HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:12:14 GMT

>The problem is that the potential exists to allow creditors to force an 
>invasive surgical procedure to procure an asset that they are legally 
>entitled to.

Not if organ sales regulations specifically stated that the "sale" was
a contract authorizing posession only upon death of the vendor.

A soviet immigrant friend of mine tells me it is (was?) common practice
in the USSR to "sell your body" (to medical shools, etc.) with posession
to occur only after death.

Of course, if "sales" from living donors are allowed, we have the potential
for societal pressure to compell sales, even if the courts won't.  (ie:
lead your family into banmkruptcy or sell a kidney).  Likewise, even
with after death sales, some folks may feel compelled to die in a manner
likely to leave harvetable organs for the heirs.

                                        rob b.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:58:42 GMT

In article <1ii4e1INNn9d@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!cdt
>From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
>Date: 7 Jan 1993 20:39:29 GMT
>Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
>Lines: 40
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <1ii4e1INNn9d@transfer.stratus.com>
>References: <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP> <1id5uoINNm8l@transfer.stratus.com> <1993Jan6.163135.1374@ncsu.edu> <9301061641.51@rmkhome.UUCP> <ARCHER.663.726428569@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
>In article <ARCHER.663.726428569@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>> >And it is extremely easy to get an FID ( allows purchase of long guns and
>> >ammo ) unless you live in Boston.
>
>> Unless your local police chief decides to make it otherwise.
>
>Um, no... even a blind pig like Massachusetts can find an acorn every
>once in a while...
>
>From Chapter 140, Licenses (emphasis mine):
>
>129B: Firearm Identification Card; Ineligible Persons ; Denial;
>      Revocation; Suspension.
>
>"Any person [living or working in the state] may submit to the licensing
>authority application for a firearm identification card, which such person
>shall be ENTITLED TO, unless the applicant
>
>a) [was convicted or serving time for a felony within the past 5 years]
>b) [was confined for mental illness, but a physician can override this]
>c) [was convicted, serving time, or in treatment for drugs/booze within 
>    the past 5 years]
>d) [is under age 15]
>e) [is 15-17 but doesn't have parental permission]
>f) is an alien.
>
>"The licensing authority MAY NOT prescribe any other condition for the
>issuance of a card, and it shall within 30 days from the date of
>application either approve the application and issue the card or deny
>the application and notify the applicant of the reason for such denial
>in writing."
>
>Unlike pistol permits, FID cards are NOT subject to the discretion of
>your police chief.
>-- 

Six mea cuplas and an ignoramus illigitimi.  

I made an unwarrented assumption based on the Kennedy-Dukakis stances and 
over generalized.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Saved by the gun, part II
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:15:28 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

In the film "Deadly Effects" a story is talked about where a perp is
hit in the chest point-blank with a 12 guage shotgun. His heart was
"shreaded". Yet he managed to run 20 feet, get in a car, start it, and
put it in gear before he died. The point was, if he could do all this, 
he could surely have emptied his 15-shot magazine at a target as well.
Bottom line: In a deadly threat situation, keep firing till they ain't
moving.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 20:01:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301101355.53@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> If I set out today to buy an illegal gun, I bet it would take me weeks
> to find someone who would sell to me.

Hee hee!  That beats the four months it took me to buy my first 
LEGAL gun.

> In Framingham?  It would be extremely difficult to get an illegal gun.
> In Boston.  Probably failry easy if you moved in the right circles.

And if you go to the right bars in Southside Framingham, you can
meet a fellow who knows the way to and from Boston...

> >Is there anywhere where your precondition for a feeling of safety
> >is met?  Where?
> 
> I can say that I feel safe walking outside without a gun in central
> Massachusetts.

Meet ya outside the Da Hong Market on Grafton Street in Worcester.
Uh, I may be late.
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:57:31 GMT

In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>I don't think so.  Could you cite the the pertinent legislation that 
changed >>it please?
>
>Obviously they have, since I described the procedure that I had to go through
>in the late 70's, and it has changed now.
>
>I didn't even know that it had changed.
>
>A friend of mine got his sporting license 3 years ago.  He joined a gun
>club for less than $100 per year, got the three references, and was given
>a permit.  No hassle.

Requiring membership in a gun club, a permit, and references IS a hassle.

>
>>>>My wife is stalled on her permit because all of the people she's known
>>>>for any length of time in the area are anti-gun.
>>>
>>>That's life.
>>
>>No, that's injustice, ethically bankrupt, and a direct and immediate 
>>violation of her Constitutionally protected civil liberties.
>
>The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.
>

No, just whether or not she can defend herself.

>>>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>>>
>>>>Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
>>>>of their damn business.
>
>Unless they are criminals or are on parole.

So?

>
>>>This is assuming that anyone who steps up to the counter to buy a
>>>gun has innocent intentions.
>>
>>That is the basis of our legal system:  assuming innocence until guilt is 
>>proven.  Any other approach is termed "prior restraint," and is 
>>unconsitutional.
>
>So therefore, prosecuting criminals is unlawful, since it takes away
>their rights.

No.  Assuming they are criminals without evidence, a trial, and an 
opportunity to present a compentent defense is unlawful.

>Someone from Arizona already did.  Kids can carry.  Arizona cities are
>enacting laws to prevent this.  Some Arizona cities require a note from
>the parents.  It's a fact.

Please cite the relevant code.

>>Because most newspapers subscribe to the philosophy of advocacy 
journalism:  >>pick a side in a issue an be a cheerleader.  Since most news 
organizations >>suffer from paternalistic statism, they are anti-civil 
liberties.>
>The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.

Not all of them.  Arrests are a matter of public record.  What the local "
news" reports is a matter of agenda-biased discretion.

>Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
>make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.

That is your choice.  Please don't deny it to other who have not been so 
fortunate.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: The homophobia question comes to a stopping point
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:22:20 GMT

In article <8110306@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:

|> Or for $25 they can join the NRA and send a letter to the president
|> explaining that they are gay, does it make a difference.  And wait for a
|> response.

Gay, straight, bi-, mono-, non-, or multi-sexual (apologies to anyone feeling
left out...), I can lower the cost of a one year membership by 40% for new
members - send email if interested.

"I belong to the NRA - don't you wish everyone did?"

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:24:59 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <9301101340.48@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
[previous comments deleted]

>So your saying that from the moment that they first pick up a gun, people
>have the control to always put a bullet exactly where they want it to
>go?  That they would have enough control to fire off a whole clip of 9 mm
>as fast as they can, and they would be in control of the barrel the whole
>time?

Pardon me for butting in, in puzzlement.....

I can't say I can think of many situations where emptying a 9mm fast does
much good. Maybe if you're planning on keeping their heads down, but likely
not for *hitting* anything. A single shot is enough if you take the time
to aim carefully the first time. A complex 9mm seems a poor choice for a newbie
anyway, much better a revolver. Perhaps I missed something and you were
trying to be funny? Put smilies in next time. 

A good revolver or shotgun, those are the kinds newbies seems to take
to right off in my experience. Mind you I prefer semi-autos myself but
they do take a little more work. Maybe if I practiced as much as those
guys on the competitions on cable I could do rapid-fire, but I think I'll
stick to about 1 every second or two and make my lead go where I want.

Have a nice day :-)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:46:03 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <24753@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>Just a quick question about Time-Warner.  Was it Time-Warner that promoted
>and defended Ice Tea's Cop Killer song?  

Yes.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: I will only threaten the proven guilty.
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:05:09 GMT

In article <1ivessINNnou@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.39@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>
>Hi guys.  I used to be anon.526, now I'm not.  ...

  Wow - now you are anon.39 - this is really a big improvement. :-)

>I would not point a gun at another human being unless he or she
>were guilty of the intent to harm me or my family or a third party.
      ^^^^^^
>And in a peaceful soceity, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Oh - so you mean "guilty" in terms of being judged guilty
in a court of law.

>That is what I mean by "nearly limitless benefit of the doubt".

  This is truly "nearly limitless" in terms of self defense.
This would mean you can't defend (with lethal force) against an
attacker until after the trial - and therefore there can be no
violent self-defense.  Even if you see someone stab your child
and then run towards your spouse you would not feel justified
in pointing a gun at that person. 
>
>Is it radical to assume that a man is guilty of evil action or 
>intent until proven guilty?  When it was first written into our
>Constitution it was certainly viewed that way by many.  It's
>right for our government and it's right for me.

  Nope - that's with respect to the government punishing
someone - we've been discussing self-defense.  The two are
*not* the same.

  You seem to be missing many such distinctions.
> ...

--henry schaffer
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: How many gays are there in the NRA?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:40:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1ikp71INNsk0@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

> Technically, you are correct.  The membership form for the NRA doesn't
> actually ask you if you are gay. 

So you realize that your original suggestion to "ask Wayne LaPierre how 
many homosexuals there are in the NRA" was a pretty stupid suggestion,
since he doesn't really have any figures to give you.

> However, I'll go by what Jeff Cooper
> says in his column in Guns and Ammo, assuming this is the same Jeff
> Cooper who is a director of the NRA.  I think he and his colleagues
> would say that homosexuals are perverts who would be bad for the NRA's
> image, but since the NRA consists of right-thinking, upstanding armed
> citizens, there can't be any of them in it.
> 
> In fact, he might say that that morally homosexuals are criminals,
> it's just that not all jurisdictions have made sex between two
> men a legal crime.

And if your grandmother had wheels, she'd be a Ford Pinto.

WOULD say?  MIGHT say?  Might it be that you have a problem quoting 
something they DO say or DID say?  Or perhaps you can read minds?

> But I see that you are a doubting Thomas.  Ask Neal Knox and Jeff
> Cooper and Leroy Pyle what they think.  

No, I suggest that since YOU are the one making the hypotheses and the
accusations, YOU ask them.  Chasing down your ridiculous strawmen isn't
on my dance card for this month.

> Better yet, spread the word if
> you're an NRA member that you're gay (whether or not you actually are)
> and see what happens.

Why don't YOU just spread the word that you're a gay NRA member and
you can kill two birds with one stone.
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Identifying felons (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:48:59 GMT

In article <a!2r95h@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>Our state gun organization promoted an idea last year of afixing a 
>holographic symbol on the rear of our photo-ID driver's licenses
>for anyone eligible to own a gun.  

	What about folks that do not have a DL?

>My conclusions are a) I don't know what the NRA advocates anymore and

	I've wondered about that myself.  Could they possibly be part of
	"the conspiracy"?  Considering how they conduct themselves at times,
	I have had reason for pause.

>b) no one really gives a shit about keeping firearms out of the hands
>of felons; all this talk is a charade of smoke'n'magic to try
>and camoflage the real intent - gun confiscation and banning.

	I hate to get paranoid, BUT...


	-Andy V.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:36:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <16B522ACC.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>        The most often used seizure laws are *federal*, not state, because
> most state laws are much harder to make stick.  You legilsature may not have
> passed a law, but your police probably don't care.  They're playing ball
> in the fed's court, because the feds have neater toys.

It's worse than that.  Often cops will do a seizure under federal laws
because the federal law awards some percentage of the proceeds of the
bust directly to the police department's coffers, EVEN IF the state
seizure laws do not!  I remember reading about one state in the south
where almost NONE of the cops ever use the state's own seizure laws
anymore, because there's no money in it for them.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:05:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <73317@cup.portal.com>, reb@cup.portal.com (Richard Earl Benedict) writes:
> 86/3740 cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

> > In my town, "protection of life and property" boils down to PROPERTY ONLY.  
> > You qualify only if:

> > 1) you are a professional security-type person, protecting someone 
> >    ELSE'S life or property;
> > 2) you are self-employed AND carry significant cash or valuables.

> > In both these cases, your license is ONLY considered valid while ON THE
> > JOB.  Not during off hours.  Change jobs, you get your license PULLED.

> "Joe Doe" was arrested and convicted under Bartley-Fox because he was
> carrying on a license supposedly valid only while he was working. The
> conviction was overturned when the court was made aware of Chapter
> 511 of the acts of 1990. 

YahBUT... since it is still up to the chief's discretion BEFORE he
gives you such a license, you simply don't get one in the first place
unless you qualify under these restrictions.  And, if caught later,
even though you can't be charged with a crime, the result is simply
that the chief pulls your license, again "at his discretion."  Boom.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:25:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer/ESD/OSBU/SW Dev/App & Tool Dev

In article <Dec.26.08.10.58.1992.9575@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>...
>>> Earl Wallace:
>
>>>> Could this happen?
>
>No.

No?  I see.  I don't much need to discuss anything more with someone who
already knows everything there is to know.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:40:53 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>
>Speaking for myself, I declare that:
>
>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.

    If the other human is threatening you with bodily harm for you or
    your family, when would you call the police?

    Does your pacifistic desire prohibit a call to the authorities,
    or is it better to let someone else take care of the things you
    find morally reprehensible? 

-- 
----      Kevin Langston               Convex Computer Corporation
------    WORK: langston@convex.com    Technical Operations
"One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than 50 preaching it." 
 -- Knute K. Rockne
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:41:52 GMT

In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>>
>>Ah ha!  A blatantly wrong statement.  The Supreme Court has determined
>>that police have *no* obligation to protect *anyone*.
>
>In what case?

South Vs Maryland 59, U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed, 433 (1856) (From Dial
911 and Die! from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
>>>
>>>Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?
>>
>>Gotta get there first.  If things are squashed down so they can never
>>reach that level then it's obviously not going to happen eh?  
>
>Has that been happening?

Yes, the SC has for the most part consistantly refused to hear Second
Amendment cases.

>>>>Keep a national database of convicted felons.  Have the purchaser present a 

>>This is false logic as well.  How is this different from making the
>>person wait a time period so a "background check" can be made?  It
>>isn't, it merely automates the process.  No shift in responsibility
>>from what exists today.
>
>So far, I don't know of any family of any murder victim who has
>successfully sued a police department for granting a gun permit
>to a murderer on the basis of wrong information from the FBI/courts.

I fail to see the logical progression here.


>The point is that everything isn't black and white.  There are gray areas
>where it is not easy to justify taking control of gun permits away from 
>the state.  If gun laws are changed to allow anyone who has the money to
>buy a gun, then a lot of other laws must also change.  If the laws change

Anyone who has the money to buy a gun can do so anyway.  Black Market
firearms are cheaper than legally obtained ones, and a lot less
traceable.  It's easy to justify it.  The government has no damned
authority to restrict my *natural* right to self-defense. Period.
My grandfather fought in WWII against Nazis who disarmed the populace
they then terrorized.  You *will* become a victim if you let *anyone*
make you believe you have no right to resist.

>to a system where gun dealers get there info from a computer terminal,
>then privacy laws in this country will have to change.

No they won't.  Felony records are public records.  All the database
will have to record is whether or not a given name and ID number have
a felony record associated with it.


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns