto weapon.

I've got a special offer for anyone who insists that "M-16" in an
advertisement means "machine gun"; I'll sell an "M-16" for $100, no
questions asked and cash only.  (I will mail, but will charge extra
for non-US addresses.)  Any takers?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: Guns BANNED in Canada
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:03:42 GMT

In <1992Aug25.152914.21106@ncsu.edu> edhresko@hresko.EOS.NCSU.EDU (ERIC DAVID HRESKO) writes:

>.....
>	o Heckler and Koch (HK) Model G11 and variants
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
>.....

>	Do they really mean the G11.  Or do they mean HK91, etc?  Is this a typo
>or are there really lucky souls running around in Canada with G11's?  Also,
>there are no variants that I know of, except for HK's bid for the US ACR.  

The handout says H&K G11 (I double checked). 
I have not heard of anybody having one, or of one being used 
in a criminal offence. But Justice Minister Kim Campbell saw
a picture of one once, and decided it must be banned.


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:27:58 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 3443@master.CNA.TEK.COM, richa@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Rich Amber) writes:
>The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States DOES NOT
>GRANT that right. The framers of the constitution felt that right was
>given by God. We are born with a right to defend ourselves. The 2nd
>simply guarantees that the Government cannot remove the right.

This is an important point and well worth remembering.  Our system of government
is based on the idea that government has no intrinsic rights.  The people cede
those rights to the government through the Constitution.  The ideal, however,
does not always fit well with reality.  Some argued against the Bill of Rights
on the grounds that it made the Constitution look like it was granting rights
that the people already possessed.  In hindsight, the Bill of Rights appears to
have been necessary.  It is possible to interpret the Constitution in such a 
way that too much power is ceded to government.  The Bill of Rights provides 
leverage against government encroachment, although it doesn't always work out
in practice.

>And those of you who worry the militia phrase to death, the founders
>intended to preserve RKBA because a militia is necessary to keep the
>federal government from becoming tyranical (like the English king - which
>was the legal federal government at the time).

I disagree with the idea that the supporters of the original amendment all 
had the same interpretation of it.  Nevertheless, the language of the amendment
refers to the security of a "free State".  Does that mean "independent" state or
"democratic" state?  My guess is that the overriding concern of those who 
ratified it was foreign invasion, although I have no doubt that *some* of its
supporters had your interpretation.  Don't forget that everyone supported the
right of the US government to put down insurrection, rebellion, and rioting.

>We keep and bear arms because that's our God-given right. And because
>a militia (which every male in this country is part of, like it or not)
>is necessary to the continued freedom of the states, the federal government
>may not remove that right without recinding the 2nd Amendment. Period.

In fact, it is the courts who decide what rights are yours and what rights have
been ceded to government.  You don't have the right to interpret the law, 
although you are certainly entitled to your opinion of what it means.  The
right of interpretation is one right that clearly is ceded to the judiciary
in the Constitution.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA