HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:41:33 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.

In article <1992Nov11.024616.24131@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>My sympathies.  My point was you're better off having your stomach pumped,
>however unjustifiably, than being buried because you pulled a gun in the
>face of overwhelming force.  Dead people don't even have the option to
>sue, winnable or not.
>


Live people don't appear to have the option to sue anymore.  It seems
to me that whatever the police do is OK, no matter how many technical
violations of procedure, local law and the constitution occur.
 
I'm getting to the point where anyone with a badge is guilty until
proven innocent, just on the basis of personal experience.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:45:56 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1dsmihINNcro@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu
(Norman Yarvin) writes:
>Weapons are not just talismans; the only way they are useful is if there is
>the will to use them.  I don't know about you, but killing a cop to stop a
>beating is certainly not something I would have the will to do.

A beating will not necessarily leave its victim alive, even if fists are
the sole weapons used.  A nightstick is a lethal weapon, hell, a my mother
could kill me if she hit me in the head with one.

A beating is, in my mind, a potentially lethal assault.

>And as for an unarmed person trying to interfere with the beating of Larry
>King...  there is a reason why John DeArmond calls the cops 'pigs'.  They
>generally take any sort of challenge to their authority as a personal insult.
>It is remotely possible that a bystander, acting with extreme politeness,
>could have talked the cops into stopping.  But he would have to be lucky.

Then the police need their leashes yanked, HARD.  How to go about doing
that is what we need to figure out.

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                "Klingons do not allow themselves to be probed!"
                        - Warf, Star Trek TNG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: My Letter To Senator Coats Re National CCW
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:35:29 GMT


                                        November 11, 1992
Senator Dan Coats
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1403

Dear Senator Coats,

Thanks very  much for  sending me  a copy  of S.2922, intended to
address the  criminal act  of stalking other persons. I'm glad to
see that  you recognize  this problem  and are willing to address
it.

Fortunately, Indiana  residents can arm themselves with concealed
handguns for  self-defense against  attacks by stalkers and other
miscreants. However,  Indiana residents  travelling out  of state
(other than  in Michigan) must leave behind their only sure means
of self-protection  when they cross the state line since very few
states currently  honor concealed  carry permits granted by other
states.

The rapidly  increasing incidence  of hotel  muggings, throughway
shootings,  rest-stop  robberies  and  carjackings,  particularly
those directed  at  people  driving  vehicles  with  out-of-state
license plates,  underscores the need of interstate travellers to
be able  to legally  carry their  firearms (concealed)  for self-
defense against violent attack. Otherwise the situation currently
prevailing in  Florida,  where  criminals,  aware  that  1  in  7
Floridians have  armed themselves against attack and knowing that
out-of-state visitors  must  by  law  be  unarmed,  direct  their
attacks against  people driving  cars with  out-of-state  plates,
will continue to escalate

I urge you to amend the Brady Bill with a provision making state-
granted  concealed   carry  permits  valid  nationwide  whereever
concealed carry is not explicitly prohibited by federal law. Such
a measure  would be consistent with the treatment of out-of-state
drivers' licenses  at present  and is  supported by  Article  IV,
Section 1 of the Constitution, which states

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."

and also by the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
This  provision  would  provide  travellers  with  the  means  to
forstall criminal attacks which are guaranteed to take place when
no  other  effective  help  is  available  to  the  person  being
attacked.

I also recommend another amendment to the Brady Bill:

Persons who  have proof  that they  are being  stalked  (or  have
received  death  threats)  and  persons  who  have  an  order  of
protection should  be  able  to  purchase  firearms  without  any
waiting period  so that  they can  ensure their own safety absent
24-hour police protection.

Sincerely,

David Feustel
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
If convicted felons can't own firearms, then why in Hell
do we let GE make nuclear weapons?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 22:00:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.210740.4112@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>> > So what would the people do -
>> >make it routine to carry semi-automatic's and then the guy walks in
>> >with a fully automatic Uzi or Mac-10.


>In article <1992Nov6.171755.7409@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, I write:
>> And gets shot dead by someone with a Derringer.


colten's carefully considered and brilliantly worded reply:
>Yeah, right.


Oooh, good answer.  Funny thing, in those states* that allow virtually any
law-abiding citizen to carry concealed, colten's fantastic vision of a
small-arms race simply hasn't happened.

"There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory
by a brutal gang of facts."  - LaRochefoucald

>marc colten

* Off the top of my head, I refer to Vermont, Indiana, and Washington for
  starters.  Anybody else care to fill in the rest?

John Kapson   NRA ILA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:42:29 GMT

In article <40801@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
>Also, would the Brady bill reduce the waiting period here in the
>People's Republic of California from 15 days to 5?

As proposed in last session's version, no: If a state has a
waiting period of under 5 days, it would become 5 days; if the
state waiting period was over 5 days, it would be uneffected by
the Brady Bill. As for the version that will be submitted next
January, that's anyone's guess. It might be stricted or less strict,
include more, less or different loopholes, depending on how HCI
judges thier political position in Congress.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: I HATE to vote for ......
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Nov 1992 12:14 EST  

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes...
> ...
>They aren't "my party." I'm registered independent. I just think that
>voting for Marrou will send the clearest message possible to 
>Washington, and strengthen pro-gun support in Congress. 

I think that Marro got about 500,000 votes or  0.5% of the total.  

The message got lost in the noise level.
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:57:25 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <40801@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:

}Also, would the Brady bill reduce the waiting period here in the
}People's Republic of California from 15 days to 5?

My understanding is the Brady Bill waiting period only applies to states
that don't already have a similar or longer waiting period in place.
California's 15 day wait would be unaffected.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Keywords: To purchase, or not to purchase....
    <1992Nov9.165550.14827@mdd.comm.mot.com> 
    <1992Nov10.022829.10812@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:52:27 GMT
Distribution: usa

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.165550.14827@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>>The government gives you money for newly banned firearms?!?!
>>Speaking as a Canadian where several score firearms and all
>>"variants thereof" were just banned, driving several 10s of millions
>>dollars in firearms into the black market, why do you think
>>a Clinton gov't would compensate you?

>Mostly becuase of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution: "...[no 
>person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
>due process of law; nor shall private priperty be taken for public
>use without just compensation." The current Supreme Court reasonably

 Yea, tell that to the victims of the DEA's confiscation policy. I believe
it has to do wit something called the "RICO Act" ??? (is that right?).
At any rate, not only has land, homes, cars, cash and other property been
confiscated by the government, but in many cases done so without even
charging the victim with a crime, or even going to court!!!
In cases where local authorities (cops) confiscate property, the property
is sold (usually for nothing at auction) and the proceeds go to the
agency that made the bust! Talk about the fox in charge of the hen house.
Guess the Fifth Amendment takes a rest here... Evil drugs ya know...

>open to just compensation arguments: A recent environmental law, for
>example, where they held that a developer was owed just compensation
>if environmental laws prevented him from building on his lands. Any
>gun prohibition would have to offer _some_ form of just compensation
>in order to be Constitutional (or include a "grandfather" clause
>exempting previous owners.) The real question is, what constitutes
>"just compensation"? Senator Chaffee of Rhode Island seems to think
>that $40 is "just compensation" for the average handgun...


>                                            Frank Crary
>                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.190533.13920@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox) writes:
>...
>Micheal, you are exactly correct on the concealed carry issue, but carry 
>in a car is only under strictly defined conditions.  What the Dr. Suzanne
>Gratia was doing was (and still is) illegal.

What did she do? Sorry that I didn't follow the story carefully.
Thanks in advance.

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
>Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

David
-- 
 K. David Lin, Ph.D.              | E-mail: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com  
 Communication Services Research  | Defend your life with style! -- Beretta
 U S WEST Advanced Technologies   | Disclaimer: Only personal opinions
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Life under Clinton
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:55:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.143616.3462@stortek.com>, vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
> >What do you all think is going to happen under a Bill Clinton
> >administration?
> 
>  Well,
> 
>  As a white male,  I'm Fucked.
>  As a Upper-Middle income earner,  I'm Fucked.
>  As a Gun owner,  I'm Fucked.
>  As a scanner (police type, not computer type) owner,  I'm Fucked.
>  As a soon to be dual professional income household,  I'm Fucked.
>  As a Non-Correct-Thinker,  I'm Fucked.
>  As a supporter of the death penalty and strict mandatory sentencing,  I'm Fucked.
> 
>  Any more questions??????

Yeah.  How's your sex life?     :-)
-- 

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...
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 11 Nov 1992 09:34:45 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Nov10.212600.4101@advtech.uswest.com> kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.190533.13920@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox) writes:
>>...
>>Micheal, you are exactly correct on the concealed carry issue, but carry 
>>in a car is only under strictly defined conditions.  What the Dr. Suzanne
>>Gratia was doing was (and still is) illegal.
>
>What did she do? Sorry that I didn't follow the story carefully.
>Thanks in advance.

She was apparently carrying a handgun in her car.  She testified that
if she had in her gun in her purse, as she sometimes does, she may
have been able to stop the massacre in Kileen.  But she left the gun in
her car because its illegal to carry a handgun.  She said that the law
is more ambiguous about carrying in cars so she leaves the gun in the
car.

It is illegal to carry a handgun except in certain circumstances.
These circumstances apply equally to carrying on your person or in a
car.  The exceptions are things like going to and from the pistol
range, bring the gun home from the gun store, etc.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.japan
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:10:16 -0500 
From: Rikiya Asano <ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
	<1992Nov12.083049.2257@ke4zv.uucp>

Mr. Coffman,

               You are in error. Obviously, you are ignorant of the law.
The law states(in laymen's terms) that tresspassing is a crime when:
htere is a sign stating "do not trespass" and the individual has the
intent to trespass. niether applies. Do you really know what the legal
definition of "Prowling" is? you talk about young Yoshi but what about
his friend. Shouldn't they arrest him to? He was with him, ya' know.

                         Your arguement is dumb. I hope that you are the
 "Killer"'s(allegded)lawyer.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:34:16 GMT

In article <1dsmihINNcro@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>Tanks?!?
>
>I suppose a tank operator _could_ screw up so badly that he would lose to a
>man hiding in a house, or in some natural fortification.  I mean, there are
>incorrect ways to use tanks.  In a movie, it may be the military screws up.
>This is not to be relied upon by anybody in the real world.

Yarvin needs to spend some time talking with the US Army's armor experts
at Fort Knox.  Either he doesn't know what he's talking about or they
don't.

They think that tanks require infantry protection from infantry even
in the open.  They think that tanks can't be used in cities even with
infantry protection without rather extreme precautions.  (Basically,
they have to completely control the population.)

Maybe the tank people don't know what they're talking about, but it's
going to take more than an assertion by Yarvin to make that argument.
Maybe he'll tell us why they're wrong.  To do so, he'll have to
explain how to defend against attacks that they don't know how to
beat.  Such a discussion will turn on details -- I look forward to
seeing something that demonstrates that he knows them.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Spraying Bullets with Dangerous Guns
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:02:05 GMT


In article <1992Nov10.031730.16275@ncsu.edu>, hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

	< Henry describes "rate of fire" experiment for single-shot handgun >

|>   I put 10 cartridges in my jacket pocket, took an empty gun and
|> paced off 5 yards from the target, started my timer and blazed
|> away spraying bullets downrange until I was out of ammo.  I got
|> 8 of the 10 shots in a square about 2" x 2", with one more shot
|> about 2" higher and one 2" lower.  It took me 87 seconds, or 8.7
|> seconds per shot.  It would have been less if I started with a
|> loaded gun, and if I had practiced this speed firing before.
|> 
|>   Extrapolating from this, it would take less than 3 1/2 minutes
|> to fire 23 aimed shots.  I think that this answers my question,
|> and confirms that all firearms are dangerous.  Anyone who denies
|> this is either uninformed or trying to divert attention from 
|> this for some anti-gun purpose.

When the "assault weapon" hysteria first broke, and Pres. Bush started
waffling, I thought of issuing a public challenge.  I would offer to
bet $1,000 that I could fire the same number of shots, in the same
elapsed time, under equivalent target conditions as either Patrick Purdy
(Stockton schoolyard massacre) or James Huberty (McDonalds massacre).
But instead of using an "assault weapon", I would use the same type
of gun and ammo President Bush takes quail hunting.

I got talked out of making the challenge by folks who said it would
embarrass a president who was "basically" on our side.
I still don't know what Bush uses, but odds are it is an O/U double.
With automatic ejectors, these are fairly fast to reload. If it's a
bottom-loading pump or semi-auto, I might loose my bet. Certainly
a 12ga with *any* kind of ammo is far deadlier in these kind of close
quarters assaults than an AR-15 or AK-47 type rifle.

Maybe if Bush joins the chorus of people endorsing "assault rifle"
bans, I will re-activate my offer.  Anyone know what Bush shoots with?
I also thought of trying the same demo with a black-powder revolver
with removable cylinders.  Suppose you had a pocketfull of pre-loaded
cylinders -- how long does it take to remove a completely fired
cylinder and replace it with a fresh one?
-- 
  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: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:01:50 GMT

In article <40801@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:

>People in the newsgroup are talking about the upcoming gun bans.  
>Has Clinton outright said that he supports bans of "assault" rifles
>and semi-autos?  How realistic and soon are the gun ban threats?

       Clinton has said he wants to ban all "assault rifles" and semi-
automatics with "no legitimate hunting purpose."

       How soon and how realistic depends on how hard he wants to push
and how much party unity he can muster.        

>Also, would the Brady bill reduce the waiting period here in the
>People's Republic of California from 15 days to 5?

       No.  Those of us in states with waiting periods longer than 5
(or 7) days are out of luck.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
From: gt6190a@prism.gatech.EDU (Stephen Burr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: After the election....
Keywords: disgusted Clinton NRA
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:11:03 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech

In article <1deauuINNli@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
> In article <73908@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6190a@prism.gatech.EDU (Stephen Burr) writes:
> >The day after Clinton was elected to the White House, I sent in my
> >application to the NRA.
> 
> I am glad you did but next time how about doing something BEFORE
> the election.
>
Like what? I only just became interested in the NRA just a couple of months
before the election. It was about the same time I found this newsgroup here
at Tech. Before that, I thought waiting periods were a good idea. (No, please
put the stake and mallot down, would you? Why do you have that garlic out?
:^) 

My dad joined the NRA about that same time, so I got both the _American_
Rifleman_ and TPG all at the same time.

So, up to that point I had thought, "Brady Bill, hmmm... sounds good...
prudent at this juncture" (Note: I must have had some sense, though, cause
I was very opposed to gun bans. I just thought a waiting period would
be a good way to deter crime.)

NOW, of course, I see it for what it is: just another method to get
guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

So, I have only just "seen the light"... so to speak :>

Toward the final weeks before the election, I got to thinking about joining.
I knew I was going to do it SOMETIME before the year was out. Then, after
seeing the election results the next day, the timing just seemed apropo.

This is not a flame, but hey, I'm still pretty new to this, O.K.?

Later,


-- 
Stephen Burr               | "My first time voting in a presidential  
Georgia Tech,              |  election... What a letdown."  -me 
Atlanta Georgia, 30332     |  Government - 
gt6190a@prism.gatech.edu   |      the last refuge of the nincompoop.