HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:14:01 GMT
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club

In article <1992Jul27.221906.29016@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>I'm less than overwhelmed by your crackpot-oriented argument.
>We're talking about 2555 days = 7 years here, not 30 days.
>Read the whole post again or "sit down and shut up," as the fearful
>leader says.

Touchy, aren't we?  Let's look at the whole picture.  Since the
passage of the (in)famous Gun Control Act of 1968, people MUST
buy their firearms within their state of residence.  Thus,
Californians MUST buy handguns in California.  If waiting
periods are so effective at stopping crime, then why hasn't 
California, or any state that has a waiting period, shown
a reduction in crime?  Waiting period supporters typically
"sit down and shut up" themselves when hit with this question.
Kinda negates the whole argument, huh?  Why worry about upping
it from 15 to 30 days when OUTRIGHT BANS can't do anything
to stop crime either?

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18157 alt.individualism:4693
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A Waiting Period for Free Speech
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:56:42 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Jul28.124824.4713@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:

>Imagine the FBI staking out restroom stalls to make sure that no
>malcontents wrote on the stall wall without a permit? :0)
>
>Not to mention "drive by" writings on concrete walls with spray
>paint........

Maybe we're going about it all wrong.  What has been discussed so far 
relates to allowing people to speak with whatever weapons ... er, 
communication tools they wish to use.  The real culprits, however, are not 
writing implements, word processors, or a wagging tongue -- they're words 
themselves.  Perhaps if we were to ban certain words (words of the 
"Saturday Night Special" variety), we can protect society!  If we ban 
certain words, we don't have to worry about them ever being used!  As an 
added bonus, we could get rid of certain concepts; if the words don't 
exist, the concept cannot survive.  Then, people would be "free" to say 
whatever they wanted to say!  (Imagine if we were to ban the word 
"freedom".)

[By the way, I realized that I was using an idea used by George Orwell in 
"1984", the idea of doublethink.  I was originally thinking of our 
contemporary "political correctness" when I started this posting.  BUT 
DOUBLETHINK COULDN'T HAPPEN IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY ... COULD IT?!]

"[T]hinking, to be valid, must adhere to reality." -- Leonard Peikoff

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY VIEWS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:35:02 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul27.175025.173@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
>Man is inherently wicked and prone to sudden acts of random violence against 
>his neighbor...a puny wimp with a small dick feels macho when he has a steel
>rod that can spit fire and deal death in his hands.  It takes *more* guts to 
>love your neighbor than 2 pull the trigger and end his life in a splattering
>of blood and spongy grey matter. A smoking hole in a shattered skull is *no*
>way to solve diplomatic problems. Most of your gun-owners have no brains and
>therefore are incapable of settling their differences with another using (of
>all things!) civilized discussion. They'd rather blow the opposing fucker a-
>way and end the matter right then and their. They do love to play Rambo with
>their big guns. If only their brains were that size. Not to mention genital-
>reproductive organs. If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
>and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with 
>each other. Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.

And perhaps winged monkeys will fly out of my butt!!!

Get real, you hippie, guns and the technology required to produced them
are here to stay.  Guns equalize physically unequal people and preserve
law and order.  Every person has an inalienable right to self-defense,
and the most efficient means of self-defense.

>Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns. 
>
>So get rid of yours today.

Ok, I'll get rid of my *flowers*.

>Peace!

Have a nice acid trip.

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

   "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
                          --Thomas Jefferson

   "God made man; Samuel Colt made him equal."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA (was ACLU & 2nd)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:34:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.042056.29141@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

>In article <22JUL199211573854@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>>djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes...
>>> ...
>>>What percentage of eligible people actually vote in US elections? 
>>
>>I think somewhere between 50-60%
>>
>>Here it is
>>>about 98%, 
>>
>>I find that number extraordinary.  This figure is more typical in 'democracies'
>>where voting is enforced by the gov.

>Yep, we have compulsory voting. A nominal fine is applied to those who do not
>vote and do not have a good 'reason' for not voting. This is enforced by our
>constitution and executed by a government department. It results in a greater
>interest in the political future of the country. Contitutional changes are 
>almost impossible to pass (historically) because of a conservative nature and
>the compulsory interest in making any change.
>Do you have a problem with this system? You can always vote informal if you
>don't like any of the candidates.

>DJ...

I don't like it.  If you don't want to vote, the government has no business 
forcing you to.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Compromise?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:22:27 GMT


I propose the following compromise with the gun controller community;
they assert the "wrong people" are getting their hands on guns and
too soon:

WAITING PERIOD:

For a 24-hour waiting period we get rid of the 16" barrel restriction
on rifles.

For a 72-hour waiting period we get rid of the 18" barrel restriction
on shotguns as well.


BACKGROUND CHECKS:

For an in-depth police background check without fingerprints,
we get a national concealed weapon permit.

For an in-depth police background check with fingerprints, we get
unrestricted access to Class 3 weapons.


FOID:

We get mail-order of firearms by sending the firm a xerox copy of
the FOID.

These "compromises" gives the anti-gunner what they claim they want,
and gun owners will have a visible difference in what they can do.

What say? Anyone in for a "Compromise?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Jul29080532@gauss.nmsu.edu> <archer.222@utkux1.utk.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:33:43 GMT

<In article <archer.222@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
   In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul29080532@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wr<ites:


<   >       Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
<   >       a lock pick or a pipe wrench?

<   That depends on how quiet you want to be and how big the pipewrench is!  :)

	The word "quiet" is not in the question.

	The answer is: "For the average house door, a standard
	pipe wrench will rip even a deadbolt out".

	So add "pipe wrench" to the list of "burglar tools" 
	that you are so intent on banning...

	Or perhaps we could agree that "direct crime control" should
	be more concerned with INDIVIDUALS who commit crime than
	with inanimate objects?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:26:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.230811.6473@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <l711q3INNs65@male.EBay.Sun.COM> davebe@vicenza.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>>	What if the "gun-control" types follow your line of reasoning and decide
>>to extend the waiting period to 6 months, a year, a decade, etc.  Would you then
>
>This is not hypothetical. The editor of the San Jose Mercury News
>has printed that he wants a waiting period of 70 years. I have
>it in black and white.
>
>Now you know where the waiting period people and the media is
>coming from.

I think it's useful to differentiate those who wish a short waiting
period for "cooling-off" or whatever else from a bona fide crackpot
who happen to edit a small-town newspaper.

Get real.  Nobody important has ever really proposed waiting periods
this long.  It's like quoting the Klan on civil rights and saying,
"now you know where the whites are coming from."


-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Firearm availablity and the canadian crime rate
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:48:57 GMT

In article <archer.171@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>That is correct.  Canada also has a lower auto theft rate, a lower assult 
>rate, and a lower rape rate.  She is blessed with a more law-abiding, less 
>violent people.

Canada has a higher rate of burglaries committed where the homeowners
are present in the home than in the US.  Why might that be ?  If the
burglars were less violent why would they risk an encounter with a
homeowner ?  Do they like violence or do they just feel less risk in
entering into a Canadian home ?
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:04:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington) writes:
>
>alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>Stolen guns will be discovered through a police check and returned
>>to their proper owners.  All other weapons will be destroyed.
>>Individuals surrendering guns under this program may remain anonymous
>>if they choose, and will be issued letters of amnesty from the King
>>County Prosecutor's office for any crimes involving the illegal carry
>>of a weapon, or of receiving stolen property.
>>
>>The operation is being run privately due to a Washington State law
>>which specifies that confiscated guns must be sold by auction; since
>>the planners of this buy-back wish to destroy them rather than selling
>>them back into circulation, they are running the operation through a
>>private group and avoiding government participation.
>
>How is a private group going to get police checks?

Actually, there is a telephone number that *any* citizen can call to
ask the police whether a gun is stolen -- I know several people who
have used this service before purchasing a used gun that seemed too
cheap.  I don't know whether "Stop the Violence" is using this same
phone number, or whether they have some special arrangement due to
the large number of weapons which will (presumably) be involved.
But the service is indeed available to all of us.

>How does a private group give offical amnesty?
>Is this a strawman transaction to get around a state law the gun-grabbers hate?

Sort of.  The city government would probably do the same thing
themselves if they could, so in a sense, "Stop the Violence" is
a front for the government.  But they are still a private group,
and they must raise their own money to support this operation
rather than using public (taxation) funds -- a nontrivial
distinction.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: schuette@roadkill.nrl.navy.mil (Larry Schuette)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:06:47 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Physical Acoustics, Washington, DC

Henry E. Schaffer writes --->
>  I just have trouble understanding how the police could possibly
avoid trying to trace guns confiscated from criminals.  If they
find these in NYC, find that they were originally sold in VA -
why wouldn't they talk to the original VA purchasers and try to 
find out where the guns went from there?  The excuse "It's hopeless
because of strawmen." just sounds much too feeble to me.  If the
problem is that they just don't try, then I can't imagine any new
law working either.
>


Recently (last year), a VA resident was arrested for acting as a strawman
for 32 handgun purchases.  One of the guns was used in a drive by shooting
that killed a Washington D.C. resident (single mother of 2 children).
Interestingly, the strawman was convicted of 32 counts of purchasing a 
firearm for others (what is the exact crime, on this bulletin board I hesitate
to say exactly, knowing lots of corrections will be posted).  The
point is 32 weapons violations.  What is the correct sentence for this?
6 months in jail is what he received.  It seems if you are a drug user and
feal threatened, you're allowed to be a strawman.

The killer was just recently given the usual 20 year sentence, the ex-strawman
is now finished his sentence.

What is the point having laws on the books if the judge (nonjury) is not
going to use them?  I know I feel better with the law being exploited to
the fullest to keep us safe.

Larry
From: shibumi@joes.garage.com (Kenton A. Hoover)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Russia -- Land of Paradise for Progunners???
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:57:25 GMT
Organization: Joe's Garage, San Francisco, KA


In the August 1992 "The American Spectator" (pgs 46-47), there is a short 
item on firearms rights in the CIS.  Apparently, sometime before the end of 
the summer, the Russian parliament will be considering a bill on the private 
ownership of weapons.  Crime has been exploding in Russia, so fast that they 
can't import enough mace to keep up with demand.  So, the Ministry of Internal 
Affairs and the parliament will be arranging for the population to purchase 
firearms for self-defense, once the bill passes.  Boris Yeltsin has already 
signed an emergency decree allowing private detectives and security guards
to carry guns.



| Kenton A. Hoover                                                            |
| P.O. Box 882643                                             +1 415 957 3614 |
| San Francisco, Kalifornia 94188-2643                shibumi@joes.garage.com |
|==============442.075+100=146.850+=444.625+131.8=440.900+114.8===============|
|            Ain't nothing in the world like a black skinned girl             |
|            Make your shakespeare hard and make your oyster pearl            |
|                                           "Omnibus", XTC                    |
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:34:57 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

>Please explain why it is that the right to freedom to associate does NOT
>confer the privilege of driving as a means of exercising that right (driving
>being the most efficient way for the average person to get around to 
>associate with others);

Walking doesn't require the use of any public facility, while driving
must generally use and wear a public resource.  In addition, when
a vehicle is operated on public roads, it inherently is operated--as a 
matter of course and certainty--in close proximity to other private
citizens.  Thus, it is very probably that if you drive on public roads,
you will operate your vehicle near someone else.  

>yet the right to self-defence confers the privilege
>of owning and using a firearm (it being the most effective way for the average
>person to defend themselves)?????

Owning and using a firearm are NOT privileges.  When a firearm is carried
in public, no public resource is used up or worn.  Carrying a firearm
doesn't require public facilities.  Moreover, when a person carries
a firearm for self defense, they don't go out with the expectation of
using it, unlike an automobile driver.  Furthermore, small time delays
in the means to assemble are far less dangerous than small time delays
in obtaining the means to self-defense.  If you don't own a car,
you can (as you "blokes" say) "hire" a cab.  This is a minor difficulty,
and your message can still be delivered to your friends at the meeting
or what not.  However, if you have to wait 15 minutes for a gun when
you need it NOW, you could well be pushing up daisies.
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 1-800-BATF-GUNS
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:15:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <h8bmvyg.pdh@netcom.com> pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) writes:
>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>    [ stuff about 911 tracing you number ]    
>
>And as pointed out in comp.dcom.telecom (TELECOM DIGEST), in some cases
>they have it by the time you dial just 9-1.

Does this particular capacity exist everywhere?  In the lab I work in,
we just have to dial either "4" or "8" and the four-digit extension for
numbers within the University, but we have to dial "9-1" before _all_
calls to outside numbers.

--
David Winters  
dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

          Illigitimi non carborundum.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18428 alt.politics.clinton:1144
From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:50:05 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul31.084528.3020@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative) writes:
>>  Who cares?? Do what Sen. (NY) Tony Imperiali says,
>> "If a guy come in your house, shoot his ass dead, put a knife in his
>>hand and then call the police!!!"
>	
>	In real life, that's not smart.  It will be an obvious fraud 
>to the forensic investigators, and then you will have some real
>explaining to do.

  No thats not the main point. The main point, or thrust, was that we should
and do have a right to protect our property, whether it be .38 specials
or 38" Willie Mays to the head!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                    |  o    | " WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! "
Idaho National Engr. Laboratory  | <(    |       
c/o School of Nuclear Engineering|  [\.  | Ric Flair 
    Purdue University            | FORE! | The REAL Worlds Champion!!!!! 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Waiting Periods Are A Harassment Tool
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:44:02 GMT

In article <veal.125@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:

>In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:


>>They should have spares.  If they're so damn competitive they should dedicate
>>themselves to having a few guns.  I know people who hardly ever fire their
>>guns who own 6 or 7.  This is a really stupid argument.

>     Guns are expensive.  No, check that.  Guns can be *very* expensive.
>And I find it difficult to believe you are basing your argument on rights by 
>whether they "should" dedicate themselves to something.
> 
Check and re-check:  I was talking about people who compete on a high 
level.  Those guns can cost THOUSANDS.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wall@ra.csc.ti.com (Raj Wall)
Subject: Re: Jeopardy
Organization: TI's Risible Technology Branch, Dallas
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:35:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.190242.12403@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>|> 	"Ambrose Burnside was the first president of this organization
>|> 	 devoted to firearms safety."
>That's GENERAL Ambrose Everett Burnside, thank you.  The father of "sideburns",
>as well.  Born 1824, died 1881.

Yes, I think they may have actually said "General".  They also gave
the exact date of the founding of the NRA.  
>|> and the question:
>|> 	"What is the NRA?"
>
>Did any of them get it right?

Yes, believe it or not, the first contestant to respond.

>I hate Jeopardy - it's too easy.  That is, it's too easy once you've memorized
>one or two dictionaries, and several different encyclopedias, as I did in my
>misspent youth.

Yes, but it's fun to see how much you still remember now that you're
an old geezer :-) like me :-(.  

Regards,
Raj
wall@csc.ti.com

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
 be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
					9th Amendment, U.S. Constitution


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns