HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:06:44 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

Given the (IMHO) justifiable fear of a national police system, how about
a national non-discretionary carry permit system to go with it?  That
might be (again IMHO) an adequate show of good faith.

Rick.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 - correction
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:16:46 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

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

>There are 1.67 milliseconds between rounds at 600 rpm.  On my homemade
>drag racing christmas tree simulator, I can consistently hit a reaction
>time of about 450 milliseconds.  

Boy did I blow that one.  Not rounds per second, rounds per minute, dummy!
Teach me to post in the middle of the night!  That  should be about 
100 ms between rounds.  Fortunately my example still holds.  

John

>I'm told I'm pretty good.  It's kinda
>obvious that no mere human can make even an involuntary decision in
>about 2 ms.  That rules out Tony evaluating the first shot in a burst
>and terminating the burst before the second round is fired.  

>To evaluate my ability to intentionally fire one round in full auto, I just set
>up a quick experiment with a microswitch configured as a trigger monitored
>on my digital storage scope.  I found that I could with extreme concentration
>and with a little practice, press and release the "trigger" in about
>200 milliseconds.  That is consistent with my (rather short) experience 
>with the MP5 and my much more extensive experience with a Mac-10 (600-1000
>rpm depending on the condition of the bumper and the tune.)  With either
>I can moderately easily squeeze off 2 round bursts.  I don't think I
>can do a single shot even under controlled conditions.  I no longer have
>any Class III weapons so I can't actually test this.

>I'm completely comfortable saying with 100% certainty that our good old
>budy Tony could not fire one round in full auto under tactical conditions.
>Either that weapon jammed after the first shot (doubtful.  Was that mentioned
>in the paper) or he was on semi-auto and flipped it to auto after the 
>event.  To head off your inevitable claim, Dan, yes, I'd love to 
>present this test data to a jury.  I'd even do it at no charge.
>From the news reports, it does not look like I'd ever get a chance 
>because good 'ole Tony is not going to be charged.

>John

>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?

>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
>Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
>jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:04:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.155111.7833@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> 
rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>|  In particular, in consultation both with gun manufacturers[1] and
>|  concerned citizen groups[2], the Bush Administration has:
>
>[1] Ruger. Bill Ruger.

That's "Brady Bill Ruger" or "Bill 'Benedict Arnold' Ruger".  With
friends like ol' Ruger. . . . Hell, we don't even need enemies.  Note
also that "Gun Digest" accepts tons of advertising from Ruger and always
features one of his products on the cover.  The 1992 Gun Digest says,
"The gun owners protesting Ruger & Mossberg carried a big banner, but didn't
make much of an impression."  Perhaps the 1993 Gun Digest will have 
another "Ruger Product" on the cover, like the text of an "assault weapons"
ban with the President's signature on it.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: 24 Aug 92 19:43:17 PDT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>I'm confused, guys.  I can't see that the Brady Bill is saying what 
>some of you folks say it does.

Post the original text.  I don't want YOUR interpretation. 
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : crash!jca@nosc.mil | 13 + 1 = 228... 
 ** INTERNET: jca@crash.cts.com  |
 ** UUCP    : crash!jca          |           SIG-Sauer P228
 */
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:48:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <5868@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
writes:
>> Assume the chief says "that guy can't get a gun because my records show
>> he's a MeanRottenBadAssCriminal".  So you go after him, spend $10,000
>> and 2 years defending yourself.  You "win" the case.  The chief will not
>> be punished (trust me).  Was it worth the effort and don't you think the
>> chief knows that it wasn't?  Who really won?
>
>One can make an identical argument for ANY law.  (The chief says of COURSE
>you were doing 100 MPH past the crosswalk at the Lawrence Welk Memorial 
>Nursing Home.  And on the day that your car was in the shop, you walked
>by and flashed the codgers.)
>
>It's not reasonable to suspect that chiefs will be able to effectively
>ban guns in their little fiefdoms by this tactic.  After the same dealer
>hears, for the fifth time today, that yet another customer is a low-life,
>the jig will be up real soon now.

I wouldn't bet on that, if I were you...

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:40:39 GMT

In article <9209021313.AA07734@gandalf.ssw.com>, leone@GANDALF.SSW.COM
(Bob Leone) writes:

> Undoubtedly, they meant the common-law interpretation of "due process".
> I.e:
>    1) Indictment by a Grand Jury
>    2) A trial by jury in open court, conducted under the established rules
>       of common-law
>    3) If found guilty, the person being sentenced in accordance with the
>       law he was found guilty of violating.

Excellent!  This is exactly my claim!  A *LAW* passed by Congress does
*NOT* constitute "due process", as is required by the 5th Amendment.
A person may only have his property taken after "due process".

(remember, the suggestion was for the govt to claim that a *law*
constitutes "due process", and force firearm owners to give up or
destroy their weapons by these means).

> The safeguard here is the "trial by jury":

And Jury nullification of offensive laws.

-- 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:13:44 GMT

In article <71975@apple.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>And people who do turn in good working guns for $50 are not using good
>judgement and might shoot themselves anyway, so it's great that they are
>turning them in.  I wouldn't want them having a gun if they're that stupid!

There are two big (practicle) problems: It ripps off alot of little old
ladies, who turn in the pistol they've had sitting in the closet since
their husband died, and get $50 for a $500 gun. (I can live with con
men ripping off little old ladies, but I'd prefer the _police_ didn't
help...)
Also, there was a woman who turned in her son's (in his late 20s, not a kid)
$1700 rifle, because she didn't approve of the hobby. As far as I know,
the police refused to return the gun or take any other action... 
On a psycological level, it also creates the impression that guns are
_bad_ and disarming people is _good_.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:28:44 GMT


|Further, a "id card" is not at all unthinkable: Many local laws in the US
|(Boston and Chicago, for example) already require such a card for gun
|purchases. Historically, this has been abused to local officials: If
|they diasapprove of privately owned guns, they make obtaining a card
|unreasonably difficult or impossible.

The "id card" referenced for Chicago is the Illinois State FOID card;
this is issued by the Illinois State Police, not local yocals. What
the scum has done is remove the FOID application forms from the police
stations, thereby making it a chase to find the offending application
form.

I believe a Chicago suburb (Evanston?) tried to get hold of the FOID
card holder list in their community so they could be 'informed' of the
new-back-then handgun ban; undoubtedly, this would have been a SWAT
team armed with MP-5s behind a little-old-grandma village official,
who would press the doorbell, run like hell, and then the SWAT team
would "accidentally" shoot the FOID card holder as he opened the door...

The Scumbag State Senator William A. Marovitz (D-Chicago), among his
wondorous proposals to 'Stop Gun Crime' once proposed that you had to
apply for and pick up your IL State FOID at the LOCAL police station;
undoubtedly, your FOID would be mysteriously lost, bent, folded and
mutilated if by chance you offended the local constabulary... or if
you were black or female or Hispanic, your FOID would be rejected for
reasons like: (1) Wrong colored ink, (2) Missed spaces, (3) Did not
say "PLEASE, Mr. Police Chief," ...
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:05:08 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <DLB.92Aug31111219@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>Juries return verdicts, not rulings.  A jury may not be overruled on a
>finding of facts; this is in the Constitution, and has never been
>amended.

I'm not sure about courts of appeals, but the Supreme Court can definitely
overrule a jury's verdict on the basis of the evidence:

"...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to
Law and Fact..."

(Article Three, Section 2, United States Constitution)

					       Frank Crary
					       CU Boulder


(By the way, does anyone know how to get usenet acces from Boulder? My
new account doesn't seem to have direct access and remote logins to my
old Berkeley account are getting to be a pain...)

From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:13:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Gun Laws in various States
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Don Baldwin writes:

 >There are a few areas that I'm considering relocating to and I
 >wanted to ask people who live there what their gun laws are like.

 >2) Colorado - My impression is that, aside from CCW laws, Colorado
 >              is also pretty friendly to gun owners.  Comments?

No registration, waiting periods, yet.  Must sue for a CCW.

Job market for technical folks is limited.  Get a few copies of the Denver
Post or Rocky Mountain news to start checking it out.

The climate is probably different that CA.

 >Recommendations?

If I were a member of the NRA, I would call their publications office and
ask for their free pamphlets of state gun laws for states I was interested
in.  I wouldn't do that if I were NOT a member.  That kind of service is
worth a $25 membership.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:55:26 GMT

In article <9208271717.AA14574@gandalf.ssw.com>, rjl@GANDALF.SSW.COM
(Robert J Leone) writes:

> In the majority of states, it's not going to be a tight race. Well ahead
> of election day, we're going to have a good idea who is going to win

I've heard of cases where this "knowledge" inspired folks to not go
out and vote.  The result was that the "known winner" lost..  ;-)
Ho! Ho! Ho!...

> our home state's electoral votes. In such a case, it is unlikely to make
> a damned bit of difference to the final result if even a million people
> vote for Marrou. But it _will_ make the powers-that-be sit up and take
> notice.

We can only hope.

> The person who truly wastes his/her vote is the person who votes for
> the lesser of two evils, not truly believing in either, rather than
> voting the way he/she really thinks.

Agreed.

-- 
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: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:45:28 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1805apINNke0@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>To purchase a firearm in the United States, one must fill out a record
>of sale, which includes your home address and a description. You must
>show photographic identification (such as a driver's license) to 
>verify your name, address, etc. so the gun dealer wil know where you
>are from. 

	Question:  What if you are homeless?  From what you have read here
	it would seem that the homeless are effectively denied their right
	to keep and bear arms.  What about retired persons that live in a
	Winnebago or on a boat with no permanent address?  Can they purchase?
	

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 05:25:38 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

In  <1992Sep3.202512.18190@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>  andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
> There is such a requirement if Darcy's argument has anything to do
> with gun control.  Darcy might well be blathering about something that
> he thinks doesn't have any relevance to the discussion,

Gun control?  I thought we were blathering about abortion!  (I've
redirected followups to this post; please try to remember to edit your
newsgroups line.)

> portion has age and sex criteria.  (Seamen are also exempted.)

Seamen?  I thought you said semen.  No wonder I was confused.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:23:13 GMT



|>                                       So far, nobody has been able
|>to supply me with a shred of evidence in favor of the "well-regulated"
|>interpretation as "well-trained".

|<clip, clip, clip>

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

|Either: A) your news feed has died.
|        B) your news feed is set to filter out followups to your post.
|        C) you have a bad case of 'I got my mind made up, don't confuse me'.

Take my word for it, it's "C"; Wojcik hasn't changed has argument
style since we were arguing this stuff back in 1989... it is most
amusing watching people argue with Wojcik and receiving the same
"Your evidence isn't evidence, because I don't acknowledge your
evidence as having any validity at all"... as one person commented
here about their supervisor: "Talking to him is like talking to a
black hole."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: eclipse@unixland.natick.ma.us (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:40:30 GMT

In article <71614@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>So I'm to conclude that *if* guns were unavailable, that criminals
>would switch to other lethal means (knives, poisons, explosives, pick
>one) and overall f/i rates would remain the same?  Doesn't it have
>something to do with how *easy* it is pull a trigger from relativly far
>away?
   You forget the folk who DON'T like to be far away.  This is one of the
reasons women are the fastest growing group of new handgun owners.  Most 
battered spouses are women.  Their abusive spouse has no problems inflicting
physical damage at close range.  An abused women has a better chance of 
defending herself with a pistol than a knife.
  Remember that most states don't have 'stalking laws'.  Without such laws, the
police won't even respond to a call until the abusive spouse enters the house/
apartment or physically threatens the victim.  

>-- 
>Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.


-- 
eclipse@unixland.natick.ma.us  a.k.a. Mark Urbin  These Opinions are mine.  
"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without
assistance.  That's just the facts of life." ex-LA Chief of Police, Gates.
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:58:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.064321.29024@iitmax.iit.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
>It is highly unlikely that more than a few black market guns come from

>guns bought legally, then transported to a state with more restrictive

At least once in the past year BATF has busted people buying guns via
straw-man in Columbus OH who intended to sell them in NYC for three
times their OH price.  They straw-man buyers were paid in cocaine.
Dealers got suspicious when the buyers bought several guns with cash
and reported the buyers to BATF.

-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Another Police Shooting in WA.
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:26:29 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

Facts as I know them at this time:

There has been another police shooting in Washington State.  I believe
this one was in south King County.  This is the county immediately south
of Snohomish county, the location of the no-knock search that involved
the death of Ms. Pratt.

Preliminary information (from news reports, and you know how accurate
they are..) indicates that two officers attempted to arrest a man on
some sort of drug charge.  He ran.  The cops chased him.  The man
tripped and fell and some sort of struggle/pile up ensued during which
one of the officers gun discharged once, killing the suspect.

Preliminary reports indicate that the officer may be liable.  The police
dept has stated that at this time the shooting does not appear to adhere
to department guidelines.  The suspect was not apparently armed, nor was
he threatening the officers or anybody else at the time.

The officer was a '3 year veteran' of the department.


Opinions:

At this time, it looks like an unintentional discharge.  There doesn't
seem to have been any reason for the officer to have had his gun out at
all.

While this is a different department and different local government, the
same state laws apply as the previous shooting we've been discussing.
I'll keep the net posted on what I hear.  Preliminary evidence in this
case suggests that as I've said, some (or in IMHO) most WA police
departments are not yet so corrupt that they will cover up blatant
negligence on the part of officers.  Of course, we may disagree on what
constitutes blatant negligence.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Clinton Campaign Response Mentioning Kates and Kopel
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:17:02 GMT


A while back, someone posted a response from the Clinton campaign
that mentioned that the campaign has been talking with Kates.

When I asked Kates about that, he said that he didn't know anything
about it and would like to see the message.

I didn't save a copy of said response from the Clinton campaign, so if
you did, please e-mail one to me.  (If you got one on paper, send me
e-mail and we'll arrange something.)

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Atlanta Journal and Constitution: an excer
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:47:49 CDT

	 gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:

|The AJC has a section called "Perspective", which I can only
|assumes is defined as "our propaganda section". The top story in
|today's (Sunday, August 30,1992) section is in big letters:
|	"Rethinking nation's war on crime"

[...]

|	Broad-scale domestic disarmament is not prohibited by the Second
|Amendment. The Supreme Court has dealt with this constitutional claim
|four times, in 1875, 1886, 1894, and 1939. Consistently, it has ruled
|that the Second Amendment deals with the right of states to maintain
|a militia free from interference from the federal government. The Second
|Amendment never was meant to create an individual right to possess
|firearms.
|

Does anybody know what 4 court cases these are?  What do they say?
Do they really support the position claimed?	

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns