Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53293
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

hambidge@bms.com wrote:
: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
: 
: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.

: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
: latter.  Simple enuff?

For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

			handgun homicides/population
			----------------------------
	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
Your choice.
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53294
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
: > many people with baseball bats.

: You just can't compare this way!  All homicides must be shown, per capita, not  
: just handguns.  The availability of them in the USA makes them the preferred  
: murder weapon, but ban them, and some other weapon will step in as the  
: favorite.

As a "favorite", sure.  As lethal, not likely.  A study of violence in
Chicago produced this table:

		Percentage of Reported Gun and Knife Attacks
			    Resulting in Death
			    
	Weapon				Deaths As Percentage of Attacks
	---------------------------------------------------------------
	Knives (16,518 total attacks)		 2.4
	Guns (6,350 total attacks)		12.2

	Source: Firearms and Violence in American Life
	
It might be contended that if gun murderers were deprived of guns
that they would find a way to kill as often with knives.  If this were
so, knife attacks in cities where guns were widely used in homicide
would be expected to show a low fatality rate, and knife attacks in
cities where guns were not so widely used (like Vancouver) would show
a higher fatality rate.  But the Nat'l Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence Task Force analyzed the data and found this
not to be the case.  It appeared to them that as the number of knife
attacks increased in relation to the number of firearms attacks
(which presumably happened where guns were less available to assailants),
the proportion of FATAL knife attacks did NOT increase relative to the
proportion of gun attacks.  In fact, the reverse was true.

What was found was that most homicides did not show a determination on
the part of the assailant to kill.  Fatalities caused by knife tended
to show a single-mindedness on the part of the assailant to do grave
physical injury: multiple stabs wounds, wounds concentrated about the
head neck and chest, etc.  Most gun homicides did not show this
pattern.  Rather, more fatal attacks were committed during a moment of
rage and not the focused intent to kill the victim.

	Source: Report on Firearms and Violence

: Then, since England != USA (my ancestors left because of the oppression) you  
: must compare England before strict gun laws to England after strict gun laws to  
: be able to draw any meaning at all.  England has essentially legalized drugs,  
: so there are no drug gangs battling for turf, etc., there.  If you drop out the  
: drug related killings here, the USA would look a whole lot more peaceful.

There are a lot of factors which make a difference.  Actually, I'm not
fond of making ANY kind of social parallels between Europeans and
Americans. There are more cultural, beahvioral and economic
differences between us than similarities.  I just sort of found
myself backed into that corner over the last couple of weeks.  I
don't think we could ever attain the low levels of European violent
crime here in the US, whether we banned guns or required every
law-abiding citizen to carry a loaded Uzi.

On the other hand, we can draw lessons from neighbors who are more
culturally similar, namely the Canadians.  In fact, an exhaustive,
seven-year study has already been done of the respective crime rates
of Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington... cities
with roughly the same population, urban economy, geography
and crime but with decidedly different approaches to gun control.

In Seattle, handguns may be purchased legally for self-defense.  After
a 30-day waiting period, a permit can be obtained to carry a concealed
weapon.  The recreational use of handguns is minimally restricted.

In Vancouver, self-defense is not considered a valid or legal reason
to purchase a handgun.  Concealed weapons are not permitted.
Recreational uses of handguns (target shooting, collecting) are
regulated by the province.  Purchase of a handgun requires a
restricted-weapons permit.  A permit to carry may be obtained in
order to transport the weapon to licensed shooting clubs.  Handguns
transported by vehicle must be stored in the trunk in a locked box.
In short, gun control but not unreasonably so.

Both cities aggressively enforce their gun laws.  Convictions for
gun-related offenses carry similar penalties.  The researchers
studied all cases of robbery, assault (simple and aggravated),
burglary and homicides occurring in Seattle and Vancouver from
1/1/80 to 12/31/86. In defining the cases, they used the same
standard: the FBI's Unified Crime Report.

Results: during the seven-year study the annual rate of robbery in
Seattle was found to be only slightly higher than that in Vancouver
(1.09 / 1.11).  Burglaries occurred at nearly identical rates (.99).
18,925 assaults were recorded in Seattle versus 12,034 in
Vancouver.  The risk of being a victim of a simple assault in
Seattle was found to be only slightly higher than Vancouver (1.18 /
1.15) and the risk of aggravated assault was also slightly higher
(1.16 / 1.12).  However, when aggravated assaults were subdivided by
weapon and the mechanism of assault, a clear pattern emerged.
Although both cities reported nearly identical rates of aggravated
assault involving knives and other dangerous weapons, firearms were
far more likely to be used in Seattle.  In fact, 7.7 times as often.

Over the seven-year study, 388 homicides occurred in Seattle
(11.3 per 100,000) vs. 204 homicides in Vancouver (6.9 per 100,000).
After adjustment for differences in age and sex among the populations,
the relative risk of being a victim of homicide in Seattle, as
compared to Vancouver, was found to be 1.63.

When homicides were subdivided by the mechanism of death, the rate
of homicide by knives and other weapons (excluding firearms) in
Seattle was found to be almost identical to that in Vancouver.
Virtually ALL of the increased risk of death in Seattle was due to
a more than fivefold higher rate of homicide by firearms.  Handguns
accounted for roughly 85% of homicides involving firearms.  Handguns
were 4.8 times more likely to be used in homicides in Seattle than
in Vancouver.

The authors of the report also investigated "legally justifiable"
homicides (self-defense).  Only 32 such homicides occurred during
the seven-year study, 11 of which were committed by police.  Only
21 cases of civilians acting in self-defense occurrred: 17 in
Seattle and 4 in Vancouver.  Only 13 involved firearms.  After
excluding these cases, there was virtually no impact on these
earlier findings.

-------

This is, I feel, a very fair report.  One might even make the
argument that it is biased against Canada as a whole because
Vancouver reports annual rates of homicide two to three times
that of Ottawa, Calgary and Toronto while Seattle reports
annual homicide rates only half to two-thirds that of NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Critics of handgun control always argue that limited legal access
to handguns will have little effect on the rates of homicide because
persons intent on killing others will only try harder to acquire a
gun or will kill by other means.  This report shows differently.
If the rate of homicide in a community were influenced more by
the strength of intent than by the availability of weapons, we
could expect the rate of homicides by weapons other than guns to
be higher in Vancouver than in Seattle.  However, during the study
interval, Vancouver's rate of homicide by weapons other than guns
was not significantly higher than that in Seattle, suggesting that
few would-be assailants switched to homicide by other methods.

As well, ready access to handguns for self-defense by law-abiding
citizens was not endorsed in this report.  Although Seattle did
experience a higher rate of firearm death for self-defense, these
cases accounted for less than 4% of the homicides in both cities
during the course of the study period.  And, as was reported,
Seattle apparently didn't enjoy relief from any crime category
over Vancouver because citizens may legally arm themselves for
self-defense.

	Heavily quoted source: Handgun Regulation, Crime,
	Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities.

	John H. Sloan, Arthur L. Kellerman, Donald T. Reay,
	James A. Ferris, Thomas Koepsall, Frederick P. Rivara,
	Charles Rice, Laurel Gray and James LoGerfo
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53295
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

Steve Kao (k@hprnd.rose.hp.com) wrote:
: Frank Crary posted:
: : Sure, but the difference in per-capita crime rates predates the
: : gun control laws: The homicide rate in England was a tenth that
: : of America, back when anyone in England could buy a gun without
: : any paperwork at all.

: Steve Manes asks:
: > Got a citation for this?

: Colin Greenwood from Scotland Yard did a study that showed that gun
: control has had no effect on crime or murder rates in the UK.  His book,
: _Firearms_Controls_, has been published in London by Keegan Paul (name
: may be misspelled).

Others dispute that, like Richard Hofstadter, <America As A Gun Culture>,
and Newton and Zimring's <Firearms and Violence in American Life>.  But,
again, statistics between too dissimilar cultures are difficult to
quantify.

I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).

If Mr. Greenwood believes that Brits are much too sober and
coordinated to make such mistakes I'd like to introduce him to my
friend, Amanda from Brighton.  I used to have some pretty nice
crystal in my place until she moved in.  I've gotten used to the
snide comments from guests about the clown motif on my rubber
wine glasses.

-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53296
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Vancouver/Seattle Study Critiques


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Open letter by Dr. Paul H. Blackman, Research Coordinator for
NRA-ILA. NRA Official Journal 1/89.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear sir:

By now, we are used to the New England Journal of Medicine's publication
of small-scale studies related to firearms from which conclusions are
drawn which are quantum leaps from the data, followed by announcements of 
momentus "scientific" findings. These are regularly released to the press
without the caveats which riddle the conclusory paragraphs, and
often accompanied by an editorial calling attention to the findings.
Generally, while they at least present a few interesting data, however
meaningless, the studies misinterpret statistics, and ignore or belittle
serious studies by criminologists.

The latest effort -- "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide:
A Tale of Two Cities," by J.H. Sloan, et al., with the accompanying 
editorial, "Firearms Injuries: A Call for Science," by two employees
of the Centers for Disease Control (November 10), however, is an insult
to the intelligence of any serious scholar in any field and have so few
data and so many flaws that I feel compelled to write at some length
to call attention to various major and minor failings, in no particular
order.

	1. The authors misleadingly cite Wright, et al. (Ref. 1) to 
	support the statement that "some have argued that restricting
	access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate
	of homicide." Wright, et al., in fact studied and rejected that
	contention.
	
	2. The authors pretended that Vancouver and Seattle are very
	similar cities with similar economic circumstances, histories,
	demographic characteristics, and the like. In fact, the cities
	are very different with very different demographic characteristics
	which appear to explain completely the higher homicide rate in
	Seattle. Both cities are over three-forths non-Hispanic white
	and *the non-Hispanic white homicide rates are reported to be
	the same in Seattle and Vancouver*. It is the different back-
	grounds, problems, circumstances, and behaviors of the various
	ethnic minorities which explain the difference in homicide.
	
	3. The authors pretend they are evaluating Canada's gun law,
	compared to Washington State's. But they do not examine at all
	the situation in Vancouver prior to the gun law taking effect
	in 1978. As it happens, in the three years prior to that (1975-
	1977), Vancouver averaged 23 homicides per year, one-eighth
	involving handguns, (Ref. 2) and in the seven years of the NEJM
	article there were 29 homicides per year, one-eigth involving
	handguns. Surely even the medical profession recognizes that
	one must look to see the prior situation was before concluding
	that a change made a difference? Would a physician conclude that
	a patient was benefiting from eating oat bran muffin each day
	for seven years because his cholesterol level was 200 without
	at least seeing if it was 180 before he started the regimen?
	
	4. The authors pick two medium-sized cities to evaluate a national
	gun law. Nothing can be learned from such a tiny and arbitrarily
	selected sample. Seattle appears to have been selected because
	it was convienient for the authors rather than for any scientific
	reason. Would physicians call something a scientific study which
	involved one experimental subject and one dissimilar "control"?
	Had different arbitrarily selected cities been chosen, opposite
	"scientific" conclusions would follow: Vancouver's homicide
	rate *exceeds* that of such "wild west" cities in Texas as
	El Paso, Corpus Christi, Austen, and, in Colorado, Colorado
	Springs. (Ref. 3)
	
	5. The authors fail to clearly demonstrate that firearms or
	handguns "are far more commonly owned in Seattle than in
	Vancouver." They use two surrogate approaches in pretending
	to study the availability of firearms/handguns. The first is
	an apples-and-oranges effort to compare the number of carry
	permits in Seattle to the number of registered handguns in
	Vancouver. But the number clearly understates the number of
	handguns in Seattle, and counts primarily *protective* handgun
	owners. The second, however, tells nothing about the number
	of handguns in Vancouver, and counts *non-protective* handguns
	for the most part. Where is it difficult to obtain handguns
	legally for protection, registration figures are
	meaningless. There are 66,000 registered handguns in New York
	City (New York Daily News, Sept. 27, 1987). Comparing the two,
	that method suggests about 930 handguns per 100,000 population
	in New York City compared to 960 in Vancouver, meaning Vancouver
	has a greater "prevalence of weapons" than New York City.
	
	The second method of measuring gun density is "Cook's gun
	prevalence index, a previously validated measure of intercity
	differences." But the validation was by Cook of his own
	theory. (Ref. 4) Normally, second opinions are sought from a
	different doctor. More significantly, the Cook index is
	based on the average of the percentage of firearms involvement
	in suicide and homicide. So the authors are basically taking
	a measure of misuse. Unsurprisingly, gun misuse in homicide
	(42% in Seattle, 14% in Vancouver) is related to gun misuse in
	homicide plus suicide, divided by two (41% in Seattle, 12% in
	Vancouver). The authors are not measuring the relative avail-
	ability of firearms, or of handguns, in Seattle and
	Vancouver.
	
	6. The authors misstate the laws of both Washington and
	Canada. They neglect to mention the significant fact that
	Washington has a waiting period and background check prior to
	the purchase of a handgun, and that provisions exist in Canadian
	law for owning and carrying handguns for personal
	protection. The authors also make it appear that it is more
	difficult to get a handgun legally in Canada than is actually
	the case.
	
	7. The authors ignore all other factors which might explain
	the differences in crime rate, beyond some vague mention of the
	penalities provided by law and the roughest of estimates of 
	clearence for one particular offense -- homicide involving a
	firearm. There is no measure of: the differences in the number
	of law enforcement officers; their aggressiveness in making
	arrests for gun law violations in the two jurisdictions; arrest
	rates for other offenses; conviction rates; actual sentences
	imposed for gun-related crimes, violent crimes without guns,
	or gun law violations; or incarceration rates. Whereas social
	scientists would attempt to measure and hold for such differences,
	the authors of the NEJM "tale of two cities" fail even to mention
	most factors related to crime control.
	
	8. The authors dismiss claims that handguns are an effective
	means for protection unless the criminal is killed. Such is not
	the case. Criminologists (Ref. 5-8) have found that almost
	650,000 Americans annually use handguns for protection from
	criminals, and that using a gun for protection reduces the
	liklihood that a crime -- rape, robbery, assault -- will be
	completed by the criminal and reduces the likelihood of injury
	to the victim. It is interesting, nonetheless, that the authors
	reported the same number (four) of civilian justifiable homicides
	without firearms in each city but that less restrictive Seattle
	accounted for 100% of the reported civilian justifiable homicides
	involving firearms.
	
	9. The Centers for Disease Control, which funded the "study,"
	editorially praised the paper, (Ref. 9) saying it "applied
	scientific methods to examine a focus of contention betweeb
	advocates of stricter regulation of firearms, particularly
	handguns." There is nothing in the paper which could possibly
	be mistaken for "scientific methods" by a sociologists or
	criminologists. The Vancouver-Seattle "study" is the equivolent
	of testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by finding
	two ordinary-looking middle-class white males, one aged 25
	and the other 40, and without first taking their vital signs,
	administering the experimental drug to the 25-year-old while
	giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking their blood pressure
	and, on finding the younger man had a lower blood pressure, 
	announcing in a "special article" a new medical breakthrough.
	It would be nice to think that such a "study" would neither be
	funded by the CDC or printed by the NEJM.
	
	Since the longstanding anti-gun biases of the NEJM and the CDC
	make them willing to present shoddy research as "scientific
	breakthroughs" in "special articles" and editorials relating
	to firearms, we are obligated to correct the record by notifying
	the news media and those with congressional and executive oversight
	over the activities of the Centers for Disease Control about
	the distortions contained in "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults,
	and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities" and "Firearm Injuries: A Call
	for Science." Clearly, all scientific standards go by the wayside
	whenever the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine seize
	an opportunity to attack firearms ownership in America.
	
				REFERENCES

1. Wright JD, et al, *Weapons, crime and violence in America*: a literature
review and research agenda, Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice,
1981.

2. Scarff E. *Evaluation of the Canadian gun control legislation*: final
report. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, 1983,
p. 87.

3. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, *Crime in
the United States*, 1987 (Uniform Crime Reports). Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1988

4. Cook PJ. *The role of firearms in violent crime*. In: Wolfgang M.
Weiner NA, eds. *Criminal violence*, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982:
236-90, pp. 270-271.

5. Kleck G. *Crime control through the private use of armed force*.
Social Problems 1988: 35:1-21.

6. Ziegenhagen EA, Brosnan D. *Victim responses to robbery and crime
control policy*. Criminology. 1985: 23:675-695.

7. Lizotte AJ. *Determinants of completeing rape and assault*. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology. 1986: 2:203-217.

8. Sayles SL, Kleck G. *Rape and resistance*. Paper at the American Society
of Criminology convention, Chicago, 1988.

9. Mercy JA, Houk VN. *Firearm injuries: a call for science*. 
NEJM: 319:1283-1285.
==========================================================================

                             GUNS AND SPUTTER
                            by James D. Wright
          (from July 1989 issue of REASON, Free Minds & Free Markets)

      Someone once wrote: "Statistics are like a bikini.  What they real is
   suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."  The problem is demonstrated
   by the most recent entry in a long line of scientific research purporting
   to show a causal link between gun availability and homicide.  Funded by
   the federal government and published last year in the New England Journal
   of Medicine, the study compared homicide rates in Seattle and Vancouver and
   suggested that a handgun ban "may reduce the rate of homicide in a 
   community."
      The nine medical doctors who published "Handgun Regulations, Crime,
   Assaults, and Homicide" essentially reasoned in three steps: (1) Despite
   many historical, social, and demographic similarities, (2) Vancouver
   has a markedly lower homicide rate (3) because its stricter gun regulations
   make guns less available.  The second step in their reasoning seems
   indisputable.  The overall homicide rate in Seattle (for the period
   1980-86) was 11.3 per 100,000 popuation, compared with 6.9 in Vancouver.
   Homicide is definitely more common in Seattle.  The question then becomes,
   Why?
      The authors present a believable although not entirely accurate case
   to support the notion, as claimed in the third step of their reasoning,
   that Vancouver's handgun regulations are much more stringent.  But their
   evidence on the difference in gun *availabilty* is indirect and 
   unpersuasive; indeed, they acknowledge that direct evidence on the point
   does not exist.  They offer two fragments of inferential data in support
   of the claim that guns are more available in Seattle; but for all anybody
   knows as a matter of empirical fact, the opposite could be true.  We
   are therefore being asked, at the conclusion of the study, to believe that
   a difference in gun availability explains the difference in homicide rates
   when a difference in gun availability has not itself been established.
      Indeed, the situation is even more troublesome.  The first of the two
   indirect bits of evidence is a difference between the number of concealed-
   weapons permits issued in Seattle and the number of restricted-weapons
   permits issued in Vancouver.  Differences between the two cities in the
   permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable.
*     The second bit of evidence is "Cook's gun prevalence index," which stands
*  at 41 percent for Seattle but only 12 percent for Vancouver.  Cook's index
*  however, does not measure the relative prevalence of gun ownership in 
*  various cities.  It measures gun misuse--it is an average of the percentage
*  of homicides and suicides involving firearms.
*     In the present case, the index shows only that in homicides and suicides,
*  firearms are more likely to be used in Seatte than in Vancouver.  To take
*  Cook's index as a measure of general firearms availability, it must be
*  assumed that the proportional involvement of guns in homicides and suicides
*  is directly related to their relative availability in the general 
*  population.  But this is exactly what the authors are seeking to prove. To
*  assume what one is seeking to prove, then to "prove" it on the basis of
*  that assumption does ot constitute scientific evidence for anything.
      Even if we were to grant, on the basis of no compelling evidence, that
   guns are less common in Vancouver, we might still question what causes what.
   The authors attribute Seattle's higher crime rate to a higher rate of gun
   ownership.  But it might well be argued that low crime or homicide rates
   reduce the motivation for average citizens to obtain guns--in other words,
   that crime rates explain the variation in gun ownership, not vice versa.
      In fact, it was once commonly argued that Great Britain's low rate of
   violent crime was a function of that nation's strict gun laws and the 
   consequent low rate of gun ownership--until British researcher Colin 
   Greenwood found that Great Britain had enjoyed low rates of violent crime
   for many decades before strict firearms controls were enacted.  To invoke
   an ancient methodological saw, correlation is not cause.
      Nor do the problems with this study end with its lack of direct data
   on gun ownership.  The authors say Seattle and Vancouver are "similar in
   many ways," implying that they differ mainly in gun availability, gun-law
   stringency, and crime rates.  This is an evident attempt to establish
   the ceteris paribus condition of a sound scientific analysis--that "all
   else is equal" among things being compared.
*     Clearly the two cities are similar in some ways, but a closer look 
*  reveals differences in ways that are relevant to their respective crime
*  or homicide rates.  The cities are closely matched in what percentage
*  of their population is white (79 percent and 76 percent).  But Seattle
*  is about 10 percent black, while Vancouver is less than 0.5 percent.
*  Vancouver's minority population is overwhelmingly Asian.  So although the
*  authors show that th two cities are approximately comparable on a half-
*  dozen readily available demographic indicators, they have not shown
*  that all potentially relevant sources of variation have been ruled out.
*     In fact, the differences in racial compositions of the two cities is
*  particularly relevant in light of the study's breakdown of homicide rates
*  according to the race of the victim.  For the white majority, the homicide
*  rates are nearly identical--6.2 per 100,000 in Seattle, 6.4 in Vancouver.
*  The differing overall homicide rates in the two cities are therefore due
*  entirely to vastly different rates among racial minorities.  For blacks,
*  the observed difference in homicide rate is 36.6 to 9.5 and for Hispanics
*  26.9 to 7.9.  (Methodoligical complexities render the Asian comparison
*  problematic, but it too is higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.)  Racial
*  minorities are much more likely to be the victims of homicide in Seattle
*  than in Vancouver; the white majority is equally likely to be slain
*  in either city.
      Since the nearly 2:1 initial difference in homicide reates between the
   cities is due exclusively to 3:1 or 4:1 differences between minority 
   groups, it is fair to ask why postulated difference in "gun availability"
   (or gun-law strigency) would matter so dramatically to minorities but not
   matter at all to whites.  Can differential gun availability explain why
   blacks and Hispanics--but not whites--are so much more likely to be killed
   in Seattle than in Vancouver?  (Studies in the United States, incidentally,
   do not show large or consistent racial differences in gun ownership.)
      Or are other explanations more plausible?  Could the disparity between
   Canadian and American rates of poverty among racial minorities have 
   anything to do with it?  What are the relative rates of drug or alcohol 
   abuse?  Of homelessness among each cty's minority population?  (The city
   of Seattle runs the largest shelter for homeless men west of the 
   Mississippi.)  Unemployment among young, central-city, nonwhite men in the
   United States usually exceeds 40 percent.  What is the comparable Canadian
   percentage?
      The crucial point is that Canada and the United States differ in many
   ways, as do cities and population subgroups with the two countries.  Absent
   more detailed analysis, nearly any of these "many ways" might explain part
   or all of the difference in homicide rates.  In gross comparisons such
   as those between Seattle and Vancouver, all else is *not* equal.
*     The authors of this study acknowledge that racial patterns in homicide
*  result in a "complex picture."  They do not acknowledge that the ensuing
*  complexities seriously undercut the main thrust of their argument.  They
*  also acknowledge that "socio-economic status is probably an important
*  confounding factor in our comparison," remarking further that "blacks   
*  in Vancouver had a slightly higher mean income in 1981 than the rest of
*  Vancouver's population."  Given the evidence presented in the article,
*  it is possible that all of the difference in homicide rates between Seattle
*  and Vancouver results from greater proverty among Seattle's racial
*  minorities.  But the authors pay no further attention to this possibility,
*  since "detailed information about household incomes according to race
*  is not available for Vancouver."
      The largely insurmountable methodological difficulties confronted in 
   gross comparative studies of this sort can be illustrated with as simple
   example.  If one were to take all U.S. couties and compare them in terms
   of (1) pervalence of gun ownership and (2) crime or homicide rates, one 
   would find an astonishing pattern: Counties with more guns have less crime.
   Would one conclude from this evidence alone that guns actually reduce 
   crime?  Or would one insist that other variables also be taken into
   account?  In this example, the "hidden variable" is city size: Guns are
   more common in small towns and rural areas, whereas crime is a big-city
   problem.  If researchers failed to anticipate this variable, or lacked the
   appropriate data to examine its possible consequences, they coud be very
   seriously misled.  In the study at hand, the authors matched two cities
   for size but not for minority poverty rates or other hidden variables,
   and their results are impossible to interpret.
      In the editorial "Firearm Injuries: A Call for Science" accompanying
   the study, two officials from the Centers for Disease Control lauded the
   authors for applying "scientific methods" to a problem of grave public
   heath significance.  But in attempting to draw causal conclusions from
   nonexperimental research, the essence of scientific method is to anticipate
   plausible alternative explanations for the results and try to rule them
   out.  Absent such effort, the results may well seem scientific but are
   little more than polemics masquerading as serious research.  That this
   study is but one of a number of recent efforts--all employing practical
   identical research designs and published in leading scientific journals--
   is cause for further concern.

   [James D. Wright is professor of sociology at Tulane University.  He has
   researched extensively on the relationship of firearms and crime.]

Reason published monthly except combined August-September issue by the Reason
Foundation, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization.  Subscription rate: $24.00 
per year.

Reason Foundation
2716 Ocean Park Blvd.
Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA  90405

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53297
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Waco dates - are these coincidental?


The ATF agent interviewed on "Street Stories" reported that the raid was
ill planned, and went ahead even when they (the BD's) knew the ATF was 
coming. WHY?

I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it,
and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part
in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even 
suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the
context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda, 
as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof
might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests
for sufficient fire power. 

Important dates: 
Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban.
Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.	   

On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon
ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate
in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have
an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated
agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or some
group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were initially
at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent 
on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get 
ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued, 
even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top 
down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to
come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely.

...rich 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53298
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
>>Ever notice that people in these cases are always described by clever
>>handles such as "eccentric", "religious wackos", "gun nuts", "cultists",
>>"survivalists", etc. so the general public will *not* identify with them?

       The San Jose Mercury News described him as "a 61-year old retired
chemical engineer".

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53299
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

>hambidge@bms.com wrote:
>: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

>: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
>: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
>: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
>: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
>: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
>: 
>: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
>: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
>: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
>: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
>: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.

Killed by handgun, or killed?  If I'm dead, I don't much care if it
was by being shot or stabbed to death.

>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?

>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

>... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.
>-- 
>Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
>Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o

I don't think you can get an accurate indicator of how safe England is
compared to Switzerland by concentrating only on handgun murders and  
completely ignoring murders by other weapons, not to mention the rate of
other violent crimes.  If there are more guns in circulation, if follows
that more people will be killed with them 'cause they are available to
the person intent on committing a crime _regardless_ of whether they
have to do it with a gun, knife, or bare hands.  

The gun control lobby doesn't seem to understand this point.  If people
are intent on committing a crime, they will do it with whatever means
are available to them.  

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53300
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: WACO: The Militia Assembles


        Dumb move.  

        The smart move would be to sneak in someone with a TV camera
and video transmitter.  

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53301
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Gun Nuts and Holly Silva

In article <C4tsD1.1vA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1993Apr1.010834.4326@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>>Both the " Gun Nuts" and the gays are aggressively defensive and quite
>>hostile to any one trying to deprive them of their rights.  Just like
>>any group trying to protect their rights.
>
>The fallacy of this whole thing is that YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT IN JEAPARDY
>BY THESE POSTS.  

How can you say that?  I presume that you mean that talking about
restricting rights is not the same as restricting those rights.  Well,
arguing for those restrictions may lead to implementation, much
the same way as assault can lead to battery (legal definitions).

>Most t.p.g people and the homosexual groups won't even
>discuss the subject at all in a polite form.  The mere raising of a question
>as to why the rights are there or what exactly the 'right' encompasses
>bring shrill posts and angry/hostile traffic.  

Well, I can't speak for the homosexuals, but I've seen ALOT
of polite discussion on t.p.g.  Please, everyone, don't take
this guy's word, or mine for that matter, on it.  Read t.p.g.
for a while, and try to determine from which direction most of
the flameage originates.  If you post without flamebait, you
will generally receive reasoned responses.  True, there are
those who tend to lose their tempers quickly, as there are on
all newsgroups, but they really do feel their rights are in jeopardy.

Oh, and neat trick talking derisively about another newsgroup while
not crossposting to allow them to defend themselves.

>I think a lot of t.p.g people have very thin skin when it comes to 
>discussing these subjects.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

				Dave Schabel



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Schabel         | Opinions and comments contained herein are mine and  |
schabel@calspan.com  | do not necessarilly reflect those of Calspan Corp or |
Located in Western NY| its customers.                                       |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53302
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: ACLU (was Re: Waco Shootout ...)

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:

>In article <1993Mar31.140529.10843@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager"  
><hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> 
>> As an old post of mine came up in a collection of posts about
>> the ACLU's position on gun-control, I would like to note that my 
>> own position has been evolving.  But, I'm still not sure how to
>> answer the question, "does the 2nd allow me to have my own nuclear
>> device?"  

>The second amendment does not prohibit it, but it can probably be argued that  
>there is no way you can operate one without severely impacting on the safety  
>and rights of others, and so might not be permitted on that basis.

The existence of the weapon in and of itself (and this is also
true for biologics and chemical weapons, but for slightly different
reasons) poses a threat to living critters.  Can you say "neutron
and other radiation flux due to radioactive decay", boys and girls?

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53303
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT HOLLY SILVA INFORMATION

In article <1pkojmINNmuq@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
> In a separate post over on soc.culture.usa she explicitly said that while
> she cross-posts to t.p.g and sets follow-ups to there, she does not READ
> talk.politics.guns. If you think about it, it's a clever way of keeping
> some of the politer respondents who will edit their newsgoup line, or
> properly use the follow-up: from being heard over there. It also makes it
> easier for her to claim all she ever sees is "squeaky weasels".

> So if you want her to see your insiteful analysis, e-mail it. If you
> want to point out her flaws in public, make sure your newsgroup line
> includes soc.culture.usa.

To keep from flooding s.c.u, I e-mailed it.  However, I agree that it's
quite the sneaky trick.  No more than I would expect, however.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53304
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: ATF suspects drug lab in compound

>In article <1993Mar28.180629.21574@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>>A Associated Press News story 3/28/93 reports:
>> 
>>"    In other developments Saturday, David Troy, intelligence chief for
>>the ATF, confirmed reports that authorities suspected the cult had a
>>methamphetamine lab.  He said evidence of possible drug activity
>>surfaced late in the ATF' investigation of the cult's gun dealings.

Wow, the scope of the mission of the ATF continues to expand.  Besides
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they now seem to be involded in Child
Protective Services, Drug Enforcement and Tax Evasion.

They look to be on the road to being the nations *boys in blue*!
No Knock in one hand, M-16 in the other.  Zeik-Heil!!!

Lance



-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53308
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: Threatening Gun Owners

In article <7178@blue.cis.pitt.edu> gswst@cislabs.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs) writes:
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm writing a story on the future of Gun Control.  There are a
>few points I would welcome your opinion on.  It's wonderful having a
>resource like this newsgroup to take advantage of and I thank you in advance
>for your feedback!
>
>1. What do you believe are the most serious threats to gun-owners in the
>future?  
	* The Government
	* Liberals
	* BATF, FBI, DEA, etc.  (see #1)

>2. Are you concerned that the 2nd ammendment could be reinterpreted to
>apply to the armed forces only, barring civilians from owning arms of
>any kind?
	Well...
		contributions == taxes
		abortion == elimination of fetal tissue
		Clinton == president
		faggot == spouse
	It could happen...

>3. If you did have control over what types of arms people would be allowed
>to buy, which types would you feel compelled to restrict to military
>uses only (ie. bazooka, M16, grenade, atomic bomb, etc.)
	Hydrogen Bomb, perhaps.
	
>4. Would you describe HCI and all other gun control activists as being
>determined to make it illegal for a civilian to own or use a firearm?
	Yep.

>5. Have you personally read the Brady Bill in its entirety?
	Yep.

>Thank again,
>
>Gary


-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53309
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the


In a previous article, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) says:

>Come on, guys, looks like its time to move that juvenile public-post
>either to E-mail or to a different newsgroup (alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva?).

No, Brent that would be
alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva.goofy.anti.semite.... :)

-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53310
From: "George Guillory" <wk04942@worldlink.com>
Subject: Tx. Senator Bob Krueger RTKBA statement

For those of you interested, I just finished talking with a 
representative of Senator Bob Krueger's reelection campaign about his 
position on the RTKBA.  Krueger was appointed by the  Democratic Governor 
of Texas to complete Lloyd Bentsen's unexpired term.

The representative said that Senator Krueger did not have a position and 
would only comment on specific legislation that was pending.  No comment 
was available on the various versions of the Brady Bill.

Be warned and vote accordingly.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53311
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Govs. Florio, Wilder Hit Airwaves In Support of Brady Bill

In article <1993Apr1.015043.5662@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.

>    "It is ironic that Jim and I are observing this March 30 in a
> country that finds America's level of gun violence not only
> unacceptable, but unbelievable," said Mrs. Brady, chair of Handgun
> Control Inc.

So where was she?  And would she consider staying there?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53312
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: I believe in gun control.

In article <1993Apr3.221837.2324@news.duc.auburn.edu> bixledn@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>In article 16193@cbnews.cb.att.com, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>> No, you haven't read it very closely .  It says you may answer "No" if your
>> civil rights have been restored; that can be done either by the feds' or a
>> a state.  I think the feds stopped doing this for those convicted of violent
>> felonies.  At least a dozen states still restore a felons civil rights, some
>> immediately upon release, some after a waiting period.  I will post a list
>> of the states later.
>> 
>
>  A quick question, then Larry, If a person's civil rights have been restored, 
>  then are they still considered a felon?

Good question; I don't know what the law considers them.

>  IMO, if rights have been restored, then it makes sense to me that the
>  record of the felony, and everything else has been purged, and the
>  person in question is no longer a felon.

I believe this is what happens in some states.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53313
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Lavishly Funded "Gun Epidemic" Propaganda Campaign to Commence

In article <C4txEK.FCq@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
> Morris the Cat (rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com) wrote:
> 
> : Well, as Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition points out, the full
> : force of the anti-gun ruling class, their multi-millions, their
> : polling organizations, their schools, their news media, their
> : "entertainment" media
> 
> The entertainment media... a "force of the anti-gun ruling class"??
> Is this the same media that's made billions producing films and
> television that glorify guns and gun users?  Or is that another
> anti-gun media?
> 
> You've got to be kidding.

By this, do you mean that you consider it absolutely impossible for the
media to be guilty of hypocrisy?

Note that the film industry in California traded their political support
for an "assault weapon" ban in the state for an amendment to the bill
exempting the entertainment industry from that very ban.

Note that the very issue of the Batman comic book ("Seduction of the Gun")
that was produced as a tool for gun-control organizations carries a back-
page ad for a "Terminator II" video game extolling the numerous and
varied sophisticated weapons available to the player.

Note that Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, publisher of the NY Times -- one of the
oldest and most incessant gun-control grinders -- himself carries a
concealed handgun.

Still, you find it completely incredible that these folks live by the 
aphorism, "Do as I say, and not as I do."
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53314
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Govs. Florio, Wilder Hit Airwaves In Support of Brady Bill

In article <1993Apr5.015209.29431@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.231109.23378@msc.cornell.edu> srussell@msc.cornell.edu (Stephen Russell) writes:
|> >ObGuns:  I'm moving to Arizona; everyone carries guns there.  If I don't, what
|> >are the approximate probabilities that I'll get shot by the end of six months?
|> 
|> Under 1 in 20,000 assuming FBI statistics are meaningfull.

Of course, if you're a criminal, or hang around with criminals, or
flash large wads of cash in the wilder parts of town, or utter verbal
bigotry in the right public places, your chances of being shot are much
higher.

Avoiding these behaviors, on the other hand, decreases your chances of
being shot.

Something like 60% of all murders are criminals killing criminals. 
Over 90% of murders are committed by people with a prior *known*
history of violence.

Simplistic moral, suitable for my three year old, and most inane
posters:  "Bad people do bad things - repeatedly."

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53315
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: Waco dates - are these coincidental?

Richard Cower (cower@csli.stanford.edu) wrote:
: 
: I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it,
: and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part
: in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even 
: suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the
: context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda, 
: as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof
: might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests
: for sufficient fire power. 
: 
: Important dates: 
: Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban.
: Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.	   
: 
: On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon
: ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate
: in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have
: an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated
: agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or
: some: group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were
: initially
: at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent 
: on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get 
: ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued, 
: even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top 
: down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to
: come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely.
: 
: ...rich 


   I don't know Rich. Last year when the congress was debating the Bushmans
'Crime Bill', the incident at Lubys' cafe occured. Most of the anti-gun
crap was amended out of the bill anyway. 

   
   Could a president 'order': go find some 'assault weapons' and bring the
media". I hope not.  Frankly, the Toon-meister* scares me. Of course 
having a Democratic majority in congress doesn't help. (Apologies to all 
Demos' who support RKBA)

( *definition: toon-meister - a characatureic name for the current 
president of the U.S.:   Clinton aka, Clintoon aka Toon-meister.)

Rob P.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53316
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: NRA Fucks Up Bigtime

In article <1993Apr5.042450.2071@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.93Mar29232337@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>>In article <xw1twyl@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>>> No, actually I'm a lot more familiar with the libbers than I
>>> care to be.  I'm a bit hesitant to continue this thread because
>>> it brings back horrible memories of my first encounter with the
>>> libbers in the LaRouche branch.  I made the mistake of buying a

>>Any connection between Lyndon LaRouche and the Libertarian Party
>>is a pure product of your own fertile imagination.  

> Naw, perhaps he reads Time magazine.

It's a fair stretch of anyone's imagination to expect them to
attach any credibility to anything written in Time magazine in
the past twenty years, I'd imagine.  The Enquirer at least gets
the names attached to the right body parts.

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53317
From: jyoung@Cadence.COM (John Young)
Subject: FFL&gunsmithing questions

I have a few questions I'd like to ask;
First,How would someone(me)be able to get a dealers license    
and second,besides dear old departed gramp's,where would I
find a good place to learn gunsmithing.
		all replies appreciated!
			John



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53318
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tr3M.Eqw@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>On the other hand, we can draw lessons from neighbors who are more
>culturally similar, namely the Canadians...

I don't think such a Canada is any more "culturally similar" to
the United States than England. In terms of laws regarding individual
rights, restrictions on police searches, etc... (all closely
related to crime) Canadian laws parallel England's and differ
greatly from those of the United States.
  
>...In fact, an exhaustive,
>seven-year study has already been done of the respective crime rates
>of Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington... cities
>with roughly the same population, urban economy, geography
>and crime but with decidedly different approaches to gun control.

Actually, they do not have "roughly the same... urban economy", 
and extremely different ethnic composition.

>Over the seven-year study, 388 homicides occurred in Seattle
>(11.3 per 100,000) vs. 204 homicides in Vancouver (6.9 per 100,000).
>After adjustment for differences in age and sex among the populations,
>the relative risk of being a victim of homicide in Seattle, as
>compared to Vancouver, was found to be 1.63.

However, if you account for economic and ethnic differences,
the difference disappears completely: Seattle's minorities are
predominatly poor, while Vancouver's are middle or upper class.
The rates for whites in both cities were found to be identicle,
while the rate for poor, Seattle minorities was almost three
times as great as for the well-to-do minorities of Vancouver.
The pattern seems to be one of poverty and race relations, not
one of gun control.

>The authors of the report also investigated "legally justifiable"
>homicides (self-defense).  Only 32 such homicides occurred during
>the seven-year study, 11 of which were committed by police.  Only
>21 cases of civilians acting in self-defense occurrred...

That is a gross distortion: "Self-defense" does not mean killing
the attacker. There were 21 cases of civilians killing their 
attacker in self-defence. But such cases represent less that
0.5% of the crimes prevented by armed self-defence; for every
case you cite, there were over 200 other cases of self-defence
where the crime was prevented but the attacker was not killed.
(0.5%, by the way, is the most conservative possible figure,
based on the National Crime Survey's estimate of 80,000
crimes prevented by armed self-defence each year. Most other 
studies on the subject put the figure at 500,000 to 600,000.
Those figures would imply less than 0.08% of sucessful self-defences
involve killing the attacker.) 

So, more correctly, there over 4000 (possibly as many as 25,000) 
cases of civilians acting in self-defence, only 21 of which resulted
in the death of the attacker. This is a significant factor, in
comparison to the 592 homicides. If memory serves, homicides
make up approximately 1% of the violent crimes the study
considered, so the fair comparison would be 40 - 250 homicides
prevented and 592 homicides. Clearly, the study can not be
close to accurate, since it ignored these cases of self-defence.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53319
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Subject: Re: Bill 'Blame America First' Clinton Strikes Again.

jeddi@next06pg2.wam.umd.edu (Anheuser Busch) writes:
 >This argument sounds very stupid.. if the ability to make guns from
 >"simple metalworking" was easy,  then Drug dealers would make their own 
 >wouldn't they???.. why spend hundreds of dollars buying a gun that
 >somebody else made cheap and is selling it to you at an
 >exorbitant markup???... The simple truth of the matter is, that regardless
 >of how easy it is to make guns, banning guns will reduce the 
 >the number of new guns and seriuosly impede the efforts of a 
 >killer intent on buying a weapon....
 >To show why the tools argument is the silliest i have ever seen.. take an
 >analogy from computer science... almost every computer science major
 >can write a "wordprocessor" yet we(comp sci majors)  would willingly pay 3  
 >to 400 bucks for a professional software like wordperfect... why don't we  
 >just all write our own software???...... Because it is highly  
 >inconvinient!!!..
 >Same with guns... secondly.. how does one get this gunpowder for the 
 >"home made gun" ??? Take a quick trip to the local 7-eleven???.
 > If guns were really that simple to make... the Bosnian muslims would
 >be very happy people (or is it the case that metalworking tools are
 >banned in bosnia??? (deep sarcasm)  ).
 >
 >well this is my two cents..
 >   i will now resume reading all these ridiculus post from people
 >     who must make their living doing stand-up comedy.
** END OF FORWARDED MATERIAL **

-- 
And so, the rubber spheroid arced beneath the brilliant lights.
Headed for a hoop of dreams he'd dreamt of all those nights.
The crowd gasped as the ball descended; Would it grant their fondest wish?
There was no doubt in Casey's mind, He knew it was a *SWISH*!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53320
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Fwd: FREE NRA MEMBERSHIP OFFER

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>The NRA supports anyone who's pro-gun and has a chance of winning
>election, regardless of their other positions.  Is it their fault that
>some drug-legalizers are anti-gun?  Is it their fault that the
>drug-legalizers who are pro-gun can't get elected?

     It's not the NRA's fault; but it is something to consider if you are
considering contributing to the NRA. If candidate B is a complete asshole
whose only saving grace is that he opposes unnecessary restrictions on
firearms, I wouldn't want my membership dues funding efforts to get him
re-elected.

     I have other problems with the NRA (as an organization; the individual
members I've met have been loyal, trustworthy, honest, brave, etc.,
especially my boss who probably reads this newsgroup B->); they are
definitely pro-hunting, and I recall seeing a pro-Desert Storm NRA bumper
sticker. Sometimes they come on too strong in the political arena, which
contributes to their reputation as "bad guys" amoung many people.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
     This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent
 less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her
 sweetness and respecting her seniority." -- E.B. White


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53321
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: the usual

kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes:

>I just heard some anti-gun-control people giving the usual arguments:
>It's everyone's right to bear arms, and the way to solve the problem
>of people getting killed by guns is better law enforcement.

>It strikes me that this argument could be logically extended as follows:

>A nuclear weapon is an "arm", hence anyone has a right to have 
>nuclear weapons. And if someone uses his nuclear weapons to blow
>up New York, L.A., and Chicago, that's okay as long as we have a
>good police force capable of finding him and putting him in jail, 
>which will serve as a deterrent to others.

>Do any anti-gun-control people disagree with this, and if so,  why?

Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
(Can you say "neutron flux"?)  Plus these things have no self-
defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
(translation:  cities and population centers).  Not to mention that
for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live
requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53322
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)

>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?...
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.

No. The issue is reducing crime, not guns. If gun control doesn't
lower crime overall, then is doesn't address the issue.

>...Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...

Does that matter if assaults with a baseball bat become much
more common? Muggers using a gun rely primarily on the
threat of the gun, and rarely shoot their victim. A mugger
using a knife is much more likely to start by stabbing his victim 
in an effort incapacitate him. So, while a knif may not
be as deadly as a gun, criminals are more likely to actually
_use_ the knife (as opposed to threatening the victim with it.)
It isn't at all clear that replacing the criminal's gun with a
knife would reduce murders. Stabbings might just become more
common. That's why it is important to look at the overall
(not the with-gun) homicide rate. It avoids the issue of
substitution, different criminal techinques of using different
weapons, etc... and measures what we want to prevent: Murders.

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.  

"Face"? Possibly. However, facing knife-welding attackers isn't
too common: Stabbing without warning and by supprise is the
usual tactic. Very few criminals shoot from cover: It attracts
to much attention and they don't have a chance to go through your
pockets. Overall, I'd much rather be threatened with a gun
than actually stabbed with a knife.

>...Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

Actually, the exact same statement is true of guns: Training in
unarmed self-defence will let you disarm an untrained gunman 
without much problem.

You also ignore the criminal's reaction: The National Crime
Survey clearly shows that criminals (unarmed, armed with a
knife, gun or whatever) are unwilling to risk their lives
in a confrontation. If faced with a serious threat, almost
all prefer to leave and find an easier target. Therefore,
using (or threatening to use, as is much more commonly the case)
a weapon _is_ the best defence against an attacker, regardless
of how he is armed. Knives, however, are much less effective
than guns: Criminals don't consider knifes as a "serious threat"
nearly as often as they do guns.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53323
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
>effect on homicide rates.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there would be no effect. But
there would be no _net_ _positive_ effect. You also have to 
consider the negative side: Law abiding citizens, armed with 
fireamrs (pistols for the most part), prevent between 80,000
(National Crime Survey) and 1,000,000 (Dr. Kleck) crimes
each year. (Those are the extremes. Most studies find
the number to be 500,000 to 600,000.) About 1% of those crimes are
homicides, so private ownership of firearms _saves_ approximately
5,000 lives each year. There are roughly 12,000 criminal homicides
and fatal accidents involving guns each year. For there to 
be any net benefit, you would have to show that gun control measures
would disarm over 40% of the criminals currently using guns.
That would be very hard to do: According the the federal BATF,
only 8% of criminals buy their guns over the counter. Since
gun control laws, by their very nature, only effect legal
sales, such a law would remove all the benefits of armed,
law-abiding citizens while having only a minimal effect on
armed criminals (who, by and large, get their guns illegally.) 
That doesn't sound like a net benefit to me.
  
>...There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
>homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.

Since most were with licensed weapons, I assume you are not
supporting "reasonable" laws (i.e. waiting periods, background
checks, licenses, etc...). Since only a complete ban would 
alter the statistic you refer to, I assume that's what you
are supporting.

By the way, 1135 people dies in 1986 from falling down stairs.
250 accidental handgun deaths isn't significant next to 
other household accidents.

>...More
>American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
>than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.

1080 children under the age of 10 died by drowning, 69 from 
drinking poisonous household chemicals (like Drano), 139 from
falls. If the real goal is to reduce the tragic, accidental
deaths of children, wouldn't a ban on drain cleaners be a 
better palce to start? (Or, perhaps, restricting ownership to
professionals like plumbers?)

>...Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
>TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).

While you might call it "emphasis", refering to completely two
statistics in the same sentence _implies_ a comparison. If it
isn't valid, and you put the numbers together to convince people
you are right, the kindest thing I could call it is propaganda.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53324
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?

>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

>... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.

Because there are about 40 homicides total (i.e. using guns, knives,
tire-irons, baseball bats, bare hands, etc...) in Switzerland
each year and 850 homicides, total, in England. That's three
times worse per capita in England than in Switzerland. Since
dead is dead, it really doesn't matter that 60% of the Switz
murders involved a gun or that only 0.9% of the English murderers
do. 

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53325
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Bill 'Blame America First' Clinton Strikes Again.

In article <12741@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> >This argument sounds very stupid.. if the ability to make guns from
> >"simple metalworking" was easy,  then Drug dealers would make their own 
> >wouldn't they???..

They do. According the the Los Angeles Police Department, illegal
manufacture is one the three primary sources of machine guns and
submachine guns used in crimes (sumggling and theft from the
police and military being the other two.) Washington D.C. police
have stated that 40% (If I'm remembering the figure correctly) of
the guns they conficate were illegally built.

> >...why spend hundreds of dollars buying a gun that
> >somebody else made cheap and is selling it to you at an
> >exorbitant markup???...

It takes about 6 hours and a few tools to make one (at least one
of reasonable quality). Unless the drug dealer enjoyes messing
around on a lathe (say, as a hobby), he's going to have to 
pay someone anyway. Materials plus six hours of a machinist's
time for something legal would run about $100. The blackmarket
prices for guns are usually in the $50 to $200 range (at least
those few I've seen cited in newspaper articles were...)

> >...The simple truth of the matter is, that regardless
> >of how easy it is to make guns, banning guns will reduce the 
> >the number of new guns and seriuosly impede the efforts of a 
> >killer intent on buying a weapon....

Washington D.C. has a total ban on handguns and prohibits assembled
rifles within city limits. It's homicide rate is almost ten
times the national average. It is also illegal for a D.C.
resident to drive to the Virginia or Maryland suburbs and
buy a gun (dealers are required by federal law to check IDs
and make sure the buyer isn't from another state) so the ban 
can not be easily side-stepped.

> >To show why the tools argument is the silliest i have ever seen.. take an
> >analogy from computer science... almost every computer science major
> >can write a "wordprocessor" yet we(comp sci majors)  would willingly pay 3  
> >to 400 bucks for a professional software like wordperfect... why don't we  
> >just all write our own software???...... Because it is highly  
> >inconvinient!!!..

Sure. But it you couldn't buy one, you would write your own (in
fact, people _did_ write their own 15 years ago...) More likely,
you would find a friend who was a particularly good programer
and get him give you a copy of his. Software is a _very_ bad
example for your case: How many people do you know with illegal
copies of $400 word processors? If people want something, and
it isn't available (or affordable) legally, they will usually
get it illegally.

> >Same with guns...

Quite.

> >secondly.. how does one get this gunpowder for the 
> >"home made gun" ???

13-3-2. The formula has been around for half a million years.
Or are you going to restrict sales of sulpher, charcoal and
saltpeter? That's alot cruder than modern smokless powder, but
it works very well. The only real problems are a ~25% reduction
in energy (so a .357 magnum would "only" be as deadly as a 9mm)
and it makes alot more smoke... Of course, a smart black marketeer
could just make the gun in 9mm and steal the ammunition from the
police (the police are often corruptable, and things are known
to disappear from police evidence rooms and armories and
reappear on the streets...)

> > If guns were really that simple to make... the Bosnian muslims would
> >be very happy people (or is it the case that metalworking tools are
> >banned in bosnia??? (deep sarcasm)  ).

Perhaps you weren't watching the news two years ago, but the Serbs 
also tried to invade Slovinia. They were driven out after a few
weeks by partisans armed with home-made _anti-tank_ weapons.
The Afghan rebels frequently made their own rifles. 

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53326
From: franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the
family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before
the raid.

This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property;
any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.

In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time
that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
standards at least as moral as the military's.

Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children.
Government greed.

It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions.


Fred Franceschi   (These are my own opinions!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53327
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

J. Spencer (J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk) wrote:
: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

: >Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: >: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
: >: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
: >: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
: >: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
: >: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
: >: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
: >: > many people with baseball bats.

: [snip]

: If you examine the figures, they do. Stabbing is favourite, closely
: followed by striking, punching, kicking. Many more people are burnt to
: death in Britain as are shot to death. Take at look and you'll see for
: yourself. 

It means that very few people are shot to death in Great Britain.
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53328
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve  
: Manes) writes:
: [...]
: > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
: > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
: > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
: > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
: > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
: > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
: > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
: > 

: You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them
: to  be superior,

I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any
posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information.
It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while
others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that
you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.  

: then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying  

Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted
numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have
any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar
gratuitous shots at?

: to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major population  
: differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone might  
: attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not  
: comparison"?  Emphasis of what?

Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim.

: Anything else is blowing smoke.

You seddit, brudda.
 
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53329
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: A universal RIGHT to bear arms? NOT!

nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.080842.3554@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu  
(KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> >In article <1993Apr1.173759.4636@cs.yale.edu>  
nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu writes:
>> >>In article <C4sK5w.Lsr@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)  
writes:
>> >>> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>> >> >
>> >>> >I suppose that's true if you maintain that AK-47s and AR-15s are hunting
>> >>> >weapons.  I think they are fun to "plink" cans/targets/random VC with,
>> >>> >but not suitable for "real" hunting.  
>> >>> 
>> >>>  Wrong. Both are legal to hunt with here in Kentucky. I have a picture of
>> >>>  a friend with a nice 8-point buck which he shot with his AR-15 rifle.
>> >>
>> >>I don't think many deer hunters would condone your friends choice of
>> >>rifle. 
> 
>> >I must agree with Nathan. As a deer hunter, I find it inhumane to use
>> >underpowered weapons for deer hunting. To kill cleanly with the little
>> >.223 requires extremely good marksmanship. Most hunting situations don't
>> >allow for "perfect" shots. Hunters should use sufficiently powerful
>> >weapons to drop the deer with a single hit to the chest. The 7.62x39
>> >from the AKS-47 or SKS is adequate to this task, having similar ballistics
>> >to the familiar 30-30, but the little .223 is very marginal. In the
>> >hands of the expert, or the lucky, it will do, but hunters really
>> >should have more respect for their quarry. 
> 
>> >Gary
> 
>> I'll agree that the popular 55 gr. loading for .223 rem.  is too small for
>> deer-sized game.  However, if you use a 70 gr. semi-spritzer or the Sierra
>> 63 gr. semi-pointed bullet this would be suitable (like any round,
>> you keep your shots within a reasonable range).  It would still be on the
>> lower end of what I'd consider acceptable performance, especially those
>> long distance shots out West hunting Monster Mule Deer.  The .223 rem. has
>> been declared legal for deer hunting in Oklahoma.
> 
>> The .223 is excellent for varmit hunting and pest control.  The AR-15 in
>> particular is well suited, given its heavy barrel and heat shielded foregrip.
>> Add a high-power scope, and you're in "Dog heaven".
> 
>> However, I don't think Nathan Janette was refering to the specific chambering
>> of the rifle in question.  Maybe he thinks self loading rifles have no
>> place in deer hunting.  That may (or may not) be his opinion, but many
>> sportsmen do use self loading rifles and shotguns.

>Wrongo, NRA man.  I was definitely referring to the round, not the
>auto-loading aspect of the rifle.  I have no problem with *responsible*
>hunting.  That doesn't include machine guns from choppers, but a semi is
>fine.  My uncle has bagged several deer with 12 gauge slugs.  I would prefer
>that a hunter use as much of the catch as possible, and I don't condone
>hunting for "sport" only. 

>IMHO, of course.  

Two questions:

1)  You asserted that both the AR-15 and AK-47 are not suitable for
   "real hunting".  If you have no problem with hunting, or using
   self loading rifles for hunting, why did you say this?  If not
   for deer, then what about other, smaller game?

2)  When did I get the nickname "NRA man"?  Notice I have never referred
   to you as "Janette" which you don't seem to like.  Do I get any
   super-powers, like Spider Man or Powdered Toast Man?

Scott Kennedy    Brewer, Patriot, and now NRA-Man, defender of Truth,
                 Justice, and the 2nd Amendment.

kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53330
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com>, franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
|> On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the
|> family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's
|> Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before
|> the raid.

The briefing documents for the raid had a notation on them about a
similar local property which had sold for $800,000 prior to the
raid, if recent TV coverage can be believed.

|> This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property;
|> any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.

The Ventura County DA came to the same conclusion in the report he
released, which lambasted the Sheriff's Office.

Too bad the old man was nearly blind, and didn't take a few
goose-stepping Drug Warriors (TM) with him.

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53331
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: a universal RIGHT to bear arms? NOT!

rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:


>||	Wrong again, but if you want proof: turn on your TV and look
>||for a show starring Chuck Connors.  It was called, "The Rifleman."
>||Time how fast he can fire that old lever-action rifle.

>|Believe it or not, I remember seeing an advertisement for someone
>|selling one of these; apparently Winchester produced a bunch of
>|these commercially to commemorate the television show. I believe it was 
>|being sold as a handgun because of the barrel length and lack of a stock.

>I might be mistaking the above weapon for the gun used by Steve
>McQueen in "Wanted: Dead or Alive." If so, sorry. Did Winchester
>make any commemorative models of the rifle used by Chuck Connors
>in the movie? Chuck Connors was an NRA member before he died recently...

I don't know for sure if Winchester made any commemeratives.  If I
recall correctly, the rifle itself was a .44-40 Model 92 with an
oversized loop lever.  I don't think Winchester makes this rifle
any more.  Rossi make a Model 92 look-alike in .38 Special and
.357 Magnum.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53332
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: ACLU (was Re: Waco Shootout ...)

"Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>>The 2nd Amendment does say "keep and bear."  If "bear" is defined to
>>mean "carry," then most people are physically unable to carry a several
>>hundred pound nuclear device.

>As I understand it, sub-kiloton nuclear demolitions are man-portable
>and carried in a backpack.

As I recall, in the 60's the Kennedy Administration had sub-kiloton
nuclear weapons withdrawn from Europe and destroyed.  They were man-
portable and made for use in shoulder-mount rocket launchers.  The
smallest nuclear test I've seen data for was a .1 (yes, one-tenth)
kiloton weapon tested either in the late 40's or early 50's.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53333
From: Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> ,
franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
> In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
> troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is
time
> that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
> standards at least as moral as the military's.

No, Lt Calley was later acquitted. His troops killed 400-500
people, including kids, elderly and women... I sure don't want
to see the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country
adhere to those "military standards"... If they did, we're
all in big trouble...(The My Lai massacre was covered up
by high-ranking officials and ALL who were involved were
ACQUITTED).

  == Minh ==

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Minh Lang, Software Engineer  - Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 Instrumentation Systems Group - Instrumentation section 375
 Note:  My employer has nothing to do with what I said here...
+------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53334
From: alleyja@yang.earlham.edu
Subject: <None>

In article <1993Apr4.4332.33144@dosgate>, nigel.allen@canrem.com (nigel allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.
> 
>  Sarah Brady Calls On Governor to Veto NRA Bill; Bayh Urged to
> Follow Clinton's Lead
>  To: State Desk
>  Contact: Cheryl Brolin of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792
> 
>    WASHINGTON, April 2 -- In a letter today to Indiana Gov. 
> Evan Bayh, Sarah Brady, wife of former White House
> Press Secretary James Brady and chair of Handgun Control Inc.,
> called on the governor to veto NRA-backed "preemption" legislation
> (S.B. 241), which would wipe out existing local gun laws and
> prohibit localities from enacting future regulations governing the
> sale, possession or transfer of firearms.
>    "I'm counting on Gov. Bayh to show the same kind of political
> courage President Clinton showed as governor of Arkansas, when he
> twice vetoed this type of special-interest legislation," Mrs. Brady
> said, referring to Clinton's veto of NRA-backed preemption bills in
> 1989 and 1991.
> 

I knew that Cutie would sell us out.  Full-blooded Democrat, he is :-)

Seriously folks, if it can happen here (remember?  we all got gun racks on
our 4x4s), it can happen anywhere.  Now to get that letter ready.  `Dear 
Cutie, as one who didn't vote for you, I can sincerely say I am unhappy...'


>  -30-
> -- 
>  Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada  nigel.allen@canrem.com
> --
> Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
> 416-629-7000/629-7044

Those who know what's best for us
Must try to save us from ourselves
-- RUSH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jason Alley                  || The opinions expressed were given to me      |
| Earlham College, Richmond IN || by aliens living in my pancreas.             |
| AlleyJa@Yang.Earlham.Edu     || The Empire never ended.                      |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53335
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: the usual

hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

>The possession of nuclear arms (actually weapons grade fissionables) is
>currently regulated only by market forces.  I.e.:  To own them you have to
>either make them, buy them or steal them.  The only thing that stops you
>is the staggering cost (more than most nations can afford), the fact that
>no one who has them wants to sell to you and the tight security maintained
>on existing stocks. (Just ask Saddam Hussein).

I was under the impression that to obtain fissionable materials (i.e.,
plutonium or reactor/weapons-grade uranium) one was required to obtain
a federal permit to own such materials.

>Given a source of fissionables, you can build a bomb in your garage with
>parts from hardware stores and electronic junk supplies.  You might have
>to engage in some shady dealings to get the explosive charge, but that's
>trivial compared to getting the plutonium.  The basic information on the
>design was declassified years ago and can be dug out of any technical
>library by a physics grad student.

Actually, why bother looking it up?  From the material we covered last
term (in 10 weeks) of Ge/Ch 127 (Nuclear Chemistry), I could *derive*
what it would take to build a bomb.  And as far as the explosive charge,
I (as a chemist) could synthesize a variety of explosives from commonly
available chemicals in the garage if I felt like.  The electronics 
behind the detonator and the shaped charges are a little trickier,
however . . . but not impossible using a few "tricks of the trade."
And if I really wanted to be nasty, I could include a core of 
hydrogen and deuterium . . .

Of course, the hardest part is getting the fissionable material
to start with, and living long enough to put a bomb together. 
(Plutonium has some *nasty* properties . . .)

>The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
>Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                      Laws define crime.
>3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483       Police enforce laws.
>Santa Monica, CA  90405                            Citizens prevent crime.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53336
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Another NYTimes Yellow-Sheet Editorial (4/4/93)

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:


[other uninformed, purposefully ignorant gun control ranting deleted]

>*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the
>effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap
>and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help
>investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing
>- trace the explosives involved.

I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the 
explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the 
consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based
one.  Ammonium nitrate, to be exact . . . of which about
90,000 tons disappears per year (if I recall the stat correctly;
I don't have it here.)  Just one more disregarding of reality
to push a point.

[more bunk deleted]

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53337
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Waco dates - are these coincidental?

I do not think it is at all unlikely that Clinton ro his policy
wonk facilitators arranged the Waco raid as a display piece for  the
Gun War on the Constitution.  Look at what the Bush administration did to
get material for the Drug War on the Constitution--remember that baggie of
crack George waved at the cameras?  They took a dealer from the ghetto
and brought him to the White House so they could say drugs had been
dealt onb the White House Lawn.
And I don't think anybody could honestly think Clinton would have any
moral qualms about the raid...
The only really worrisome thing is that the BD's heroic defense of
their ranch will make Clinton's Gun War on the Constitution _more_
successfull--exactly as he wanted.  The media and politicians will
filter this so that the general public will think the BD's
are bad guys!  Don't help them.  Stand up for the BD's with your
friends and family adnd in public anytime you can--their supposed
moral qualms are not important to the issue.  They are heroes in the
fight against oppressive government;  it could just as well have been
you.
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu  (Brian E Watkins)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53338
From: dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure. 
Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
world. We'd do well to emulate them on that and forget about getting more
rifles on the street. Let's disband the NRA and start a National Investment
Banking Association, replete with red and black sticker for the back window
of Bubba's Mercedes 600! We could fire Charlton Heston and get Paul Volcker
for a spokesman.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53339
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Questions to Ponder

The Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus in Fort Collins, Colorado,
submitted this as a questionnaire to the city council candidates
in the upcoming election. As expected, very few of the candidates
(3 of 13) responded, but they know we're watching.

Feel free to use any and all of these questions that strike your 
fancy or use them as inspiration for your own.

                                *****
       
   1.  Would you be willing to state, in writing, that if you are
       publicly demonstrated to have violated your oath of office
       you would resign and never run for office again?
       
   2.  Under what circumstances do the rights of the group come
       before the rights of the individual?
       
   3.  Would you support a city charter amendment prohibiting the
       city government, its officials, agents, and employees from
       initiating force against any human being for any reason?
       
   4.  Please put the following list in order of precedence (from
       lowest to highest): a) city ordinance, b) city resolution, 
       c) state law, d) federal statute, e) U.S. Constitution, 
       f) state constitution.
       
   5.  Do you believe that it's appropriate for any city official or
       employee to be paid more than his or her average private
       sector constituent?
       
   6.  Do you believe that involuntary contributions are a legitimate
       means of funding council programs?
       
   7.  Would you support a program recognizing the right of
       taxpayers to "earmark" their taxes (either as "must be used"
       or "must not be used") for specific programs?
       
   8.  In the event that the candidate "None of the Above" were to
       win a city election, which option do you believe most
       appropriate? a) The candidate with the next highest vote total
       fills the office. b) A special election is held to fill the 
       office, with none of the previous candidates eligible to run 
       again. c) Let the office remain unfilled and unfunded until 
       the next election. d) Abolish the office.
       
Please return your questionnaire to: [address of your choice]

A signature and date line were added here.
    
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.

                                 ******

The questionnaires were sent with self-addressed, stamped envelopes.

P.S. One person _did_ get a perfect score on the questionnaire, and,
no, he didn't help write it.

Cathy Smith

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53340
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
>Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
>because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
>500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
>picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
>sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure. 

The Swiss population is (and well was) far larger than that. I think
your question should be, "...losing sleep over a million expert
riflemen?" Certainly he could have conquered Switzerland, but
a million armed militiamen (especially in a mountainous area, 
where tanks' effectiveness is limited) would have made it a
real pain. The question a conqueror would ask, is "is it worth 
the trouble?" The more difficult an invasion is, the more likely
the answer would be "no." Certainly a million riflemen (as
opposed to a professional army of only ten or twenty thousand, the
best a country the size of Switzerland could support), makes
invasions more difficult.

>Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
>world.

Really? In 1939? I'm not even sure you could prove that today (despite
the steriotype.) Certainly the Swiss bankers were not essential
to the German war-time economy.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53343
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: the usual

arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:

>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)

	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?

>  Plus these things have no self-
>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
>(translation:  cities and population centers).

	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.  They
won't be too useful in certain areas, but leveling the Pentagon
would be a "good thing" for said overthrow and it's likely one man
carrying a backpack would stand a better chance than one thousand
armed with Colt Peacemakers.  Don't let self-defense become the
only reason you can have a gun and your sole means of justification.
Myself, I won't overthrow my government until it ceases to be my
legal government, but if I need to I want every weapon I can get.

	One can just as easily say no rifle larger than a .22 is
needed to kill a human being.  They are right.  When that human
being is wearing armor and riding in an APC, things get a bit
different.  I don't see where the weapon is a problem.  It's not.
Only the manner of use is in contention here.

>  Not to mention that
>for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live
>requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .

	I guess you either don't have an alarm clock or have never
heard the terms "timer" or "martyr" either.  Don't forget remote
detonation devices.  That CB radio in the pickup next to you can
easily transmit ten miles in decent weather.  That's out of the
blast radius of many portable nuclear devices.

	Just what is it about radioactive decay that has you worried?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53344
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: the usual

arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:

>I was under the impression that to obtain fissionable materials (i.e.,
>plutonium or reactor/weapons-grade uranium) one was required to obtain
>a federal permit to own such materials.

	No, you merely have to start working on yellowcake or else
devise a system to get it from other sources.  BTW: the DOE handles
reactor fuel, and merely leases it to reactors.  The NRC certifies these
reactors.  The military have their own sources.  A private citizen has
none of these official sources.

>Actually, why bother looking it up?  From the material we covered last
>term (in 10 weeks) of Ge/Ch 127 (Nuclear Chemistry), I could *derive*
>what it would take to build a bomb.

	That's freshman-level chemistry.  Big deal.  Can you make it
work?  That's PhD-level physics.  Big difference.

>  And as far as the explosive charge,
>I (as a chemist) could synthesize a variety of explosives from commonly
>available chemicals in the garage if I felt like.  The electronics 
>behind the detonator and the shaped charges are a little trickier,
>however . . . but not impossible using a few "tricks of the trade."
>And if I really wanted to be nasty, I could include a core of 
>hydrogen and deuterium . . .

	So you admit that there's no law that could stop you?  Physics
aside, could you make one if you had the funds and time?  The answer
is yes.  So, do we lock you up now because of this?  Surely you can
see where the comparison with anti-gun laws comes into play here?

>Of course, the hardest part is getting the fissionable material
>to start with, and living long enough to put a bomb together. 
>(Plutonium has some *nasty* properties . . .)

	Precisely why it's not as readily utilized as you seem to have
been lead to believe.  BTW: 98% U235 is far better for home-made bombs
than trying to use plutonium.  The laws of physics make the creation of
a device without serious manufacturing facilities very low in probability.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53345
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the

In article <1993Apr5.213034.10706@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1pdmgaINN95f@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> 
>> >> If she *needs* a gun right now, why doesn't she already have one?  
>> 
>> >You are the victim of a cut-and-run purse-snatcher.  He makes off 
>> >with your purse, containing your ID, your house keys... and your gun.
>> 
>> So you're saying she can RUN RIGHT INTO A STORE, BUY A GUN, RUN BACK
>> OUTSIDE AND SHOOT THE GUY IN THE BACK AS HE RUNS OFF?  This doesn't
>
>No, he's saying she just lost her gun and she wants to buy another
>so that as she sits home alone tonight, she's not a sitting duck to
>any bastard who wants to break in.

In fact, the situation is more grim that that, even. The purse snatcher
now has her home address. If the woman lives alone, she is in great
personal danger.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53346
Subject: Re: Washington State
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

In article <1993Mar30.191157.8338@synapse.bms.com> hambidge@bms.com writes:
>In article <93088.191742U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>What is a CCW
>Acronym for Concealed Carrying of Weapon; basically, a permit to carry
>a concealed pistol or revolver.

I phoned Licensing Division in Washington State to ask for an application
for a CCW.  Instead they promptly sent me an applicationfor becoming a 
firearms dealer in Washington!

They even sent me a firearms safety pamphlet.
-Case Kim



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53347
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
>In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
>troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time
>that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
>standards at least as moral as the military's.
	Here! Here!  But any call for responsibility and accountability 
	from police is invariably interpreted as being "soft on crime".
	Being "tough on crime" and building more prisons and seizing more
	property is the politically astute thing to do these days.


>Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children.
>Government greed.
	And citizen complacency!

>It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions.
	Don't forget the politicians that write the laws that make it
	easy for the police agencies to become corrupt.  The War on Some
	Drugs brought us this corruption and only an end to it (legalization)
	will stop the corruption.


						smg



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53348
Subject: thanks to poster of NY Times article on ATF in Texas
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)


good job to whoever posted the article.  I'd
been saving that NYTimes edition for a while, planning to ytpe it
in myself, but now I don't have to.

For all of those people who were worried about whether or not
the media would even question the raid, we owe it to the
NY Times (despite their rabidly anti-gun editorials) for 
being willing to talk to these 4 BATF  agents.

-Case Kim


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53349
From: greg@puck.webo.dg.com ()
Subject: Re: RKBA on NYC radio station

|> Actually, the real reason that Stern was getting a bigger rating share was that
|> he was new in D.C., not because of the quality (if you can call it that) of 
|> his show. After the Fine was issued he started to get better ratings because 
|> of the curious individuals who wanted to see how bad he actually was. Since
|> he came to D.C. he has had a greater turn over of listeners than the "Grease"
|> has. In other words, more people get sick of him sooner than they do of the
|> "Grease". After all, saying vagina or penis on the air is hilarious at first, 
|> the second time it is still a little funny, but when you do it all the time, 
|> and at the same time, think you are the greatest man on the planet (and tell
|> everyone so) than you are going to get old really quick. 
|> Give it up Mark you are WRONG.
|> 
Excuse me, but if you really new what the show was about, you'd know that he
doesn't just say vagina and penis and that is how he get's his ratings. He
also addresss real issues as well as being outrageous. I don't hear any of these
other idiots doing a funny show and getting into some serious topics at the
same time, he get's people to think and entertains them at the same time, 
so try listening to his show a little closer before you tell them that they are
WRONG, and by the way, if he is such a flash in the pan, why do his ratings sustain
so well? Hmm?




-- 
-----------------------------------------------
Greg W. Lazar             greg@puck.webo.dg.com

J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS
-----------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53350
From: pspod@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: Founding Father questions

arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>Wasn't she the one making the comment in '88 about George being born with
>a silver foot in his mouth?  Sounds like another damn politician to me.
>
>Ain't like the old days in Texas anymore.  The politicians may have been
>corrupt then, but at least they'd take a stand.  (My apologies to a few
>exceptions I can think of.)  
>
>News now is that the House may already have a two-thirds majority, so 
>her "opposition" out of her concern for image (she's even said this
>publicly) may not matter.

Do people expect the Texans congressmen to act as the N.J. Republicans did?
-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@gonzo.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53352
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C519Mt.Apq@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve  
Manes) writes:
> Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
> : In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve  
> : Manes) writes:
> : [...]
> : > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
> : > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
> : > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
> : > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
> : > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
> : > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
> : > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
> : > 
> 
> : You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them
> : to  be superior.  I'm not aware of using any numbers from the ozone, unless  
you consider those I got from you to be such.
> 
> I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any
> posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information.
> It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while
> others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that
> you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.  
> 

Yes, You state the reference, and then YOU claim it's a good or fair treatment.  

> : then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying  
> 
> Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted
> numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have
> any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar
> gratuitous shots at?
> 

You fail to see the differences between absolute numbers and rates.

> : to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major  
population  
> : differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone  
might  
> : attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not  
> : comparison"?  Emphasis of what?
> 
> Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim.
> 

No, you just miss the point.  By your methods, I can prove gun control to be a  
total failure.  New York's total homocide count, with it's strict gun control,  
is MUCH higher than Rhode Island's, with it's less strict gun control.  FAR  
more folks are killed in New York, than Rhode Island.  Therefore, according to  
Mane Logic(tm), gun control has made New York a much more dangerous place than  
Rhode Island.  Remember, it's "Nitpicking" and "a whiney debating style" to  
point out the differences between New York and Rhode Island that might defeat  
my argument.

> : Anything else is blowing smoke.
> 
> You seddit, brudda.

Now you agree?  Wow, a break-through!
>  
> -- 
> Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
> Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


--
Jim

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53353
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C518B1.AMF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: >: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
>: >: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
>: >: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
>: >: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
>: >: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
>: >: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
>: >: > many people with baseball bats.

>: If you examine the figures, they do. Stabbing is favourite, closely
>: followed by striking, punching, kicking. Many more people are burnt to
>: death in Britain as are shot to death. Take at look and you'll see for
>: yourself. 

>It means that very few people are shot to death in Great Britain.

And I'm sure that is a great comfort to the widows and children of
those stabbed, beaten and burned to death. The real question is,
"Did the crime rate in England go down, after they enacted 
gun control laws?" If you look at the rates before and after their
first such law in 1920, you will see no effect.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53354
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Armed Citizen - April '93


THE ARMED CITIZEN
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
Armed Citizen.  Shooting usually can be justified only where
crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life or limb
or, in some circumstances, property.  The accounts below are from
clippings sent in by NRA members.  Anyone is free to quote or
reproduce them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Retired Las Vegas deputy police chief Larry Bolden initially
tried to defend himself with a steering wheel bar lock when a
criminal attacked him in his car.  But then the intruder wrestled
it from him, Bolden pulled his pistol and fired several times,
wounding his attacker and stopping the incident.  "He was just a
citizen defending himself," a police official said.
	(The Review-Journal, Las Vegas, Nev., 11/11/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   A pair of teenaged robbers armed with a sawed-off shotgun and
handguns took the day's receipts from Brooklyn bodega owner Hector
Martinez.  As they made their getaway, Martinez grabbed his
registered 12-gauge shotgun and gave chase.  When one fired,
Martinez returned three blasts, slightly wounding his assailants.
They fled but were apprehended when they sought medical attention.
	(Newsday, Long Island, N.Y., 01/05/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   A sign posted on the door of Roman Paras' shop reads "The 
owners of this property are armed and highly skilled to protect
life, liberty and property from criminal attack."  Apparently, a
pair of robbers didn't pause to read it as they threatened Paras'
wife in their Oxnard, Calif., convenience store.  Hearing her
scream, Paras grabbed his .38, ran to the front of the store and
shot it out with the masked and armed men, killing one criminal.
	(The Times, Los Angeles, Calif., 12/04/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Anne Marie Sullivan was showering in her Portland, Oreg., home
one morning when she heard the front door crash in.  She jumped
out of the shower in time to see a man entering the home.  Running
to the bedroom, Sullivan retrieved her boyfriend's pistol and
fired two shots, mortally wounding the intruder.  The dead man had
a lengthy police and prison record.
	(The Oregonian, Portland, Oreg., 01/07/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Mike Baranelli would have let two robbers who burst into a
Birmingham, Ala., barber shop keep his money.  But the 75-year-old
retired teacher was unwilling to surrender his life.  When the
intruders ordered Baranelli, the shop owner, and another man to 
lie on the floor, Baranelli pulled his pistol and shot both men in 
the head, killing one.  "I felt sure there was going to be three 
dead people in there.  I think I had some divine help," Baranelli 
said.
	(The Sunday Advertiser, Montgomery, Ala., 01/03/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Believing an elderly Harvey, Ill., couple would again be easy
prey, a knife-wielding home invader instead met death when the
76-year-old homeowner loosed three rounds from a semi-automatic
pistol.  Police said the dead man had been charged several times
for thefts from the couple's home.
	(The Star, Chicago Heights, Ill., 01/07/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   The criminal's profile was scheduled to appear on "America's
Most Wanted," but his shot at fame was abruptly canceled by a
Hallandale, Fla., service station clerk.  The Michigan prison
escapee walked into the station and announced a robbery.  Instead
of cash, he got bullets in the head and chest from station clerk
Gary McVey.  Police said McVey acted in self-defense and would not
face charges.
	(The Sun-Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., 12/04/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   A Bridgeport, Conn., oil delivery man handed over the few
dollars he had.  But the thug, apparently unsatisfied with his
take, turned his gun on his victim and demanded more money.  
Instead of more cash, the deliveryman instead pulled his own
pistol and fired, mortally wounding the robber.  Police said the
dead man had held up a nearby market just before the fatal
incident.
	(The Courant, Hartford, Conn., 01/13/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   After repeated burglaries at her San Marcos, Calif., home, Joan
Vessel, 64, was ready with a .38 and a cordless phone when she
heard glass breaking one afternoon.  When she found two teenagers
attempting to get into her woodshed, Vessel fired a warning shot
over their heads, marched them into the front yard and called
police.
	(The Times Advocate, Escondido, Calif., 12/25/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Angry that his auto insurance had been canceled, a client used
brass knuckles to take it out on Brandon, Fla., agent Steven
Taylor.  When his assailant walked out of the office, Taylor
grabbed a pistol kept there and held the former client at gun-
point until police arrived.
	(The Tribune, Tampa, Fla., 01/14/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Dozing one evening at his Exeter, Pa., office, Jim Pisano was
awakened by the barking of his dog.  Sitting in stunned amazement,
he watched as two men smashed out his office window, reached in
and grabbed one of his hunting rifles.  Reaching a pistol on his
desk, Pisano fired several shots, apparently wounding one of the
burglars, and putting them to flight.
	(The Times-Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 12/09/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Trying on a pair of shoes was just an act for a criminal who
then pulled a knife and demanded money.  When the man advanced,
the Flint, Mich., shoestore owner drew his pistol and fired,
critically wounding the would-be robber.
	(The Journal, Flint, Mich., 01/13/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Disarmed and pistol whipped after struggling with a pair of
shotgun-toting thugs, Brooklyn, N.Y., pharmacist Soel Melero 
continued fighting and managed to retrieve a second-also licensed-
hidden pistol.  Firing three times, the druggist killed one of his
assailants.  The other fled empty-handed.
	(The Daily News, New York, N.Y., 01/18/93)
==================================================================
-- 
*************************************************************
*Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
*Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
*Intergraph Electronics                                     *
*381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
*Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
*************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53355
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Founding Father questions


In article <1993Apr5.153951.25005@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, pspod@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) writes:
>arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>>Wasn't she the one making the comment in '88 about George being born with
>>a silver foot in his mouth?  Sounds like another damn politician to me.
>>
>>Ain't like the old days in Texas anymore.  The politicians may have been
>>corrupt then, but at least they'd take a stand.  (My apologies to a few
>>exceptions I can think of.)  
>>
>>News now is that the House may already have a two-thirds majority, so 
>>her "opposition" out of her concern for image (she's even said this
>>publicly) may not matter.
>
>Do people expect the Texans congressmen to act as the N.J. Republicans did?

There is a (likely) veto proof majority in the house.  The Senate,
unfortunately, is a different story.  The Lt.Gov. has vowed that the bill will
not be voted on, and he has the power to do it.  In addition, the Senate is a
much smaller, and more readily manipulated body.

On ther other hand, the semi-automatic ban will likely not live, as at least
fifty per cent of the house currently opposes it, and it is VERY far down in
the bill order in the Senate (I believe it will be addressed after the CCW
bill).

And I thought my TX Political Science class was a waste of time!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53356
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>hambidge@bms.com wrote:
>: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
>: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
>: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
>: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
>: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
>: 
>: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
>: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
>: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
>: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
>: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.
>
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?
>
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>
>.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.

       If you want to talk "less likely to get killed with a handgun"
you'd have a point.  "Safer" includes other things than simply handguns,
and you can't conclude "safer" by ignoring them.

       Now if somebody's got the total homicide rates...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed." - Lazarus Long

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53357
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)
>
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun
>control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will
>live in a homicide-free world?

       The relevance is that if you've got x homicides and reduce
the number of gun homicides in that group, but x doesn't decrease
by a significant amount, have you made an improvement, and is that
improvement worth what you've paid?

>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
>certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.

       If a baseball bat is a tenth as likely to kill a victim as a gun,
is that any comfort to that tenth?

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks. 

       I've faced a knife.  And I was damn annoyed I didn't *have*
a gun.  All the statistics in the world didn't change the fact that
*he* was interested in cutting *me*.

>Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

       "Anyone trained in self-defense." 

       Unarmed self-defense isn't for everyone.  What's more, it requires
substantially more training to be safe and effective than a firearm.
It requires physical proximity and thus a greater threat to the victim,
which is a primary problem with stun guns.  You have to actually touch
your assailant.  Unless you're *very* good, a large, stronger assailant
can simply ignore your blows long enough to incapacitate you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53358
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: the usual

In article <viking.734084516@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
>>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
>>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
>>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
>>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)

>	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
>Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
>next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
>warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
>don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
>cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
>are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?

But whatever the neutrons hit has a good chance of absorbing the
neutron and becoming radioactive itself. Mostly, that means water
turning into (harmless) heavy water. But some neutrons would 
also hit bones, and the resulting harmfull, secondard radioactives
would remain in the body for decades. I think an unshielded nuclear
warhead could reasonably be considered a public health hazard.

As for a shielded warhead, I think a fair amount of maintaince
is required for it to remain safely shielded (e.g. storage in
a dry, temperature-regulated facility, etc...) For private
ownership to be unregulated, I think a single individual must
be able not only to keep the weapon, but keep it in a safe
condition. If any random private citizen could not properly
keep, maintain and store a nuclear weapon, then some regulation
is clearly appropriate.

>>  Plus these things have no self-
>>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
>>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
>>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
>>(translation:  cities and population centers).

>	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
>government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.

I disagree with this purpose: The job of the militia is to defend
themselves and their community. If you look at the American 
revolution as an example, the militias won by seperating themselves
from, and becoming independent of, a repressive government. They
didn't overthrow it, and those communities (Canada and England, for 
example) that didn't defend themselves were still under that same
old regime. If the role of the militia were offensive, to go out and
destroy repressive governments, nuclear weapons _might_ be appropriate.
But their jobs is defensive, and nuclear weapons aren't suited
for that.

There is also the question of personal and collective arms: The
Second Amendment definately protects ownership of personal
weapons (since the very nature of the militia requires members
to provide their own arms.) But it isn't clear if it covers
other arms. Certainly, not all members would supply (for example)
a tank, only a few could or (if they were to be used effectively)
should. However, those providing the heavy weapons have a 
disproportionate control over the militia and its fierpower.
The militias, as the framers envisioned them, were extremely
democratic: If only 50% of the members supported the cause, only
50% would respond to a muster, and the militia's firepower would
be proportionately reduced. Militia firepower and the popular
will were, therefore, linked. But if a small minority of the
members supplied a large fraction of the firepower (in the
form of heavy weapons) this would all change: The militia's
firepower would depend on the will of a small minority, not
of the general public. Worse, that minority would be quite
different from the general public (at the very least, they
would be much richer.) As a result, I think the nature and
character of the militia requires that each member provide
a roughly equal share of the militia's firepower: His personal
weapons, and some equitable fraction of a squad's heavier firepower.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53359
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Subject: Re: Statement of Sarah Brady Regarding Texas State Carrying Concealed Legislation


In a previous article, nigel.allen@canrem.com ("nigel allen") says:

>
>Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.
>
> Statement of Sarah Brady Regarding Texas State Carrying Concealed
>Legislation
> To: State Desk
> Contact: Susan Whitmore of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792
>
>   WASHINGTON, March 25 -- Following is a statement of Sarah 
>Brady regarding Texas state carrying concealed legislation:
>
>   "A handful of lawmakers in Austin today have told the public that
>their safety is of less importance than the interests of the National
>Rifle Association.  This action comes as local, state and federal law
>enforcement officials continue their stand-off with a religious cult
>that has highlighted the need for tougher gun laws, not weaker ones
>like the carry concealed bill.

   "A handful of anti-gun zealots are telling the public that their
right to self-defense is of less importance than the interests of
Handgun Control, Inc.  This action comes as local, state and federal law
enforcement officials continue their assault on the Branch Davidian
compound--an assault which has already resulted in the death of one
two year old child at the hands of federal agents.  This has highlighted
the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves and their children
against the excesses of their own government."

>   "Any suggestion by proponents that this bill will help to reduce
>crime is a distortion of the facts, at best.  This so-called
>crime-fighting law has resulted in a 16 percent increase in violent
>crime in the state of Florida, and I have never heard law enforcement
>officials bragging that more guns on the streets is the way to reduce
>crime.

  "Any suggestion by opponents that this bill will increase crime is a 
distortion of the facts, at best.  The aggressive outreach by officials
in central Florida to train and arm women has led to a dramatic drop in
the level of assault and rape in that area.  Of course, this program is
a rare gem, as many law enforcement officials apparently believe that an
unarmed citizenry will be easier to control, and thus favor tighter 
restrictions."

>   "The vote today is an insult to the law enforcement officials who
>are putting their lives on the line every day to end the standoff in
>Waco.  The entire country now knows just how easy it is for an
>individual bent on destruction to amass an arsenal of weapons.  Texas
>lawmakers who voted for this concealed handgun bill have shown total
>disregard for those law officials on the front lines, and the
>families of those who have fallen.

   "The vote today is a tribute to the good sense of the public at large
who are putting their lives on the line every day as they go about their
lawful affairs.  The entire country knows how vulnerable the average 
citizen is, both to attacks from criminals and from armed assault by our
own police.  Texas lawmakers who voted for this concealed handgun bill have
shown total understanding for those innocent, law-abiding citizens on the
front lines, and the families of those who have fallen."

>   "I urge the House of Representatives to listen to the 70 percent
>of Texans that oppose this measure, and reject this ill-conceived
>legislation."

   "I urge the House of Representatives to pay attention to the needs
of their constituents, and not be stampeded by ill-conceived arguments
from ideological fanatics."

> -30-
>-- 
> Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario     nigel.allen@canrem.com
>--
>Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
>416-629-7000/629-7044
>
Ain't propaganda fun?

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53361
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: What if the Dividians were black?

As quoted from <1993Apr5.172734.8744@icd.ab.com> by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):

> oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
> 
> > Questions for the media and the politically correct:
> > 
> > Try asking people who don't understand why anyone would worry about
> > the tactics used against the "child molesting, drug dealing, gun running, 
> > cop killing religious wackos in Waco" (1) these questions:
> > 
> > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits
> > charging in with assault weapons and grenades were LAPD 
> > what would you think?
> 
> 
> The charges are essentially the same they used against Operation MOVE
> in Philadelphia a few years back, where the cops dropped an incendiary
> bomb on the roof of a tenement and burned down a whole block.
> 
> MOVE was a black group.

There were some significant differences.  Whereas the Branch Davidians are
reported to have gotten along rather well with their neighbors, the MOVE
people are generally conceded to have gone far out of the way to antagonize
their BLACK neighbors, using loudspeakers to all hours of the night, keeping
large piles of garbage, promoting rat and insect infestation, and allegedly
threatening to kidnap their neighbors' children.

Still the same sort of questions regarding use of force remain in that case.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53362
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>
>.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.

Please, PAY ATTENTION.
I, and others, were referring to TOTAL HOMICIDE DEATHS, NOT JUST
HANDGUN HOMICIDES.  In terms of how likely are you to be killed,
(regardless of how it's done, 'cause DEAD is DEAD), the UK has a
higher homicide rate. Period.  You are more likely to be killed in the
UK than in Switzerland.  If you were to be murdered with a handgun,
then yes, Switzerland has a higher rate.  But, to belabor the point,
you are MORE LIKELY to be murdered in the UK. In that sense, the
weapon is irrelevant.  The UK is more violent, period.

Al
[standard disclaimer]

>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53363
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

>
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun
>control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will
>live in a homicide-free world?

They sure make it sound like that.

>
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
>certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.
>

Even a simpleton knows a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon. 
If one cannot run away (e.g. old, infirm, even middle-aged if the
assailant is younger), a handgun is the most effective means of
defense. You won't even have to fire a shot 98% of the time.

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.  Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

Any real streetfighter (and there are LOTS of them), with or without a
knife, will kick the living sh** out of most people "trained in
unarmed self defense".  For the majority of people, a gun is the most
effective form of self defense.

Al
[standard disclaimer]



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53364
Subject: Re: Nazi memoribilia
From: cmay@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Christopher C May)

In <1993Apr2.232511.10711@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

>Swatikas were also common in American Indian markings/painted walls etc.  Is
>it the Swastika that is bad?  

Just want to back this up with a personal anecdote.  My grandparents
have a Navajo rug made in the 1920's, which they received in trade 
from the weaver while living in Flagstaff, Arizona.  The decorative motif
consists of 4 large black swastikas, one in each corner.  What's more, the
color scheme is black, white, and red.  To the casual glance it would
undoubtedly appear to be a Nazi relic of some kind.  Yet they owned it
ten years before Hitler and the National Socialists came to power.  

As I recall, they took it down in the 30's, and didn't feel quite right
about putting it back up until the 60's.  It still draws comments from 
those who don't know what it is.

--ccm

-- 
Christopher C. May * U. of Ariz. Coll. of Medicine '93 * cmay@ccit.arizona.edu
+=============================================================================+
| Do your part for Liberty: Teach your children to hate Big Government.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Do you care about freedom? Dreams may have inspired it, and wishes promoted | 
|     it, but only war and weapons have made it yours. -- Robert Ardrey       |
| Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt. -- Ovid                              | 
| The wise man's understanding inclineth him toward his right hand, but a     |
|     fool's heart turneth him to the left. -- Ecclesiastes 10:2              | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Christopher C. May * U. of Ariz. Coll. of Medicine '93 * cmay@ccit.arizona.edu
+=============================================================================+
| Do your part for Liberty: Teach your children to hate Big Government.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53365
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Nazi memoribilia

In article <cmay.734085409@helium>, cmay@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Christopher C May) writes:
|> In <1993Apr2.232511.10711@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:
|> 
|> >Swatikas were also common in American Indian markings/painted walls etc.  Is
|> >it the Swastika that is bad?  
|> 
|> Just want to back this up with a personal anecdote.  My grandparents
|> have a Navajo rug made in the 1920's, which they received in trade 
|> from the weaver while living in Flagstaff, Arizona.  The decorative motif
|> consists of 4 large black swastikas, one in each corner.  What's more, the
|> color scheme is black, white, and red.  To the casual glance it would
|> undoubtedly appear to be a Nazi relic of some kind.  Yet they owned it
|> ten years before Hitler and the National Socialists came to power.  
|> 
|> As I recall, they took it down in the 30's, and didn't feel quite right
|> about putting it back up until the 60's.  It still draws comments from 
|> those who don't know what it is.

Having lived, played, and worked on and near the Navajo reservation
for a number of years, I can confirm this is an ancient pattern,
found in petroglyphs dated 800 to 1200 years old.

Also, the Indians never stopped making rugs with this pattern - they
just stopped selling them after the Nazi's pre-empted the swastika.

Note also that the Indian versions use both clockwise and
counter-clockwise swastikas.

Ob guns:  It's the rare Navaho family that doesn't own a rifle. 
They remember being "relocated" by the US Army, and don't intend to
do it again.  The Hopi, on the other hand, have a dislike for
weapons, from my experience.  Perhaps they just hide them better
from strangers.

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53366
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: National Crime Survey

      Well, I dropped by the library yesterday, and picked up back copies
of the National Crime Survey (1986-1990) in an effort to examine what
it said about self-defense with a firearm.

      I haven't ground through much in the way of numbers yet, but a couple
of things jumped out at me.  First only 1986 and 1987 specify the type of
weapon used in self defense.  1988, 1989, and 1990 refer only to "weapon."
The second is that while assaults rose about 3% from 1986 to 1987, w/gun
defenses reported *fell* by almost 25%.  Unless there's an explanation for
this, I'm tempted to mark it as a reporting problem, and as such going 
ahead with any examination of the numbers would be a waste of time.

      Anybody have an idea what might have cause a real difference, and
not just a reporting difference?  The survey doesn't appear to have
changed significantly between 1986 and 1987.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53367
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Do they really believe?

In article <1993Apr5.150031.3123@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:
>
>	Q: Do you think that HIC et al really believe that the laws
>that they are trying to get passed are for the good or are they just
>lying through their teeth and trying to disarm the populace?

I think that HCI people honestly believe that passing more gun control
laws will be in the best interests of public safety.  Why do I think
this?  Because I used to buy the HCI line.  During my freshman year (1987),
their line made so much sense -- only people who "need" guns should be
able to get them, and the people who "need" them are the police and
other elites.  Unfortunately for us, this position is highly emotional
and not well thought-out.  They never stop to think that HCI's position
basically says that the non-elite are incompetents (that's you and me,
folks!) and that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with
hunting or other "legitimate" uses (which excludes overthrowing tyrannical
governments and defending yourself when the police have proven they
can't protect you).

>	We all know that the end result, regardless of the intention,
>will be to have a MUCH easier to subdue population for the UN/NWO.
>This is definitely a motivation of many in power, but I wonder to
>what degree this is planned vs just duped.

Every pro-control person I've talked to is always left  stumped when I
simply argue the facts of gun control (that it has yet to be proven to
lower crime rates) and weapons terminology (and I'm no expert -- but
explaining exactly how an "evil" semiautomatic weapon really works
does wonders).

I hvae personally found well-reasoned arguments to be most effective
against the emotional pro-control people.  The trick is to get them to
realize that the Second Amendment exists not for hunters but for the
oppressed and the terrorized.

Daryl
             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53368
From: dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
: The Swiss population is (and well was) far larger than that. I think
: your question should be, "...losing sleep over a million expert
: riflemen?" Certainly he could have conquered Switzerland, but
: a million armed militiamen (especially in a mountainous area, 
: where tanks' effectiveness is limited) would have made it a
: real pain. The question a conqueror would ask, is "is it worth 
: the trouble?" The more difficult an invasion is, the more likely
: the answer would be "no." Certainly a million riflemen (as
: opposed to a professional army of only ten or twenty thousand, the
: best a country the size of Switzerland could support), makes
: invasions more difficult.

   Hitler invaded Yugoslavia and occupied it.  The mountainous portions were
sometimes patrolled by the wermacht, but they were certainly not in control.
There were two major native factions opposing each other and the germans,
It was basically useless to the germans (no production) and a drain on their
resources (a armored division and a couple of infantry divisions) Which if
my memory is correct, were kind of stuck there up until the allies accepted
their surrender.  (I think that the allies also let the germans keep some 
of their weapons for self defense unitil they were able to get to the 
lowlands, away from the resistance factions.  This is from memory, and 
it is unreliable.  

--Dale Farmer


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53369
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: I believe in gun control.

In article <C4vG3F.Kx3@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>I believe in gun control.  How about you?
>
>  I believe in gun control, too . . . assuming by "gun control"
>  you mean always being able to hit your target.
>
>
>---peter
>
   Or, how about the Clint Eastwood line in "Pink Cadillac" -
      "I believe in gun control.  If there's a gun around, I wanna be
       the one controlling it."

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53370
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Lavishly Funded "Gun Epidemic" Propaganda Campaign to Commence

In article <C4txEK.FCq@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>Morris the Cat (rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
>: Well, as Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition points out, the full
>: force of the anti-gun ruling class, their multi-millions, their
>: polling organizations, their schools, their news media, their
>: "entertainment" media
>
>The entertainment media... a "force of the anti-gun ruling class"??
>Is this the same media that's made billions producing films and
>television that glorify guns and gun users?  Or is that another
>anti-gun media?
>
>You've got to be kidding.

I'm afraid he isn't.  They are a hypocritical lot.  

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53371
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
>Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
>because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
>500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
>picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
>sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? 

Not just because of the riflemen.  They also have many hard bunkers in
the mountains that would be nearly impossible to penetrate. As for
tanks, they would be rather useless in such mountainous terrain.  

>Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
>world. 

Gee, that's a new one.  He thought it was a different ethnic group.  
Since Hitler was determined to control, at the least, all of Europe,
do you think he gave a damn about international monetary concerns?  
Also, there's a LOT of gold in Swiss vaults.  Don't you think he new
that?  If he could have, he would have taken Switzerland.  However,
crazy as he was, he wasn't totally stupid.  It would have cost him a
hell of a lot to take Switzerland, with no guarantee that an invasion
would be successful.  He probably figured (or his generals did, when
he was listening to them) that it wasn't worth the cost.

Al
[standard disclaimer]



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53372
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control


In article <C51L52.BGo@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>I would be surprised if there weren't contrary studies.  I might add that
>Sloan and Kellerman was endorsed by the police departments of both Seattle
>and Vancouver and is considered by most of the references I have at hand the
>most exhaustive study of its kind, even by those who take issue with some of
>the essay's conclusions.  S&K's statistics speak largely for themselves
>without postulate.

And, I might add, vitamin C has been endorsed by a Nobel Laureate as a
panacea for almost everything from the common cold to cancer.  

> In order to compare violent crime trends, S&K compared >all<
>violent crime categories, from simple assault through various mechanisms of
>homicide.  

Wait a minute. S&K did NOT compare trends.  If they did, they would
have seen that the advent of Canada's gun law had no effect on
homicides, total or handgun.  Without a pre- vs. post comparison, one
cannot speculate as to the utility of anything.  All they have is a
correlation, and correlation DOES NOT prove causality.


>If your point is that non-whites commit more handgun crimes than whites
>then yours is the dubious assumption.  Conventional social theory is that
>economic status, not color, is the primary motivating factor for crime,
>especially violent crime.  What's your point anyway, that white people
>are more responsible gun owners?  Should we assume that it's a coincidence
>that there are comparitively fewer white people earning below the poverty
>line and living in tenement neighborhoods where most violent crime occurs?

Hold it again. You dismiss a point about demographics, then you ask
about socio-economic demographics? Very slick.
>
>:    Differences between the two cities in the
>:    permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable.
>
>On the contrary, it's these differences that are the very basis of the study:
>the easy availability of legal handguns in Seattle and the much more
>difficult "restricted-weapons" permit required in Vancouver.

Once again, correlation does not prove causality.  Looking at pre-vs.
post data, the Canadian gun law had no effect.

>
>Not so.  Cook measures suicides and assaultive homicides with
>firearms against a survey-based estimate of the number of legal and
>illegal guns in circulation within a city.  

Sir, if you were a Canadian, and owned a gun before the restrictive
gun laws were passed, and decided to hide it rather than turn it in,
would you answer truthfully a question about gun ownership from
someone who calls, writes, or asks you on the street?  That is one
problem with surveys.  Nobody will answer an incriminating question.
Another is that people will often tell you what they THINK you want to
here.

>
>Again, your author misses the core issue: that Vancouver citizens are
>prohibited from purchasing handguns on the basis of self-defense.  They
>don't have a choice in the matter.

Does that mean no Vancouver citizens have handguns? I think not. You
are discounting guns purchased beforehand, and guns purchased for
purposes other than self-defense, which can also be used for defense.

>
>Hmmm... sounds like your author might like a bumper sticker that reads "Guns
>don't kill people, black people kill people!"  Honestly, his conjectures,
>backed up by zero evidence, zero studies and even less common sense, aren't
>worth the considerable time it must have taken you to type in.  His
>assumptions look frighteningly close to those pseudo-scientific "studies"
>that the white supremist assholes love... the crap that takes published
>statistics, twisted around in an attempt to prove the inherent criminal
>nature of black people.

He makes valid points about demographic differences.  You then resort
to the kind of argument that the "Politically Correct" movement often
uses to stifle any debate.  Nice, real nice.


>This author's essay contains 0% independent study upon which to base his
>conclusions, just some strained, disjointed statistical discourse attempting
>to blame Seattle's murder rate on blacks. 

One doesn't have to produce his own data in order to point out the
flaws in the methodology and conclusions of another's study. Again,
you resort to PC tactics.


Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 53373
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Another NYTimes Yellow-Sheet Editorial (4/4/93)

In article <1pmol6INNod9@gap.caltech.edu>, arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
> 
> >*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the
> >effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap
> >and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help
> >investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing
> >- trace the explosives involved.
> 
> I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the 
> explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the 
> consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based
> one. 

Proper counter to this claim:  "Forensic analysis of the WTC bomb by
means of taggants would have been as impossible as semantic analysis
of NYT editorials by means of taggants -- the difficulty in both cases
being to have persuaded the bull to consume the taggants before 
production of either item."
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54116
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes:
> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:
> >Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> >
> >Don't be silly.  Of course you can.  The police have everything 
> >the gangs have and then some.  Plus they've got access to the 
> >National Guard (via the Governor) if things get too rough.  That's 
> >tanks for those of you who've never seen them at play.  Of course, 
> >they've got rifles and helicopters.
> >
> >And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
> >armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
>
> What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally 
> blown out of proportion.  In my post I was referring to your 
> regular patrolman in a car cruising around the city vs. gang 
> members.  Of course the police have access to the things that you 
> mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the time?  Of 
> course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every 
> day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The 
> majority that I see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there 
> is anything wrong with a revolver but if you're a cop that is up 
> against some gang member with a couple of automatics in his coat (I 
> mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a disadvantage even 
> with training.

how so? i think you're making assumptions here that might not 
necessarily be true. -my- personal choice would be a semi-auto, but 
revolvers are just as effective, if not more so.

> I have been at a shooting range where gang gang members were 
> "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing taking out 
> their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target and they 
> weren't doing too badly either.

relevancy, please? you sound shocked, but that hardly proves anything.

> The University cops here (who are are state cops) are armed better 
> than the Chicago police.  It seems most state cops are.  I don't 
> know where you are originally from David but you live in Tennesse 
> and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news and in 
> the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here 
> than there.

wait, doesn't Chicago have -serious- gun control? if so, why do the
police need all that firepower in the first place? (sarcasm alert)

all the patrol cars i've seen around here have shotguns clamped to 
the dash board. IMHO, that's all the police need to outgun just about 
anything.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data  `,`
`,`  is Life -- The Player's Litany, from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54117
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Letter to a Liberal Colleague -- L. Neil Smith

Posted by Cathy Smith for L. Neil Smith

                   LETTER TO A LIBERAL COLLEAGUE

[AUTHOR'S NOTE:  "Adrian" -- name changed to protect the guilty -- 
and the author are science fiction novelists who once worked with 
the same editor at a famous New York publishing house.]

Dear Adrian:  

I'm way behind schedule on my current book again, so this reply to 
your note -- criticizing the recent magazine interview I gave and 
generally attacking gun ownership -- will necessarily consist 
mostly of assertions you're free to believe (or not) I can back 
with evidence and logic I've neither time nor energy to present 
now.  I've written fully on this topic before and will again in the 
future.  When I do, I'll make sure you get copies.  

There are many arguments I might make, from the futility and danger 
of delegating self-defense to the police (see Don Kates in the Jan. 
10, 1985 WALL STREET JOURNAL) to the real effect of prohibition, 
shifting consumers from newly-outlawed handguns or semiautomatic 
rifles to items like sawed-off shotguns or homemade bombs, but I'll 
limit myself here to commenting on the newspaper clipping you sent 
with your note.  

First, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Second, publication of some latter-day "scientific study" doesn't 
alter the fact that the gun prohibitionists I discussed in my 
interview -- annoying you so much in the process -- were lying.  

Third, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Fourth, as often happens with these things, the "study" doesn't 
support the gun prohibitionists' original numerical contentions 
anyway, but simply adds a new layer of spurious claims to an older 
body of lies, omissions, and distortions.  

Fifth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Sixth, the fact that gun prohibitionists have been caught lying on 
countless occasions (Carl Bakal, author of NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND 
BEAR ARMS, even confessed to it publicly) makes the value of this 
present "study" dubious, to say the least.  

Seventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is 
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, 
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic 
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Eighth, given your own lifelong service as a federal bureaucrat 
(not to mention the cynical sophistication of your fiction), you 
should be better aware than most people how "progress" -- in 
designing "studies" to prove whatever you want -- outstrips our 
ability to collect meaningful data.  A case in point we might agree 
on is the fact that it took another kind of prohibitionist 20 or 30 
years to create "studies" "proving" that pornography causes crime.  
More naive (and probably more honest) efforts in the 50s and 60s 
clearly indicate the contrary.  

Ninth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Tenth, another reason to doubt all such "studies" is that human 
behavior (as the Austrian School of economics demonstrates) is far
too complex and unpredictable to be meaningfully quantified.  The 
attempt to do so -- and then create public policy based on the 
resulting pseudo-information -- is wrecking our civilization.  

Eleventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is 
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, 
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic 
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Twelfth, the "study" is also worthless because it incorporates 
figures for suicide, which is not necessarily a tragedy but 
basically another individual right, sometimes with ancillary social 
benefits.  If anything, perhaps suicide INTERVENTION should be a 
criminal offense.  

Thirteenth and finally, the National Rifle Association officials 
quoted in the article, whatever their shortcomings (and they are 
many), are correct in this instance:  the "study" is meaningless 
because the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

And because of that, Adrian, even if the "study" were valid, it 
wouldn't deter me from a lifelong personal objective of seeing that 
anyone can own any weapon he or she prefers and carry it however, 
whenever, and wherever he or she desires without asking anybody's 
permission. In this I'm ably assisted by gun prohibitionists 
themselves, whose yawping invariably moves previously unarmed 
people to go out and buy their first gun "while they still can".  
Before the '68 Gun Control Act, most of the "shooting fraternity" 
viewed handguns (incorrectly, as it turned out) as inaccurate, 
ineffective toys.  There probably weren't six million of them in 
the whole country.  Now, thanks to Kennedy, Metzenbaum, the Bradys, 
and their ilk -- AMERICA'S GREATEST SPORTING GOODS SALES TEAM -- we 
probably manufacture at least that many every year.

The fascinating datum is that Handgun Control, et al. are perfectly 
aware of this -- so I guess you'll have to ask them yourself what 
their real motives are.  

Look:  gun-making isn't an arcane or difficult art (and by the way, 
it's easier to make a fully automatic weapon than a semiautomatic; 
the fact that I can still obtain my own weapon of preference, the 
self-loading pistol, is the only thing which keeps me from pursuing 
this further).  Even if it were difficult, there are already a 
quarter billion firearms in America, with an estimated "half life" 
of 1000 years -- possibly more for stainless steel.  Guns are gonna 
be around a long time, Adrian, whether you like it or not.

As for me, to paraphrase Elmer Keith, regardless of what the law 
provides or any court decides, I'm always going to be armed.  And I 
will always work to see that others are, as well.  The bad news is 
that there are thousands more -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands 
-- where I come from.  We can't be stopped by passing laws, we can 
only be forced to arm ourselves and others secretly and -- given 
both the practical and alleged differences between full automatics 
and semiautomatics -- perhaps more efficiently.  

So what's the point?  

L. Neil Smith
Author:  THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN, 
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54118
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
> 
> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
> 
>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
> 
>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>    No comparison.
> 
> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.

	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation. 
	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.

	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer
	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
	good dollar/pound deal. 

	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
	pay through the nose for it. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54119
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

I wrote :
  Nice strawman indeed.  The discussion is not about whether there were
tanks
  used in sixties riots; instead, it is about whether those tanks fired
their
  main guns in one of those riots.  You claim they did.  That claim is
  ludicrous.

Awesley replied:
     I repeated what I had been told, under what context I had heard it,
  supporting the claim that tanks were indeed used in Detroit in 67.

The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
has been whether they fired their main guns.  You did not merely claim that
tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.  You continue to
back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
disputing.

Awesley went on:
  I
  spent a few minutes in a library today -- found their computer was
  down and they don't have a card catalog.  Anyway, it took about 10
  minutes to find this in _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion and It's
  Victims_ by Sauter and Hines, on page 133, telling of the death of
  Tonia Blanding, age 4.
   
        "When the tank was fired upon by snipers it turned in the direction
  the shots came from. [...] the fifty-caliber machine gun mounted on the
  tank belched fire into the buildings.  After a short round into the front
  of the buildings, the tank guns spit again, tearing apart huge holes out
  of the side of the apartment."
  
       Well, it's not the main gun.  

"Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
now going to admit that you were wrong?

I wrote:
  will I see any pictures of tanks firing their main
  guns?  Will I see pictures of buildings damaged by the shells?  Will I
read
  the reports of the tank fire?  I'll bet you dollar to doughnuts I won't. 
  It will take more than second-hand accounts from a few old National Guard
  sergeants shooting the shit to convince me that tanks shelled American
  cities in the Sixties.

Awesley replied:
    Well, if you bothered to read them, it wouldn't take long at all to
  find reports of tank * fire * -- although not necessarily of the main
  guns.

I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
been *big* news.

Awesley goes on:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

And on:
  I don't
  expect to convince you; you'll have to open your mind and eyes and
actually
  do a little research to be convinced one way or the other.  Let me know
  what you find.

I already know what you found: nothing.  If I claimed that the Marines used
F-4s to launch rockets at buildings in Trenton, New Jersey would you
believe me?  Would you suspend judgment until you had a chance to research
it?  Or would your bullshit filters kick in?

If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
it.  Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 
If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54120
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
[deleted]
[]       And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
[]armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
[]
>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
>gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
>taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
>and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>state cops are.

Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to
3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).

A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.

- A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
  the trigger again.
- A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
  but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.
- A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
  to rotate to the next round.
- A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
  hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
  easy motion, even one handed.
- Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
  on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.

- A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
  first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
  lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
  about clearing it.
- Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
  and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the 
  chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
  this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
  of employment as a revolver.
- There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
  operation of many of them requires more training.

Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
as the timer on a VCR.

Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
equipped for anything short of a riot.

Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a 
wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
criminal encounters is less than 5.

What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police 
prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....

ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they 
        introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
        as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.

-- 
"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
	-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54121
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
[deleted]
>The University cops here (who are
>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
>in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
>and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
>than there.

Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops
right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper
and only option available to the law-abiding citizens?

A factoid:

56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from
around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings
there eh?  :-)

-- 
"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
	-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54122
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qiebiINN1c1@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>[deleted]
>>The University cops here (who are
>>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>>state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
>>in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
>>and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
>>than there.
>
>Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops
>right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper
>and only option available to the law-abiding citizens?
>
>A factoid:
>
>56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from
>around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings
>there eh?  :-)

        Well, if we're going to discuss being a police officer in
America today.       

        The FBI lists 132 police officers killed (feloniously and
accidentally) in 1990.  That's apparently everybody at all levels.

Year        Officers killed       Rate/100,000 police officers
1982             164*                  47.6
1983             152**                 40.2
1984             147                   39.4
1985             148***                37.9
1986             133                   34.9
1987             148                   39.0
1988             155****               41.9
1989             145*****              38.1
1990             132                   32.0


* Includes one officer in Mariana Islands
** Includes one officer each in Guam and Mariana Islands
*** Includes one officer in Guam and two in foreign locations
**** Includes one officer in American Samoas and two in foreign countries
***** Includes one officer in Guam and one Federal officer killed in
Peru


       God, I love the information age!  :-) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54123
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
>> 
>> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
>> 
>>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
>> 
>>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>>    No comparison.
>> 
>> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
>> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
>> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
>> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
>> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
>> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.
>
>	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
>	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation. 
>	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
>	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.
>
>	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
>	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
>	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
>	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
>	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
>	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
>	thus it is economical. 

       Here's a question:  If most marijuana is domestic and
producing it here is economical, why would we expect it to be
imported?

>       Of note though ... domestic reefer
>	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
>	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
>	good dollar/pound deal. 

       Yet it was done.  Done quite successfully for a number of years.
*Somebody* thought it was worth the risk.

>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. 

       Your assumption is that this "low" dollar/pound area is
sufficiently low as to make gun-running unprofitable.  On what
do you base this?  

       And given that smuggling channels are already established,
and given the economies of scale, would it really add significantly
more expense to start smuggling firearms, especially considering
doing so would be less hazardous (in terms of getting caught) than
drugs?

>       All production
>	would have to be local. 

       Now *that* was a jump.  In any case, define "local."  It's
a big country.
 
>       There are not all that many people
>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it. 

       Wow, you gotta love the speculation.

       As I posted before, we import billions upon billions of raw
ores across the Mexican border.  Not only that but ships come in and
out of U.S. harbors every day full stuff.  And customs doesn't even
have the extra advantage of being able to sniff them out.  

       I'd be willing to wager that a shipload of handguns would be
worth more than a shipload of raw ore, *and* you're virtually guaranteed
to get it past customs, because they'd have to hand search every hold of
every ship which came through.

       It's not simply a matter of how much money are they worth, but how
much *more* money are they worth than other goods, based on the likelihood
of being caught.  Less money than drugs, but also a safer thing to smuggle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54124
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1qfrhbINNo80@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>[...]
>this measure as it will prevent the evil Bambi-killers from hunting,
>and another will fight it for the interference with Nature that it is.

Such a measure would also have another benefit. It would relieve the
various states of the thorny problem of what to do with the hundreds
of millions of dollars hunters pour into the economy annually. I'm
sure that, to attain sure a lofty, humane, liberal and ecologically
(not to mention politically) correct goal, the environmental and animal
rights groups/individuals supporting such a measure would be more than
willing to add their names to a list of supporters seeking increased
taxation to replace these lost revenues. I am equally confident that
these same entities, given their noteworthy record in the area of social
responsibility and respect for private property, would feel morally
and ethically bound to raise the necessary funds to acquire the
hundreds of thousands of acres of land now held in private hands
solely for use as private hunting preserves by the landowner(s). To
do less than this would place these same groups/individuals in
the ethically untenable (to say nothing of environmentally and
politically incorrect) position of sanctioning the logging and
subsequent development and urbanization of these former private
hunting lands, which would no longer be useable by, or of any
benefit to, the landowner(s) in such a capacity.

W. K. Gorman

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54125
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?

In article <1993Apr13.221936.28301@watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>In article <shepardC5FtLs.681@netcom.com>, shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard)
>writes:
>|> How effective are personal defense products like mace, pepper-spray,
>|> tasers and other non-lethal "stun" devices compared to handguns?
>|> Any statistics on #'s and types in use?
>|> 
>|> These products seem very attractive compared to handguns
>|> because, being non-lethal, they are more "forgiving" of accident or
>|> mistakes/wrongful shooting (such as the Yoshi Hattori case), and
>|> allow the justice system to deal with the criminal (rather than
>|> criminals simply being _dead_, which has a certain "vigilante feel"
>|> which seems to bother anti-gun people).
>
>The "more forgiving" nature also has its down side; it allows a criminal
>to use them w/o the ADW [assault with a deadly weapon] charge.  They also
>can have lethal or dangerous side effects -
> - some people have violent reactions to mace/pepper sprays
> - stun guns can harm people with weak hearts
> - people have suffered eye damage from mace; the stuff that is available
>   now is less concentrated than it used to be.
> - some of the spray propellents are flammable
>
>|> 
>|> The arguments I see _against_ these non-lethal weapons compared to
>|> handguns are lack of range, lack of "stopping power" or effectiveness,
>|> and limited "ammo".  True?  How about cost?
>
>Sprays
>
>- using any of the spray based [eg mace, pepper] indoors is bound to
>  affect anyone else in the room (like the victim) due to the nature
>  of the stuff.
>
>- using the sprays outdoors in any sort of breeze mitigates its 
>  effectiveness.
>
>- from reading various articles, it appears that mace, especially the
>  mace available to citizens, is pretty ineffective on people under
>  the influence of drugs or alcohol.
>
>- pepper spray appears to be more effective, but has the inherent spray
>  delivery problem.  It still does not appear to be anything better than
>  a distraction that might buy you time to run like hell [if you can].
>
>Consider that running like hell isn't always a viable solution.  For
>example, if you are dressed in boots and the assailent is dressed in
>sneakers .. you might have a tough time outrunning them!
>
>Tasars and Stun Guns
>
>- require contact with skin for max effectiveness; a jacket [like a 
>  leather one] will mitigate its effectiveness
>
>- the user must be extremely close to the assailent; that puts them
>  at a considerable risk of injury. 
>
>- the user must keep the stun gun in contact with the assailent for some
>  non negligible period of time.
>
>- tasar darts can be pulled out.
>
>Consider the problem a small women would have keeping a stun gun in 
>contact with a average size man for any length of time w/o sustaining
>serious injury.
>
>|> 
>|> Have any anti-gun groups suggested non-lethal weapons, to counter
>|> the pro-gun argument that people will be left defenseless?
>
>I haven't heard of any.  Generally they contend that people don't
>need to [or aren't able] to defend themselves.
>
>|> 
>|> And, what legal restrictions/licensing apply to non-lethal devices?
>
>Civilian ownership of stun guns is frequently illegal [NY].  The sprays
>are also illegal in some states.  Believe it or not, they are still 
>illegal in NY, although about half the state thinks they are legal!
>[I believe that NY almost legalized them; i have heard that the reason
>they didn't was due to their ineffectiveness]
>
>I feel that the sprays are better than nothing, but only if the user
>does not believe the hype ["this'll drop 'em in their tracks" stuff]
>and uses it as a diversion o_n_l_y .
>- 
>|> 
>|> 	MarkS
>|> --
>|> Mark Shepard | shepard@netcom.com | Portola Valley, CA
>
>-- 
>Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
>                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
> (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. Would
those work very well in stopping an attack?

						Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54126
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: "High Power" Assault guns

In article <1993Apr14.143825.13476@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
> Alaska with 1 UZI, 1 20 rnd Magazine, and 1 BIG Polar bear @
                                                 ^
I'd make that, "1 BIG, MAD, and HUNGRY with CUBS NEARBY Polar bear @..."

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54127
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <PA146008.711.734832476@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) says:
>>
[stuff deleted]

me:
>>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>>see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
>>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a
>couple
>>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>>disadvantage even with training.
>
David:

>      This is the "arms race" fallacy.  That somehow bigger guns make an
>individual safer.  The problem is that for each corresponding level of
>offensive power the is not an automatic level of defense increase.  The
>problem is that there's a sort of lethality threshold that once you get
>past you're only talking about a metter of degree.
>
>      Regardless of what cops are up against there's really no reason
>for the average beat cop to have anything bigger than a pistol on him
>as a personal weapon and maybe a rifle and a shotgun in the cruiser.
>
>      I mean, think about it.  Carrying a monster pistol or sub-machinegun
>doesn't make the cop any less wounded if somebody shoots him.  A lot
>of police departenments have switched to semi-automatics, as better
>more reliable weapons, and more stopping power, but there's a point
>of diminishing returns.
>
This is a very, very good point.  Who cares what kind of gun you've got if
you're lying on the ground dead.

>      And as far as automatics go, any gang member carrying around "a
>couple" of automatics (an incredible rarity) is going to be far more of
>a menace to himself and innocent bystanders than anything he might be
>tryinh to aim at.  One auto is hard enough to control.  Anybody who
>could control two is going to get the police officer regardless of
>what the police officer is armed with.
>
[more stuff deleted.  mostly mine]
>        My question is this:  What would a police officer gain from
>having a sub-machinegun or similar personal weapon that he already
>doesn't have with a 9mm or 10mm semi-automatic pistol?  I don't see
>as how the police should be hosing around full-auto fire, nor has
>my experience with police officers (or the stats regarding how many
>police officers get killed by other cops) made me feel such would be a
>good idea.  Precise fire is far more preferable.  Nor should they using
>"bigger" guns.  Most standard sidearms have more then sufficient
>stopping power when properly applied.  All more powerful weapons would
>do is make the likelihood of death higher without really giving police
>significantly more options.
>
Another very good point that is well taken.  It seems that when lots of lead
is flying (either the cops or the gangs) someone innocent always gets caught
in the crossfire.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

All points made above are well taken.  I guess I am in the mindset of
"having more makes it better" which is obviously not the correct mindset
to take in this discussion.  Now that I think about the situation a
little more carefully I see your point exactly David and I
wholeheartedly (sp?) agree.  Like I said I'm just assuming that "more
bullets and/or bigger bullets is better".  Once again though I want to
state that I am a pro-gun individual and do NOT believe that gun control
is really a viable option here in the United States regardless of the drivel
that I spout here :-)

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54128
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>
[stuff deleted. all mine]

>Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
>Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
>faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
>guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
>in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to

Aw come on.  It worked great in the 1920's (or the movie version of the '20s
anyways) :-)

>3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
>like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
>often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
>
>A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
>
[stuff deleted about how revolvers are just as good as semi-autos]

All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
I am not really familiar enough with handguns.

>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>as the timer on a VCR.

Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
>the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
>and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
>merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
>with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
>equipped for anything short of a riot.
>
Actually I don't watch those shows :-)  And you're right (at least partially).
I don't know much about handguns.  I'm more familiar with rifles.

>Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a
>wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
>Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
>I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
>to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
>what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
>wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
>extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
>criminal encounters is less than 5.
>
>What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
>.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police
>prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....
>
>ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they
>        introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
>        as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.
>
>--
>"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
> -BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

No flames here.  All your points are well taken.  Guess I still have a
lot to learn but thanks to this discussion I already am :-)  Guess I
assume too many things like more bullets are better and that sort of
thing.  Of course you know what happens when you assume ......... :-)

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54129
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes:
[...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...]

> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic 
> bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack?

last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54130
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>Promising field experiments are being done this year in several areas of
>the country relating to chemical contraceptive baits for deer. Preliminary
>data suggests that this will be a cost-effective and humane method for
>preventing over-population of habitats.

Preliminary data regarding similar research into kangaroo overpopulation
in Australia do not in any way support the cost-effectiveness of this
approach.  It _may_ be cost-effective for deer--if you quietly overlook
the fact that the net cost to the state of deer hunting is _negative_
(i.e. a profit) because the (majority of) hunters pay for licences.
The cost comparisons are probably being done assuming that people have
to be employed to cull the animals, which is not in fact the case.
You figure people are going to pay for licences to implant contraceptive
pellets or spread baits?

There has been a fair bit of discussion about this here recently,
because the kangaroo population in the grounds of the Governor-
General's residence has now reached plague proportions.  Despite the
whines of the rampant animal-libbers, the most effective method of
controlling the population is still considered to be controlled
shooting.

>So, now why should we allow hunting ... to prevent over-population of
>the deer/bear/<whatever> ? Sorry, but that 'justification' of blood-
>lust is now gone with the wind. Once mass-production of this stuff
>begins, animal populations can be easily managed without a shot being
>fired.  This leaves only the fact that some people *like* to go out
>in the woods and *kill* things.

Some people take satisfaction (IMHO, legitimate satisfaction) in eating
food that they have harvested themselves.  The pleasure derived from
hunting is the same as that you get from eating fruit and vegetables
grown in your own garden (and, in general, game meat is probably much 
freer of unpleasant chemicals than what you buy from the butcher or
the supermarket).

> That may be a motivation, but it
>cannot now be justified. Expect PETA and like organizations to use
>this argument to get hunting banned - period. 

By "cannot now be justified" I guess you mean that you personally
don't see any justification.  Fine--but what makes your opinion
so important?

>With no legitimate hunting, with the papers filled with stories of
>senseless murders ... I guess there won't be a chance in hell of
>building a case for the RKBA that will withstand either public
>opinion, necessity or scientific scrutiny. Don't give me that
>"silent majority wants guns" crap ... they are and will be 'silent'.
>No votes for RKBA, no RKBA. 

Certainly the last point is correct.  If politicians don't see any
votes for themselves in opposing stupid legislation or in developing
and supporting measures which might be effective in reducing the 
incidence of violent crime they won't do these things.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54131
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
> 
> >RM:Just a short thought: 
> >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
> >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
> >"no, it's total amnesty".

>     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy 
> back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can 
> you get if you leave paper trail behind?

In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver
Nuggets basketball game. 

How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)

Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?

Ron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54132
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>	Observations from a naive norwegian:

Yup, you said it.  I admire such honesty. ;-)

>	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to 
>	have something more macho than stamps to collect.....

Fire an Anschutz .22, then come back and talk to us.  You're letting
ignorance and possibly fear cloud your thinking.  Either that, or this
is sour grapes because we beat you in the Olympic shooting events.
Funny, you'd think biathalon would be a natural sport for the norse. ;-)

>	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than
>	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball).

Precisely.  That makes them the best method of defense for the citizenry.
Not everybody has the time to train with a gladius, you know, but for
some reason those who prey on others seem to have more free time.  To
extend this a bit further, you need only a certain level of competence
to beat another with a range weapon.  Getting in their face with a
weapon and winning is much more difficult, and requires more training
time the average citizen just does not have.  I've spent a few years
practicing with a sword.  I can take the common person armed with one
(though self-defense isn't the reason I own one).  My kid sister would
have an even chance of beating me, gun vs. gun, with only a month of
training.  That makes firearms much better, in our eyes.

>	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different
>	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like
>	crime and violence.

Excellent point.  Perhaps you aren't so naive after all?

>	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools
>	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration.

Taken into consideration in what respect?  Though quite wrong, let's
make it a blanket statement for weapons in general.  This has been
taken into consideration.  We call use of them aggrivated assault,
assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill, attempted
murder, and a whole host of others, and tack on extra prison time.

>	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently
>	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun.
>	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it
>	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes.

In Norway I suspect it was about the only weapon available.  You conquered
your land (among others) a full millenia before we were thought of, and
shortly thereafter weapons weren't quite so common.  I suspect that a few
world wars made a difference too, since in times of emergency weapons
tend to be turned in or donated to needy causes.  I'm curious, though,
were the weapons used in the crimes bought shortly before the crime, or
were they aquired by other means?  Any requirements other than just
registering the shotgun?

>	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell.....
>	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public,
>	and why should it be allowed ??

"Come on down to honest Erik's Used Swords!  Here's a slightly-used
short sword, *THE* battlefield supremacy weapon of the eleventh
century!  Only $39.95 with trade-in.  Easy financing!"  Sorry, I
couldn't resist.  You guys still slicing each other with long knives,
or is this really not a problem?

>	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that 
>	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence
>	than on nudity and sex.
>	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder...

I'm all for that.  What gets me is that scandanavians (and yes, I'm only
a couple generations off the longship) used to be some of the most
feared warriors on the planet a mere millenia ago, yet now seem to
spend their time sitting in spas and doing a bit of topless sunbathing.
Maybe you had a bit more time, and a more homogeneous culture, to become
civilized with?

>	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human
>	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun
>	in your car??

Yes.  We're too damned violent, partially I believe because we are not
a homogeneous culture and don't identify ourselves as "Americans" first
and foremost.  I'm rather proud of my Norwegian and Danish heritage,
whereas I suspect you couldn't care less about that 2% Welsh blood in
your veins thanks to a raid in Ireland back in 1055?  The time scale
and the homogeneous culture are important.  Equally important is a
basic philosophical difference in personal versus collective good.
In America, the individual is more important than the masses.  Personal
liberties are prized above all.  This is, sadly, changing of late, but
I trust you notice how this call for freedom makes laws that restrict
individuals for little collective benefit hateful to Americans.  I'd
hazard a guess that, were America less interested in freedom and
personal liberty and more interested in collective good we never would
have sent our armed forces anywhere.  One poor effect of this culture
we have is that we're looking out for ourselves and it is quite easy
to identify with only a small segment of the population.  My grandmother
tells of being discriminated against back in Denmark because she spoke
"low Dane," whereas others spoke "high Dane."  It was shortly after
World War II, as I remember, that "low Dane" was abolished so there was
one common dialect.  We cannot fathom such a minor thing being a problem,
because we have even more obvious means of identifying an "outsider."

>			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably
>			the keyboard-software or the quality of the
>			subtext on tv......

Take heart, yours is better than 90% of what gets posted by native speakers.
Any helpful hints for our educational system?  People have this annoying
tendency to drop out of school and sell drugs over here.

[ ;-) And what kind of name is Thomas Parsli?  Here, you can use my great
grandfather's before he changed it: Christian Aarskog.  That's a
great one for getting mispronounced.  I think that's why he changed it.
I don't think he needs it anymore ;-) ]

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54133
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun Talk -- Legislative Update for States

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>IOWA:  All firearm related bills are dead.  Senate File 303
>dealing with off-duty police officers carrying concealed remains
>viable.

	The *POWER* of the word processor and a stamp at work.
The fact that around here the state rep generally lives no more than
nine miles from any constituent doesn't hurt, either.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54134
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

In article <1qibs0$flk@vela.acs.oakland.edu> awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.225910.14964@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
i]>>Since there was no sniper fire, doing nothing was equally effective,
>>as was yelling "stop that".  Of course, if one wants to credit the
>>tanks with stopping non-existent sniper fire, we might was well credit 
>>it with stopping an invasion by Martians.  
>> 
>>See "Firearms, Violence and Civil Disorders" (from SRI) and "Sniping 
>>Incidents - A New Pattern of Violence" (from Brandeis University's 
>>Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence).
>
>>>>There was precisely ONE
>>>>verified sniper in the 67 riots, a drunk firing a pistol out a window.
>
>Actually, there was only one confirmed sniper to >die< in Detroit,
>according to Sauter & Hines, _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion & It's

What sources did Sauter and Hines use?  In Congressional hearings
later, the newspaper folk admitted that their reports were completely
wrong.  (Some of their excuses are understandable, while others amount
to gross negligence.  Then there's their "we lied".)  As far as I
know, they never did the followup.

>>So?  People other than snipers can shoot firemen.  If they are,
>>shooting at "snipers" can't help.  Blowing big holes in buildings that
>>don't contain "sniper nests" or worrying about travelling "sniper
>>squads" is a complete waste of time.
>
>Interesting.  Just curious, they do you believe that tanks did blow
>big holes in buildings in Detroit 67?

I don't have any relevant knowledge about the counter-sniper tactics
or what the govt did with the big war toys.  That's why I've only
commented on what they couldn't have accomplished, no matter what
they did.

>>Nope - the "sniper" fire was coming from other police/guard positions.
>
>The guard certainly needed to learn.  But I don't agree with the
>idea that there were no snipers at all.  From p. 121 of Sauter & Hines:
>
>     "Despite the force of the National Guard in alliance with the
>Army troops, the snipers did not stop.  The snipers boldly lay siege to the
>Fifth Precent police station and took pot shots at the Seventh.  Firemen
>were under constant harassment from snipers fired from half-closed
>darkened windows in high apartment buildings and from roof-tops."

Not in Detroit, not during the 60s.  That's newspaper copy and they
admitted later that they were wrong.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54135
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <PA146008.710.734831135@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> 
>>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>>
>>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>>	own, use or display a firearm. 
> 
>        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.
> How this translates into individual ownership is questionable, but I
> think it's fairly safe to say that you're wrong about the "vast majority."

	OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
	claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
	threaten anyone with them. What do they do right ... or are
	they just lucky ? In either case, this means the 'average
	threat level' in this country is rather low. 
 
>>       Besides, there are other
>>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>>	as firearms. 
> 
>        Please name them.  The key phrase is "can be."  Theories are
> nice, but practicality is more important.  A taser (to chose an
> exmpale outlawed virtually everywhere) "can" be as effective as a gun,
> under optimal conditions when dealing with your absolute average
> [...]

	I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
	alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 

	In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
	least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
	Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
	conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
	block party. 

>>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>>> scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
> 
>        In a very real sense *everything* the government does is based
> on public approval, if for no other reason than at any particular time
> there aren't "public servants" commonly adorning trees.
> 
>        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> solely of force of arms.

	Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
	all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
	set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
	illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
	twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
	the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
	cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
	a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
	gives a rats ass ? 

>>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
> 
>        Excuse me, sir, but *you* were the one suggesting that arguments
> for RKBA would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

	No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
	aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.

>>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. 
> 
>         Emotion is hard to argue against.  But it must be done anyway if
> emotion is wrong.

	Argue away ... you can't win. 

>>       The stats are not all *that*
>>	clearly behind firearms - 
> 
>         And just yesterday you claimed they weren't behind them at
> all.
> 
>>       the protection factor does not
>>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. 
> 
>         Operating under the assumption that the same conditions absolutely
> govern both of them.  That the expansion of one automatically necessitates
> the contraction of the other.

	Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
	availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and 
	and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
	I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
	complaints. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54136
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

				Declaration of Independence
					4 July 1776

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54137
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:

> 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
> 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
> 	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> 	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> 	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> 	pay through the nose for it. 

You don't know much about modern automatic weapons, do you?  Just about ANYBODY
with basic manufacturing skill can turn out HIGH QUALITY submachineguns.  A 
couple of high school shop teachers were recently arrested for building 
submachineguns in the school shop.

I suggest that you go to the library and find a copy of "Smallarms of the 
World".  Your entire premise is based on non-factual assumptions.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54138
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?


holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
|> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets.
|> Would those work very well in stopping an attack?
|> 
|> 						Doug Holland

 Any projectile traveling at or near typical bullet speeds is potentially
lethal.  Even blanks [which have no projectile] can cause death if the
muzzle is in close proximity to the victim.  I have heard of rubber or
plastic bullets being used effectively during riot situations [where the
intent is crowd control, rather than close range self defense]; i've also
seen reports of deaths caused by them [the British in Northern Ireland].
 Use of a firearm for self defense is appropriate and lawful only in the
gravest of situations; at that point, i consider deadly [lethal] force to 
be a proper reaction [and so does the law].  
 Furthermore, use of less effective [but still potentially lethal] force
has its own set of problems.  It may well take more applications of the
less effective force to stop the incident; this places all parties at some
risk; the victim because the attack has not stopped, and the assailent 
since the aggregate damage done by the multiple applications may well be
more deadly.

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54139
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>> 
>> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods.
>
>	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.

Hmm.  I beg to differ.  It will probably make a big difference at some
point.

>
>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>
>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms. 

Thankfully, it is true that the majority go through life without
having to use a firearm.  Howver, there are situations where firearms
are the most effective means of self protection.  What other means do
you propose as equally effective?


>
>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>> scientific scrutiny.
>
>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.

New to this country? New to political theory?
Alas, I was speaking of principle.  Without principle, all attempts at
republican forms of gov't are futile.  There are times when public and
political opinion are contrary to principle, which is why we have a
Constitution which enumerates gov't powers and presumes certain
rights.  A major reason for this was to prevent a tyranny of the
majority.

>
>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>
>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that*
>	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not
>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society
>	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
>	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough
>	active voters believe in that course. 

This is exactly why law should be based on reasoned thought, not
immediate perception.  Of course, it doesn't always work that way.
Fortunately, while there are no guarantees, logic sometimes does
prevail.  And, if not, there are still means for correction.  
As far as "enough active voters" are concerned, that is still
an open question until the vote is made.

>
>> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters?
>
>	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when
>	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will
>	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will
>	be very interested anymore.

You portray a possible scenario for the future.  But, how will you
silence RKBA supporters right now?  As long as public debate is
allowed, such debate will continue. If we allow public debate to be
restricted or denied, then we will get a gov't we deserve.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54140
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: CNN for sale


 Bill Vojak:

 BV>I read in the paper yestarday that Ted Turner wants to "trim" down
 BV>his media holdings and is putting CNN up for sale.  The #1 potential
 BV>bidder?  TIME/Warner of course.  Sigh . . . . . Just what we need. :-(

 Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
 together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
 the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two....
---
 . OLX 2.2 . There is no way they can get over here!        A. Maginot
                                                                   
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54141
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like The


 Paul Prescod pontificating:

 PP>State.EDU (Cathy Smith) writes:

 PP>>     Libertarians oppose BOTH waiting periods AND background checks
 PP>>-- or ANY prerequisite for exercising rights that are supposed to
 PP>>be guaranteed.

 PP>Let me get this straight.  Unlike the other idiots in this newsgroup,
 PP>you actually support anybody having unlimited access to guns,
 PP>inclucing criminals.  (or would you prohibit them from owning them,
 PP>but not from buying them?)

 PP>You are a supreme idiot.  You make the other idiots look like Mensa members.

Thanks Paul, for yet another fine example of the holier than thou gun control
mindset. Why don't you add something intelligent to the debate, like maybe
nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Fight crime..... shoot back!
                                                                           
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54142
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: Re: My turn


 Dan Sorenson writing:

 ...

 DS>I'd rather not get into the Nationalized Medical Care debate
 DS>here, but I find it amazing that criminals often live better than the
 DS>rest of the population, in some aspects, and that we're paying for
                               ^^^^
 DS>them to do so.  As an example, in November I had my annual dental

 ...

 Here, you are somewhat in error.....in ALL respects we are paying. When we
 are not paying for their countryclub incarceration, we are paying with our
 lives and belongings as their prey. Upon what would they practice their
 nefarious predatory acts if not for the citizens of this country. What is
 amazing to me is the mindset of those who overtly and covertly perpetuate
 a justice system (har) that essentially mandates that some of us offer up
 ourselves as that prey while they suitably insulate themselves from the
 preyground.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Church of Crime & Justice....come, let us prey!
                                
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54143
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim)  
writes:
> 
> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
> 
>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
> 
>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>    No comparison.
> 
> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.

I beleive this was the source of the Kennedy clan's money.
> 
> So unless there's something I'm missing, I think your argument that guns
> won't be smuggled because theyr'e more difficult to manufacture, smuggle
> and hide won't wash.  If enough people want something, somebody will try
> to supply it.
> -- 
> Allan J. Heim   allanh@sco.COM   ...!uunet!sco!allanh   +1 408 427 7813
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54144
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.734814613.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli  
<thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 
> 
> 	Observations from a naive norwegian:
> 
> 	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to 
> 	have something more macho than stamps to collect.....
> 
> 	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than
> 	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball).
> 
> 	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different
> 	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like
> 	crime and violence.
> 
> 	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools
> 	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration.
> 
Only as far as it affects the crime rate.
> 
> 	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently
> 	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun.
> 	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it
> 	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes.
> 	The solution was to restrict the sale, so it's now necessary to 
> 	apply and register your shotgun.
> 	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell.....

Did the RATE of crime fall?  If not, the ban was of no use.  It is the rate of  
violent crime that matters, not the tools used.  "It's the crime, stupid!"

> 	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public,
> 	and why should it be allowed ??
> 

Apparently that became the weapon of choice after the shotguns were banned.   
After that, they'll decide the car of choice  is the Saab, and propose a ban on  
that!

> 	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that 
> 	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence
> 	than on nudity and sex.
> 	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder...
> 
> 	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human
> 	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun
> 	in your car??
> 

Yes.  We still trust honest people here.  For the time being.

> 
> 			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably
> 			the keyboard-software or the quality of the
> 			subtext on tv......
> 
> 
> 	Disclamer(not):
> 	These are the views of all studens at my university,
> 	all Norwegians and probably whole of the universe...
> 
> 
> 			                       Thomas Parsli
> 	                                     thomasp@ifi.uio.no
> 


--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54145
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: A Scoop of Waco Road, Please

Your "lite" posting for the day, from rec.humor.funny:

In article <S539.2adf@looking.on.ca>, bellas@tti.com (Pete Bellas) writes:
> 
> There is a new Ice Cream Flavor inspired by the incident at Waco.
> 
> It's called Mount Caramel, it's full of nuts but you can't get it out
> of the carton.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54146
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

Recently while looking around in Traders Sporting Goods store, a very well
stocked firearms store, I discovered a printed document that was being 
distributed by the good folks who work there.  Traders, BTW, is located in
San Leandro, CA.

Granted, the document may be asking you and I to help out Traders, but in the
big scope of things, I feel that we would do all gun owners a favor by helping
to this cause.

Anyway, here it is:

NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP

Are you letting the newspapers tell you how to live your life, what's good for
you, what's not, and exercise blatant censorship over what you read in their
advertisments?

The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.

These ads were run for the law-abiding honest citizens who own firearms for
sporting use or self-protection.  They certainly have the right to do so, under
the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

If you are tired of newspapers who run sex and liquor ads galor, yet refuse to
run legitimate gun ads, please send a letter to the editors indicating your
displeasure over their censorship doctrine.

Following is a list of Bay area newspapers who censor gun ads.  Perhaps you'd
like to send them your thoughts on this issue!

Oakland Tribune		Daily Review		Alameda Times-Star
POB 28883		POB 5050		1516 Oak St.
Oakland, CA 94604	Hayward,94540	Alameda, CA 94501

Argus			Tri Valley Herald	San Leandro Times
3850 Decoto Rd.		POB 10367		161 W. Juana Ave.
Fremont, CA 94555	Pleasanton, CA 94588	San Leandro, CA 94577

Contra Costa Times	San Mateo Times		San Francisco Chronicle
POB 5088		POB 5400		901 Mission St.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596	San Mateo, CA 94402	San Francisco, CA 94103

San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190

Then there are six pages of "facts".  I can not validate these facts, and 
there were no sources, but many feel and sound very true.  Here are the topic
headlines:

- Big Media Snow Job
- Blaming Firearms for Murder is Like Blaming Hospitals for Death
- I could use the same Nazi Journalistic Technique of CBS and ABC to prove
  that Hospitals Cause Death
- How NBC, CBS, and ABC have scammed the American people on "gun control"
- American TV journalism is based on Nazi journalism
- Why TV journalists lie
- The Government with the help of the TV networks, has succeeded in playing
  one group against the other
- Gun laws are unconstitutional
- American gun laws are based on Nazi gun laws
- The Government is trying to devide and conquer
- The CIA wants your firearms

and so on for six pages.

So now we have the media trying help put gun dealers out of business by trying
to limit their exposure to potential customers, and preventing the customers
from reading about sales of ammunition and firearms for sporting, hunting, or
other recreational use.

Let me know if you write to any of these bozos.

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\

| Peter D. Nesbitt |     Air Traffic Controller     | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM    |

|                  |       Oakland Bay TRACON       |                         |

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  CBR600F2 Pilot  |       NRA Member CCX1380F      |  S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |

\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54147
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


|What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
|proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
|cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
|to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
|time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
|day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
|see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
|revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
|of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
|disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
|gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
|taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
|and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
|are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
|state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
|in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
|and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
|than there.

However, don't forget that the police in Chicago can carry just about
anything they want except for the Glock, which is not approved for
carry (Guess they figure all cops are like the Police Chief of Winnetka,
who happened to let off a stray round of 9mm. This is the same anti-gun
police chief that wanted full-auto Uzis for his patrol cars...).

Perhaps in the judgement of the majority of Chicago's finest, a close-to-
100% reliable weapon like a revolver is preferable to a 99.99% reliable
automatic. I note that in Germany, where certainly the 9mm semi-auto
handgun is king, some of the more elite police types want revolvers.

I don't think the issue is cost, because Chicago police certainly make
on the order of at least $40K/year. 

Your presumption of "disadvantage" I think is not borne out by the
experiences of New York City's cops; there the cops usually come out
on top with their standard .38 Spl revolvers.

I've seen S&Ws, Rugers and Beretta 9mms in addition to the revolvers
carried by Chicago cops.... in the past, I've seen .45 M1911s; others
have seen Browning Hi-Powers...

|Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54148
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
	Why?  Either the numerator or the denominator could fluctuate.
	The dollar value of a gun would (of course)
	go up if supply were restricted.  The weight of a gun might
	go down significantly as technology improved.   I don't
	think you have a basis to assert this.  
	
>It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>would have to be local. There are not all that many people
>who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>firearms from scratch. 
	The skill is easily taught to anyone with a modicum of
	mechanical aptitude and the ONLY motivator needed is 
	money.  If guns were banned then this motivator would kick
	in big time.  Now, of course, it is not a moneymaking
	proposition for every machine shop to make guns on the
	side when it ain't rebuilding engines.  Ban guns and 
	watch what happens.  You'll have to schedule a year in advance
	to get your brakes resurfaced. ;-)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54149
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !


|	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
|	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
|	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
|	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
|	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
|	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
|	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
|	pay through the nose for it. 

This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very
serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were
of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness
machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we
have a road system that is the envy of the world?

I seem to recall incidents in the past where Chinese entreprenaurs
attempted to smuggle AK-47s (semi-autos) into this country to
get around import number limitations (May have been Gunweek where
I read that years ago...)

Any person with high-school drafting skills and vocational school
machineshop training could produce a submachinegun. You talk about
the average person not being able get even a zip-gun; well now, think
of all that private CNC controlled machinery that is not being used for
3 shifts a day; do you think that if guns were being sold on the
black market for say, $150, an enterprising mechanical engineer
could be using that machinery to produce workable submachineguns
for sale? After all, GUNWEEK had an article and pictures on how BATF
was looking for the manufacturer of quite efficient silencers that
were of commercial quality and finish.

Look at it this way, 25% of the U.S. households have a handgun. Say
at least half of those keep one for self-defense. You are talking a
potential market of of tens of millions of people who would seek
firearms for the purpose of self-preservation. Only a fool would
believe that market would not be filled, regardless of government
prohibitions.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54152
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Armed Citizen - April '93

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) /  9:23 am  Apr 13, 1993 /

In article <1993Apr5.164728.10847@dazixco.ingr.com> crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com writes:
>>
>>THE ARMED CITIZEN
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
>>crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
>>Armed Citizen.  
>
>Perhaps so, but note that of the accounts cited, there was only
>one in which no shot was fired. Of the other twelve, five
>described cases in which the assailant was wounded by a shot,
>and six described cases in which the assailant was killed by a
>shot.

Follow more than one months posting.  As more than one reader has noted, 
there IS some reporting bias here.  I have seen months where these 
numbers were reversed.  I don't keep a constant tally, but it seems 
this particular issue had more shots fired than any other I can remember.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54153
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

Woops.  I'm not sure if I screwed up, but this is either forgery or some 
sort of mistake (aborted post that didn't abort) on my part.  

Bogus article below if seen in another post should be ignored..  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) /  3:29 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) /  1:49 am  Apr 12, 1993 /
In article <92468@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
>
>I certainly hope this is somebody's idea of a joke, as poor as it it...
>My earlier posting mentioning an illegal firearms MANUFACTURING site being
>searched for by the Feds in the Florida area was evidently ignored..

Let's look at this critically:
1.How many guns did this illegal manufacturing site make compared to
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<and so on...>

Sorry.
Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54154
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) /  8:51 pm  Apr 12, 1993 /

>I think most of us would rather be held up with a knife than with a gun,
>but HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO MANAGE THAT?  You still haven't offered

I've been watching this knife verses gun bit for a while now, (even
contributed a few comments) but this stuff "I'd rather face a knife than
a gun" has GOT to come from ignorance!  I used to think pretty much the
same thing, then I got 'educated.'

People do not as a rule understand how deadly knives can be, or how
quickly you can be killed with one.  Most people don't understand that
it takes less than an inch of penetration in some areas to cause quick
(within a minute or so) death.

The death rates from handguns and knives are within a few percentage
points of each other.  Many people not realizing how deadly knives are
'try their luck' and thus more get injured by knives.  A gun is deadly
only in a single direction and it's only advantage is that it is a
remote control weapon.  A contact weapon such as a knife controls a
spherical area 7 to 10 feet in diameter.

Most people have never seen knife wounds, aside from slicing a finger by
accident.  From 21 feet or so, a knife is very nearly an even match for
a holstered gun in experienced hands, even if the knife wielder has only
moderate skill.  From inside 10 feet or so, a knife is a match for a
DRAWN gun.  A knife is utterly silent, it never jams and never runs out
of ammunition.  It is limited only by the speed, dexterity skill and
ability of it's wielder.  Criminals in general are young, fast and
strong.  It's interesting to note that the patterned slashing attacks
used by many martial artists remarkably resemble the wild uncontrolled
slashing attacks of novices.  I've talked to several well trained
martial artists.  They have unanimously agreed that if they ever go up
against a knife they simply plan on being cut, hopefully not as bad as
the attacker.

Practicing with firearms requires facilities and equipment.  Practicing
with knives requires only a small area and something to simulate a
knife, say a popsicle stick or tooth brush.  Criminals practice their
knife attacks in prison.

If you have not trained against knives with a firearm and do not realize
these facts the first inkling you will have that something is wrong is
the knife ripping through your throat, or in the case of an experienced
attacker, parts of your body falling off onto the ground.  A 60 year old
man with arthritis can close that 7 yard distance and gut you in about
one and a half seconds.  Dennis Tueller with a broken leg in a walking
cast managed it in two.  I've seen people close that distance and strike
in 1 second.  I'm old, over weight and slow.  I can do it in 1.3
seconds.  I've seen morgue footage of people killed with edged weapons
that you would not believe.  (How about a single stab wound to the chest
with a TABLE FORK!  In this case the attacker used the HANDLE, not the
pointed end.)

Add to this the 'fact' that hand gun 'stopping' power is largely a myth.
Except in the case of a central nervous system shot, or a round that
destroys the skeletal structure, it takes anywhere from 3 to twelve
seconds for a bullet wound to 'take effect.'

This is true of even heart shots.  There is the case of the police woman
in L.A., the first recorded survivor of a .357 shot to the heart.  That
lady not only killed her attacker, but chased him down to do it!  All
four of her shots, fired after SHE had been shot, struck the perp.  Atta
girl!  The bullet entered her on a downward angle, went through the apex
of her heart, down through the diaphragm, clipped her liver and
destroyed her spleen.  It then exited her back leaving a tennis ball
sized hole.  She died about six times on the operating table, but was
out of the hospital in 15 days and was back on full duty in eight
months!  She was off duty at the time and not wearing her vest.  She was
on her way home so happened to have her gun.  No, she doesn't think
civilians should have the same rights.  Sigh.

The moral of the story is that even if you DO manage to shoot a knife
attacker, you'd better be planning on doing some dodging.  A good
alternative is to shoot for and break the pelvis.  People can often walk
(a little) on broken legs but a broken pelvis will nearly always anchor
them.  Many firearms schools recommend pelvis shots against contact
weapons.  The target is as large as the traditional 'center of mass' and
is more reliable to STOP somebody with a contact weapon, assuming a
caliber powerful enough to 'do the job.'  Hot .38's on up will usually
do this.

Remember folks, the idea isn't to 'take em with you' but for you to live
and them to fail, whatever the consequences for them.  This the reason
'killing them' isn't our goal, or in many cases even good enough to keep
us alive.

I don't want to face a violent attack of any sort.  Knowing what I now
know, I can't rightly say I'd rather face a knife than an gun.  It would
have to depend on the attacker, and if I could pick and choose, I
WOULDN'T BE THERE.  This is really the bottom line.  Criminals do not
fear the law.  Criminals do not fear the weapon.  They fear the citizen
behind the weapon that has shown the resolution and determination to do
whatever it takes.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54155
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /

>Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread 
>"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years 
>while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others.

Good point, Kirk.

He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts, 
and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time 
he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns
out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start
with) act responsibility once given the chance.

Rick.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54156
From: chris@MorningStar.Com (Chris Miller)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>> 
>> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods.
>
>	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.

I agree.  Sad, but true.

>
>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>
>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms. 

Please name one.

>
>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>> scientific scrutiny.
>
>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
>

.... Upon which our Bill of Rights is based.  Some delusion.

>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>
>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that*
>	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not
>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society
>	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
>	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough
>	active voters believe in that course. 
>

If this were not true in practice, then certain unethical politicians would
not be passing gun control laws.  Politicians are generally whores to public
opinion.  This does NOT mean the the public is either well informed or correct.
As for the stats,  anyone can support anything with the right stats.  The 
"right" stats, from what I've seen, are sometimes even used to support
conflicting sides of the same issue.


>> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters?
>
>	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when
>	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will
>	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will
>	be very interested anymore.
>

Used to own firearms? While armed insurrection, as the FF's of the Const. 
may have envisioned seems to me a somewhat fanatical approach to avoiding this,
Political protest is still an option at this point.  I agree that it's 
argueably not enough and/or too late.  If all else fails, there's always
PVC pipe and cosmoline.

--

Chris Miller
chris@MorningStar.Com

My opinions are my own (obviously), and by definition do not reflect the
opinions of anyone else...



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54157
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>Consider a similar structure:
>>"A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a
>>free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not
>>be infringed."
>>
>>Now, does this mean only the electorate can keep and read books?  Does{
>>it mean only registered voters can keep and read books?  Does it mean 
>>only those who have voted can keep and read books?  Does it imply any
>>restrictions AT ALL on the right to keep and read books?
>
>But it would imply that the state had the right to regulate and enforce
>education.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.  There is a difference
between "the feds can mandate literacy" and "the feds can't interfere
with literacy/book possession".

>>As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already
>>ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v.
>>Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what 
>>the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back
>>as the Dred Scott case, in 1857.
>
>It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>was not a proper militia weapon. Therefore, US vs. Miller supports
>limited government regulation of firearms.

Actually, the Miller court did nothing of the kind.  It remanded
the case back to the trial court because the miller court didn't
know if the weapon in question was a militia weapon.  (Doesn't it
bother anyone that a major constitutional issue was taken up in
a case where there was no defense?  Miller had been released by
the appeals court and disappeared - only the govt was represented.)

We don't know what would have happened with the reasonable "all guns
are militia weapons" argument.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54159
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

>Ron Miller wrote:
>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>"no, it's total amnesty".
 (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)

 I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is 
no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing. 
 
  
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.   

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54160
From: slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"


The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do 
they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it 
only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?

BTW, anybody planning on shaving Hillary's head to look for *666*? 8^)

Later Dave,
Days

^^^^^^^^
Goverment logic or just the Clintons?


--
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   |_/_/_/  _/       _/      _/_/  _/  _/ | David H. Slack                  |
   |_/      _/      _/_/    _/     _/ _/  | Boise Surface Mount Center      |
   |_/_/_/  _/     _/  _/   _/     _/_/   | email: slack@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com |
   |    _/  _/    _/_/_/_/  _/     _/ _/  | telnet: 323 4019                |
   |_/_/_/  _/_/ _/      _   _/_/  _/  _/ | phone: (208) 323 4019           |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Hewlett-Packard, 11213 Chinden Blvd., Boise Idaho 83714-1023, M/S #625 |
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54162
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

      The San Francisco Examiner reports that Clinton has issued instructions
to federal law enforcement that they may not kill or injure anyone to 
resolve the Waco situation.  So they've built a fence around the compound,
and are now seriously considering building up the fence to prison-camp
levels, pulling out most of the manpower, and waiting however many months
it takes.

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54163
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.171115.16812@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
-> Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the
-> security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an
-> adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of
-> the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It
-> asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for
-> maintaining a milita. 
-> a free state.

Yes, I agree the first half of the amendment does modify the noun 
militia.  But the difinition of modify that applies to how "well regulated" 
modifies "militia" is:
	to qualify or limit the meaning of.  For example, "wet"
	modifes "day" in the phrase "a wet day."

The amendment is similiar to the statement:
	A wet day, being annoying, the right of the people to keep
	and wear boots, shall not be infringed.
So how does a dry day pertain the right to use boots?  Similiar,
what does the "unorganized militia" have to due with the right to
own guns?

-> The sentence [in the Second Amendment] doesn't restrict the right, or
-> state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other
-> than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a
-> right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First,
-> Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment.
-> The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the
-> amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right
-> to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of
-> In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and
-> bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.

No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed
is defined as:
	To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath, 
	an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate.
	To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach.
This definition implies the following of some form of existing 
agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance.  Boundaries 
or limits of behavior are set by society as a whole.  The word 
"unconditional" implies no agreements or all previous agreements 
are off, which is the opposite.

The words used in the first amendment are much stronger, i.e.,
"congress shall make no law," are much stronger.  They clearly 
	         ^^^^^^^^^^^
imply "unconditional."  If the writers of the amendment, wanted 
unconditional whay didn't they says, "congress shall make no 
laws pertaining the the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
The second amendment implies a sort contract between the people
the people and the state.  The bigger part of the contract is
the people have the right to overthrew the government and its laws
at any time.  To guarantee this right, the laws cannot stopped
the people from forming a "well regutaled militia."  The duties
of a "well regulated militia" to the government are descussed in 
Federalist No. 29.  And the limits of of the governmental control
of the militia are descussed in Article I Section 8, Article II 
Section 2, and the Second Amendment of the constitution.

-- 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54164
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)

In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
-> In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
-> > But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
-> > group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
-> > every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
-> > be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it 
-> > requires a continually standing committee of organizers.  
-> 
-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.

No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.
 
> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
-> number of times.  

No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
by Hamilton. 


-- 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54165
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

In article <C5L480.K7u@elite.intel.com> dgw@elite.intel.com (Dennis Willson) 
writes:
>On March 8, I sent strongly worded letters critisizing the BATF in
>their handling of the Randy Weaver and Branch Davidian cases to 
>several politicians (Ore. Senators Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield,
>Representative Elizabeth Furse and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen).
>While I have never been a supporter of Bob Packwood, I must admit
>that he seems to be the only one who has done anything but round-file
>my letter.

Well, I didn't bother writing to Boxer, Feinstein or Eshoo, the terrible
trio who allegly represent me.  Instead, I wrote to Bentsen.  My letter
was not exactly strongly-worded; I simply stated that the BATF approach
was immoral (military-style assault, firing into a house where they knew
there were kids).

Aparently, Bentsen forwarded my letter to the BATF and they responded to 
me directly.  It follows the text of your reply pretty closely.  However,
I intend to send another letter directly to them, in return.

>Prior to the service of the Federal search warrant, numerous efforts
>were made to locate and effect the arrest of David Koresh away from the
>compound.  These efforts were unsuccessful.  Even if David Koresh had
>been arrested while away from the compound, action would have been
>required against his followers (who are just as violent as he) during
>the subsequent search of the premises.

This section is not in the letter that I received.  The parts about ATF
logo and steenking badges or their loss of the element of surprise
were not included, either.

>                          Sincerely yours,
>
>                          Daniel M. H??l??tt  [can't make out signature]
>                          Deputy Director

The same guy with the bad handwriting apparently signed my letter, "for
Richard L. Garner; Chief, Special Operations Division".

      don




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54166
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / steiner@jupiter.ca.boeing.com / 12:07 am  Apr 15, 1993 /
>douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes:
>[...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...]
>
>> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic 
>> bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack?
>
>last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.

Also, you need to consider our legal system.  Since any of these things
CAN be lethal, you are going to have a hard time explaining why you applied 
lethal force when you DIDN'T think it was necessary.  (If you thought lethal
force was necessary, you wouldn't be using rubber bullets, would you?) Ouch.  
If you are justified in shooting them at all, you are justified in using 
the best self defense ammunition you can get your hands on.  It might actually
IMPROVE the legal outcome.

This is why hollow points hold up in court.  They are safer for you, safer
for innocent by standers, (don't as a rule go through the perp) and actually
safer for the perp.  If you are using military hard ball, you may have to 
shoot him 'MANY' times, where one or two hollow points might stop him and 
do the job.  As a rule, the fewer wound channels, the better the chance 
for his surviving the incident.

Rick

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54167
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Gun Lovers (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.

You're getting warmer.  The 'little thing in the trigger' has to be
depressed before the trigger can move.  What this means is the damned
thing won't go off until the trigger is pulled.  This makes it just
about (there HAVE been some problems, but we're assuming the gun is
functioning correctly..) as safe as a revolver.  The gun when working
correctly is totally drop safe.

Now, in police work this is a consideration.  There is not a single
documented case I'm aware of where a police officer was killed because
he failed to operate the safety on his firearm.  There are quite a few
documented cases where criminals got hold of the cops gun and couldn't
figure out how to get the safety off in time to use the gun, thus the
proprietary nature of the safety (to the criminal at least) very likely
prevented the office from getting shot.

The purpose of a safety is to make the gun safe from unintentional fire.
This does not mean it should be so complicated as to slow down
intentional use!  Thus the Glock safety is perfectly adequate from a
'safety' standpoint, but not necessarily the most desirable from the
standpoint of open carry where it is easily grabbed by somebody else.
By this criteria it DOES make a lot of sense as a concealed carry piece.
From the standpoint of police use, it is no better (or worse) than a
revolver as far as being 'proprietary' to the officer in the method of
firing it.

The ideal solution may someday be biometric sensing of the user so that
the firearm can't be used by anybody but it's owner, but for now the
wide variety of safety systems helps, unless the criminal happens to be
familiar with that particular type of firearm.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54168
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Gun Lovers (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) / 10:34 am  Apr 14, 1993 /

This isn't rec.guns, so maybe this is getting a bet technical, but I
can't resist....

> - A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
>   the trigger again.

Sometimes.....  Depends on WHY it misfired....

> - A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
>   but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.

I can't imagine doing much combat type shooting single action.....

> - A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
>   to rotate to the next round.

Assuming the cylinder WILL rotate....

> - A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
>   hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
>   easy motion, even one handed.

Never hurts to err on the side of safety, but if you've got one of those
'new fangled' hammer blocks or transfer bar safeties, it's unnecessarily
redundant.  I'd rather have the extra round.

> - Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
>   on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.

Quite true.  Speed loaders are a little less convenient to pack around
than magazines though.

> - A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
>   first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
>   lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
>   about clearing it.

True, but this is a training function.

> - Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
>   and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the
>   chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
>   this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
>   of employment as a revolver.

Cocked and locked for single actions or hammer down on double actions
are the only carry modes that make sense...  The 80 series Colt's for
example are quite safe to carry this way.

> - There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
>   operation of many of them requires more training.

Agreed.

Now that I've shot off my mouth a bit, let me back some of this up.  It
is true that a simple misfire on a revolver doesn't cost you much.  On
the other hand, I've had all sorts of interesting things happen over the
years.  For example, I've had FACTORY ammunition that has had high
primers.  A high primer will tie your revolver up somewhere from seconds
to minutes while you try to pound the action open to clear the problem.
An auto?  Jack the slide and continue.

I've had bullets come out of the case, keeping the cylinder from
turning, see clearing paragraph above.  About the WORST that can happen
with a semi auto is a double feed.  This can be cleared in seconds.

Most revolvers are more 'fragile' then semi auto's.  There are all sorts
of close tolerance parts and fitting involved.  Dropping the gun, or a
blow to the gun or all sorts of things can take it out of action.  Many
of the problems that can be cured on the spot with a (quality) semi auto
take a gun smith for a revolver.  In short a revolver MAY be less likely
to malfunction, but as a rule when it does, you're out of the fight.
The majority of malfunctions that occur with semi autos does not fall
into that category.

Vincint makes many good points in this post, but leaves off the opposing
view of most of them.  A real good starting place is Ayoob's "The Semi
Auto Pistol for Police and Self Defense."

In general, I'd agree, the revolver is an excellent first gun and self
defense weapon for somebody that does not have the time, and inclination
that is necessary for the training and practice needed to use a semi
auto effectively as a self defense arm.

Most cops are notoriously indifferent to firearms.  If the department
isn't going to train them, they aren't going to take the time on their
own.  There is no doubt that training is an issue.  The amount of
training required for effective use of a semi auto is probably several
times that of a revolver.  Many cops don't bother.

For myself, I'd hate to be limited to one or the other.  I'd rather pick
what fits better with my personal inclination, what I'm wearing that day
and so on.  Like the Moderator on rec.guns says, buy em all!

That said, I have to admit that often my advice to people thinking of
buying their first defense arm is (right after taking a class) get a
Ruger or Smith revolver....  (Sorry Colt fans.  Colt revolvers are ok
too!)

If this post had gone the other way, I'd be arguing for revolvers. :-)

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54169
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu /  6:26 am  Apr 14, 1993 /

>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm.


I suppose that depends on how you define 'vast' majority....

You are correct about 'majority.'  Somewhere between 1 out of three and 
one out of 10 will at some period in their lives experience a violent 
assault.  The risk is generally higher than emergency medical problems
like heart attack and stroke.

'Vast' is probably too loose a term.  With approximately 1,000,000 Americans
using firearms each year, over a 30 year period we get (roughly, since some
may have to do this more than once) 30 MILLION Americans with experience in 
using firearms for self defense.  30/250 yields 12 percent of the population.
(Yes, I know that is a REAL rough estimate.  We're closer to 270 million now, 
but many of these are minors and should be included etc, thus the percentage
if anything is low.)

At any rate, most minority groups in this range are not usually referred 
to as 'tiny' minorities, so I don't see how the other part of the group 
can be referred to as the 'vast' majority.  A little more work might 
support a 'simple' majority of Americans never use, own or display a firearm.

Certainly when you are talking about OWNERSHIP you are wrong.  Nearly half
of your fellow citizens own one or more firearms.  

>	                               Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms. 

Please provide a list of other means that are as effective.  Then you might 
convince your local police departments to switch.  Good luck.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54170
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu  
(Paul E. Reimer) writes:
> In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano  
Pitargue) writes:
> 
> [stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
> 
> >and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
> >due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
> >cars.
> >marciano pitargue@cisco.com
> 
> There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
> regulation to try to combat this.  

Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems  
the driver's license process does not work for this.

> When I got my drivers license, I HAD
> to take a drivers safety class.  

Because you wanted one while you were underage.

> I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  

Only on public roads.

> My car
> MUST be registered.  

Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my  
property.

> I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
> insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
> accident with it).  

Only on public roads.

> Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
> of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
> gun owners.

Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)

> 
> Paul Reimer
> reimer@uinpluxa.npl.uiuc.edu

Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54172
From: jfs@cco.caltech.edu (Johanes F. Swenberg)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle -

Steve,
     It's nice that you find me laughable but I don't quite
understand.  Is it because you think my firearms clash with
what I'm wearing, or that my NRA sticker isn't on straight?
Please state your judgement! 
     I find it sad that people won't accept the responsibility
to defend themselves.  And I laugh with the same contempt you
have for me at the sheep who expect the government to protect
them.

>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)

You and your friends sound like a bunch of smug intellectuals.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. 

Oh,   I guess you are.  I'm still waiting for you all-knowing
academic-likes to solve the worlds problems.  Let us know when
you have the answers or punch lines as this case may be.

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

So it's not a "Yankee" thing?
Are Canadians actually as uncivilized as we Americans?

>Hell, here in Britain, the cops don't even carry guns. 

Well if it's anything like here it wouldn't matter if they
did; they wouldn't be able to use them.

>Hell, as I recall, in People's Court, even Rusty carried a gun! Never
>know, some plaintiff might go nuts. :)  )

You shouldn't waste your time watching TV, Steve. It will corrupt
your mind.

>
>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples of
>why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!

Ditto to you, Self Righteous One.
Lay your derogatory tirade on thick, Steve.  Y'all can keep laughing and
I'll keep feeling safe and secure.

>
>Steve


Johanes 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54173
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Reminder -- Denver Rally Tomorrow

*****************************************************************
*                                                               *
*                        MONSTER RALLY!!                        *
*          ==  For the Right to Own and Carry Weapons ==        *
*                                                               *
*    TOMORROW, Sunday, April 18, 1993, from 1:00 to 3:30 p.m.,  *
*       the Denver LIBERTARIAN PARTY will sponsor a rally       *
*              AT THE STATE CAPITOL in support of               *
*         the individual right to own and carry weapons.        *
*                                                               *
* Speakers will include former Colorado deputy attorney general *
*  DAVID KOPEL, radio host KEN HAMBLIN, DLP Chair DAVID SEGAL,  *
* pistol instructor LENDA JACKSON, and novelist L. NEIL SMITH.  *
*                                                               *
* Your presence and participation are highly welcome.  For more *
*       information call David Segal at (303) 296-4059.         *
*                                                               *
*****************************************************************

Cathy Smith

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54174
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)

In article <C5n0vy.EJ6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:

>In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>-> 
>-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
>-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
>-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
>-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
>-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.
>
>No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
>and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
>an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
>people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
>that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
>cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
>interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
>of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
>of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
>how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.

       I'll point out that the whole point of the difficult amendment
process was to require a super-majority to change the Supreme Law,
making it impossible for a "majority" of the people to simply change
the law on a whim.  Simply changing the meaning based on "the
representatives" of the people effectively destroys the amendment
process.  The State's, you know, are also entitled to a say under
that process.
 
>> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
>-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
>-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
>-> number of times.  
>
>No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
>organized militia." 

       I'll note that that right could be considered protected under
the first amendment's protection of peaceful assembly.  Unless
you would consider a militia inherently non-peaceful, then they've
stated the same thing twice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54175
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle 

       That's nice.  We strive for entertainment value.  :-)     

>- I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a
>pick-up truck in front of the car that my friend and I were in. It had a bumper
>sticker proclaiming "Gun Control is a firm grip on a .45." Now I'm sure that
>that wanker thought he was pretty cool.
>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)

       In the first place, you have to realize the feeling goes both
ways.  Canadians laugh at the U.S., and Americans simply shrug and
woner why the hell we let them be a State in the first place.  ;-)       

>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore places, just
>so he could experience the sight of people putting guns and ammo into shopping
>carts! I didn't believe it myself until I drove by one in Vegas last year!!!

       Interesting strategy, posting here with complaints about
people elsewhere.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. 

        Courtesy is apparently a dead commodity in the rest of the
civilized world.  "Gun nut morons," indeed.        

>The BBC recently referred to the American 
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."

        We've got guns, they've got a monarch and an economy on the verg
of collapse.  Finger pointing across the Atlanticis a waste or time.

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

       Canada has been blaming the U.S. for their problems for years.
The simple fact of the matter is this:  Ten years ago they crowed about
how great their system was because they'd gotten rid of the guns and
the U.S. would be so much better if they'd just get into the divine light
shining from the North.  We pointed out that it was cultural differences,
and pointed to their pre-control crime rates.  We also pointed out that
the history of the entire world contained smuggling, and that whenever
something was wanted, it was smuggled in.
       If the problem were based on U.S. guns, it would have surfaced
years before.

       Now more Canadian criminals want guns.  And they are being provided.
Canada has its own version of the drug problem.  Yet drugs are prohibited
in the U.S.

>Hell, here in Britain, the cops don't even carry guns. (That's another funny
>thing - you see a US border guard, and he's got his .45 or .38 on his belt,
>with tons o' spare ammo - never know, maybe some canadian shopper might get out
>of hand. Hell, as I recall, in People's Court, even Rusty carried a gun! Never
>know, some plaintiff might go nuts. :)  )

       Saw a news report out of Britain that armed crime is on the rise,
and several police agencies are considering have permanent "firearms
officers" to deal with it.

       According to U.S. News & World Report, British handgun deaths have
risen over 250% over the past twelve years.  The U.S. number has dropped
5%.

       Maybe they're smuggling them across the U.S./U.K. border.  Yeah,
that's the ticket.

>CYA!

       Have a nice day, Steve.  Learn a little common courtesy and
politeness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54176
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes:

>In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
>
>>and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
>>due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
>>cars.
>>marciano pitargue@cisco.com
>
>There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
>regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD
>to take a drivers safety class.  

      Tennessee, at least, does not require any sort of safety class to
get a driver's license.  All that is required is one twenty question
quiz and to drive a car around the block without crashing.

>I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  

      In all probability, no you don't.  You are required to be licensed
to drive on public roads.  A license is not necessary on private property.

>My car
>MUST be registered.  

       Most states do not require the registration of cars that are
not used on public roads.  Those that do (California I know of) do
so for tax purposes more than anything else.
    
>I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
>insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
>accident with it).  

       Many states do not currently require this, and most, again,
only make this requirement for public roads.  A car sitting unused 
is not required to have insurance.

>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
>gun owners.

       The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are
significant difference between making rules for *use on public property*
and *making rules for ownership*.

       The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this
have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and
have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are
never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for
a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York,
Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun
owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the
numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that
intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of
the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion
they've already seen abused.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54177
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

   There's only one way I know of to tell an AR-15 from an M-16.
   Pick it up, hold it about a foot from your face and look closely
   at the saftey lever.  If it has two positions, its an AR-15, if
   it has three, its an M-16.  There are numerous internal differences
   as well, but since one would have to field strip the weapon to see
   them, they are not valid in this discussion.  So, in conclusion,
   there is very little external differences to distinguish an AR-15
   from an M-16 except at close (very close) range.

   David Bixler
   Auburn University

   All standard disclaimers apply.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54178
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <C5Lrpq.50o@idacom.hp.com> guy@idacom.hp.com (Guy M. Trotter) writes:
>
>Hi,
>
>In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a
>small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is
>that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the
>National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances
>of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions.
>
>I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer
>to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with
>nature on it's own terms.
>
>Guy

Hello,

	I understand this philosophy.  The bears are a national
treasure, the area is their sanctuary and people who enter it
do so at their own risk.  It is better that that rare human be
killed by a bear than that bears be provoked or shot by unbear-savvy
visitors.  The bears aren't having a population explosion, humans
are so it is better that a human be killed than endanger the bears.
I don't agree with this philosopy, but I understand it.

	The psychos are a bit different.  They are not a national
treasure but I suppose the decision has been made that to "allow"
provision for defense against them would also "allow" provision
for defense against bears.  Again, I suppose it has been decided
that it is better for the rare human to be killed by a psycho than
to take a chance on threatening the bears.

	Personally, I wouldn't go into an area where I would be
"managed" so as to reduce my safety ..... but ... come to think
of it I guess I live in a managed wilderness myself :-)

Joan V  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54179
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
<In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
<jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
<
<> [ ... excellent exchange deleted ... ]
<> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
<> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
<> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
<> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
<> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.
<
<    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
<    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
<    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
<    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
<    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
<
<    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
<    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
<    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
<    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
<    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
<    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
<    to raise an army upon their ruins."
<
<So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
<our Liberties and Rights.

What I find so hard to understand is how come some people, apparantly
NOT connected with government or otherwise privileged, will
go to great lengths, redefinitions, re-interpretations, in a full-bore
attempt to THROW AWAY THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTS under the
Constitution!!!

Almost makes me think of lemmings running into the sea during a lemming
year...

I really wonder that Jefferson and Madison would say to these folks?

<-------------------------------------------------------------
<"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
<drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
<powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
<become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
<separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Excellent quote.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54180
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <1qpavfINN2jp@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
:In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu  
:(Paul E. Reimer) writes:
:> In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano  
:Pitargue) writes:
:> 
:> [stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
:> 
:> >due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
:> >cars.
:> There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
:> regulation to try to combat this.  
:
:Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems  
:the driver's license process does not work for this.
:
I can testify to this. My cousin spent a few weeks in the hospital, and his
friend was killed, because of a drunk driver.  The son-of-a-b**** is back on 
the streets... Officers from the scene are still p***ed about that one.

:> to take a drivers safety class.  
:
:Because you wanted one while you were underage.
:
:> I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  
:
:Only on public roads.
:
:> My car
:> MUST be registered.  
:
:Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my  
:property.
:
:> I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
:> insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
:> accident with it).  
:
:Only on public roads.
And this obviously doesn't always work, else why would they offer uninsured 
motorist coverage?
:
:> Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
:> of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
:> gun owners.
I object to mandatory registration because I don't trust my government not to
use any information I give them for their own purposes.  I am licensed to
carry a concealed pistol in my home state, but they never asked whether I 
actually owned a firearm.  A safety class before issuing a permit to carry is
reasonably, provided such classes are regularly available to the public.  Of
course, most places would consider my time in the reserves and on a competition
rifle team to count.  
:
:Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)
Hey, now that's an idea :)
:
:> Paul Reimer
:
:Jim

Now, unless you have an agenda against private ownership of firearms, why would
you want to harass the person trying to legally defend themselves or exercise 
their rights? (I know, defending oneself/family/whoever IS a right... at least
as far as my 9mm and I are concerned... ) (Also as far as the State of Alabama
seems to be concerned)  Why don't you push for stricter prosecution of those
who use firearms in the commission of a crime?  I've already pointed out how
we aren't nailing DUI's hard enough...  Comparing the US with other countries
seldom works, but the European attitude towards alchohol and DUI seems to work..
Their attitude towards weapons isn't really a valid comparison because they've
historically done their best to keep the populace disarmed and submissive,
while our country was founded by a bunch of rugged individualists who told the
European monarchies (for the most part) to take a flying leap (used more polite
language though).  We even weaseled out of our first international treaty, and
then convinced the French that it was in their best interests not to complain..
But first we had to overcome the fact that the Brits were doing their best to 
restrict us to squirrel guns and such, so we'd be properly submissive while
they forced us to pay for their wars.  Of course, most American history classes
these days tend to gloss over facts that do not fit the image they wish to 
convey... I'm glad my Amer. Hist. teacher was a Libertarian who had us review
a good portion of the Federalist Papers, and debate their origins and meanings.

enough rambling,

James


-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54181
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: CNN for sale


W.K. Gorman:

<3>> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
<3>> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
<3>> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two..

<3>I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't
<3>think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening
<3>until they break down HIS door.

<3>BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a
<3>minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made
<3>viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :)
<3>There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and
<3>not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would
<3>STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their
<3>ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.

Any NRA headquarters weenies listening to this man. Any RTKBA organization
honcho listening. It's time to stop fighting the Brady's and the Schumer's
(now there's an interesting meaning to the acronynm BS) from the comfort
of the office....we had better get serious with our time and money and get
after it or we might just as well pack it in now.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Gun control advocates must have had a sanity by-pass!
                                           
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54182
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Carrying Arms

In article <1993Apr5.220457.6800@spdc.ti.com> dwhite@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Dan White) writes:
>	I have a question about the second amendment that has bothered
>me for awhile.  The amendment guarentees our "right to keep and bear
>arms." Currently, the gun prohibitionists are trying to restrict or
>eliminate our right to keep arms with the Brady Bill and the assault
>weapon ban.  However, haven't we already lost our right to bear arms?

>	It seems that in most states, like Texas, a citizen may own a
>gun and carry while at his home or business.  But a citizen is severely
>restricted from bearing outside these areas.  Here in Texas you cannot
>carry in your car except when "traveling" which is usually defined as
>"traveling across a county line."  How did this come about?  Are there
>any court rulings on the legality of restricting the carrying of a
>weapon outside the home?  

There are, but not any that would help Texans: In many states,
such laws have been found to violate the state constitution. 
But the federal Second Amendment does not apply directly to the
states. It was written to limit the federal government only. 
The Fourteenth Amendment was written to extend the restrictions
of the Bill of Rights to the state level. However, the exact
wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is very vague. The Supreme
Court has been dancing around the issue without facing it
directly for over 100 years. In practice, the Bill of Right
(indirectly applies through the Fourteenth) applies to the
state governments only if the Supreme Court has ruled that 
particular provision. The Court has made no such rulings on
the Second Amendment.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54183
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 
writes:
>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

That's open for debate.  Certainly, an excessive number of people are
murdered every year but people also do save innocent lives with firearms.
The media just don't tell us when it happens...

>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.

I think there are more of us than there are federal marshalls...

>No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
>than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 

Crap.  It's simplistic thinking on the part of feather-headed dolts.

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

Nuts.

    don




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54184
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1qrn3aINN4rq@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com 
(Jim De Arras) writes:
>> The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
>
>It ain't dead, yet.  And even if it were repealed, remember, it just protects 
>our RKBA, it does not grant any rights.  There would then have to be 
>additional laws passed to outlaw gun possession.

Even if they outlawed private posession of firearms, there would be no moral
force behind that law; I imagine compliance would be low.

    don



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54185
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
	jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't
>seem to realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you.

So what.  We think you're pretty hilarious too.

I love how you Brit's kiss royal arse.  That you're willing to throw
out freedom-of-speech for the sake of protecting the reputation of the
royal sluts.

That the British government advertised in American newspapers "Send A Gun
to Defend a British Home -- British civilians, faced with threat of
invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." during
WWII.  [American Rifleman November, 1940]

That The Obscene Publications Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act have been
used as justification for the police to seize masterpieces such as William
S. Burrough's "Junky", Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas",
and Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test".  British courts have
never recognized the right to assemble or to demonstrate.

That evidence obtained form coerced confessions is allowed in a trial.

That only serious felonies warrant a trial by jury.

That suspected terrorists must prove their innocence, instead of the
government having to prove their guilt.

That the secretary of state may issue an "exclusionary order" which
bars someone from ever entering a particular part of the United Kingdom,
such as Northern Ireland or Wales.

That the BBC banned Paul McCartney's "Give Ireland Back to the Irish"
as well as John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" during the Gulf War.

Yes, England is very very funny.  And very pathetic.

>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore
>places, just so he could experience the sight of people putting guns
>and ammo into shopping carts! I didn't believe it myself until I
>drove by one in Vegas last year!!!

So what.  Laughter is a way of dealing with things we find uncomfortable.
I thought the "Las Vegas Show Girl" ads on Las Vegas street corners were
pretty funny.

Yes indeed, there are many strange and wonderous things in this country.
I wouldn't have it any other way.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. The BBC recently referred to the American 
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."

I don't disagree with that, I don't think it's bad either.

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

So what.  If they didn't come from here they would come from elsewhere
disguised as cocaine.

>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples
>of why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!

You can laugh all you want, for us it's a matter of life or death.
I don't find that funny in the least.

As for England:

"As our allies become more open, Britain grow yet more secretive and
censorious.  Perhaps the real British vice is passivity, a willingness
to tolerate constraints which others would find unbearble." [in "Britain,
An Unfree Country" by Terrence DeQuesne and Edward Goodman, pp 33.]
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54186
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 
writes:
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

Nope.  Here in Northern California, a newspaper recently did a survey,
asking if people favored stricter gun controls.  A full 40% said no.
Here, in one of the most Liberal (it wasn't always a swear word :( areas
of the country, nearly half the people don't want additional controls, let
alone revocation of RKBA...

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

Misguided dolt though he may be (though, I still maintain, less dangerous
than Bush), Clinton does not publicly support revoking the second amendment.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

Well, I'll help MY neighbors...

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

Violent solutions are passe'?  I take it you propose disarming the police,
then?

Please don't mention RKBA in the same breath as the KKK.  RKBA is about
being able to defend yourself and others, not about killing the innocent.
Actually, your mention of the KKK is rather funny, considering that the
first gun control law in the US were created specifically to disarm black
people...

    don




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54187
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Drivers licence:
>Forgot that USA is THE land of cars.....
>Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy.
>Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......

Is the license required for driving a car exclusively on private
property, such as a farm? Here in the United States, the license
is required only for the use of public roads.

>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

We also have a nation of 250 million people, _many_ issues and
usually only two candidates for a given office. A President
might be willing to abuse mild gun control laws and create
a de-facto ban (something a majority of the people would object to)
and still be elected: The voters might look at issues like the
civil rights of minorities, health care, etc... and vote
for the "lesser of two evils." I don't think this is a matter
of paranoia, since local governments in (for example) New York
and Chicago have abused existing, mild gun control laws to 
create a virtual ban.

>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.

In which case, the United States already has adaquate gun control laws:
According to federal statistic, only 7% of gun-wielding criminals
legally purchase their own guns from licensed dealers. If that's
the point of gun control (to prevent criminals from legally purchasing
guns) then America doesn't need any additional laws to accomplish
this.

>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!

How is this any different from guns? There are legal purposes for
owning and using a gun: They are appropriate tools for hunting,
target shooting and self-defence. Like cars, murder isn't
their only (or even a common) use.

>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??

I certainly couldn't imagine the American public accepting regulation
of axes. While the politics of other nations may be different,
in America there is strong opposition to any intrusive law that
primarily would effect the average, law-abiding citizen who had
not done anything wrong.

>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

A good way to deal with which problem? It is an excelent way to deal 
with the short-term problem of rioting and violent attacks. Of course,
it doesn't do anything for the long-term issues that start riots. But
at this point, what can these individuals do about long-term social
problems? 

>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

There are, according to surveys, guns in 40% of American homes.
In many parts of the country, this is closer to 100%. Those places
where almost everyone owns a gun are, on average, safer than those
where guns are less common.

>LAST WORD:
>Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if
>you want to protect your citicens.

This is, I think, a fundamental difference between American government
and that of other nations. Here it is not acceptable to punish
or restrict the average, law-abiding citizen in the name of some
vague "common good." 

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54188
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>the people on the net.
>
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  

       As a data point from Tennessee, a friend of mine and a police
officer essentially recommends that if you can, fade away.  Even if
you were perfectly justified you're likely in for a great deal of 
hassle.  (A side note, carrying a gun concealed is a misdemeanor.)

>What kind
>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>saw you and you were caught?

       It's one of those "by State" things, pretty much.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54189
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.
>
>There is no question about it. 
>
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

Not so.  Surveys have shown while the public thinks certain types
of gun control may be acceptable they do believe they have an
individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the police should
not have /discretion/ over who may and may not own firearms.

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void.

By the end of the Clinton administration a lot of things will be
screwed up.  Hell, we'll probably be just like England.

> Tough titty.

"Tough titty" ?  My how eloquent you are.

As for your claim, I think Clinton has a big fight ahead of him if
he thinks he's going to pass some comprehensive gun legislation.
He will sign the Brady Bill if it gets to his desk.  We will do
whatever we can to either keep that from happening, or modify it
such that it is acceptable to us.

>You had better discover ways to make do without firearms.

Sorry, that's not possible.  And that's why we won't give them up
either.  Legally or illegally, American's will keep their firearms.
The number of unregistered weapons in New York City is in the millions.
There aren't even close to that number of violent criminals there.

>The number of cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause.

If the gov't was serious about stopping violent crime they would
keep violent criminals in jail for a long long time where they
belong instead of letting them out on early release.

>There is nothing you can do about it.

Hey, we can go into politics too if we feel like it.

> Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 

I don't believe this one bit.

>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

Snore.  Like I take advice on the RKBA from a Brit.  No way.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless.

You watch too much "Star Trek".  Actually, this is an understandable
attitude from a Brit; you are a subject of the state.

>They will overwhelm you - one at a time.

Not necessarily.  There are ways of resisting oppression without
getting caught by the gov't.

>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

The "abstract criminal" like the ones who killed a relative of mine
while she was working in a carry-out.

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'.

While undesirable, they are sometimes unavoidable.  If you don't want
to resist a criminal attack by all means do nothing.  I will (a) take
my chances resisting violent attack, and (b) stand a better chance of
being unharmed than someone who does nothing.

>Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

What a joke.  Criminals want a disarmed population.  How can you keep
criminals from preying on us after our best means of self defense is
taken away ?
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54190
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable.

      Not provable.  It's about as "provable" as the number of votes
vast for Bill Clinton in the last election.  If you accept the information
available, you can prove one way or the other.  If you refuse to accept
it, nothing is "provable."

>I think that that
>there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

      Fine, support your assertation.  But, you haven't supported
any assertations just yet.

      The National Crime Survey, that secret Arm of the NRA, estimates
between 40,000 and 50,000 with-gun self-defenses from assaults, and
is considered to considerably under-report.  When broken down by weapon,
there is no form of "self-defense" including dowing nothing which is
more effective at avoiding injury or death.

>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ...  those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

      Ok, support *this* assertation.  Hell, support *one*.

>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 

      That's nice.

>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.

      That's nice, too.

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

       Why on Earth should we?  If you're correct we've nothing to
lose by continuing to argue against it and everything to gain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54191
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) 

       Mr. Parsli, I have to take exception at this.  There are
verifiable, previous *examples* of levels of U.S. governments
abusing gun-control restrictions.  I don't think it is paranoid
to worry that what has been abused in the recent past might be abused
in thye future.  After so many times of getting burned any sane person
will stop putting his hand on the stove.

>OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

       I'd love to.  But as long as the politicians grab power to sell
pork back to their constituents, there's not a lot I can do.  

       It's silly to suggest that if there's anything we can't trust
the government to do, and therefore the government should be allowed
to do it, then we should change governments.  Down that road lies
total government power.   I've never been a fan of totalitarianism.

>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.

       This is very likely.

>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.
>And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe),
>we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.

       The North American Continent is not Europe, no matter how many
people would like it to be.  Drugs are very illegal and they're
here.  For years Canada has crowed about its gun control.  If it is
necessary to control guns over the whole continent, then Canada should
have always had comparable rates to the U.S., yet they still don't.
Unless you can tell me why the Canadian border is so much more
magical than the Mexican border (which is shorter and far more
heavily patrolled) then I really can't accept that argument.

>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!

       No, there are approximately 31,000 deaths due to guns in the U.S.,
two-thirds of which are suicides.  (Unfortunately I don't have suicide
rates for Norway.)  However, this makes the per-gun death rate about
half the per-car death rate.

>The issue (I hope..):
>I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem.
>Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)
>
>I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia:
>They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them
>to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.

      The problem's been humans since before we had stone axes.  The
fct of the matter is simply this:  If nobody ever assaulted anybody,
whether there is a weapon of any sort around would be totally
irrelevent.

      Yet weapons are *built*.  I'd suggest, then, that the murderous
impulse in humanity pre-dates weapons.

      Anyway, the Bosnians et al. have been making an excellent attempt
to kill each other for half a thousand years.  Taking away their guns, even
if we could, would neither halt the killing nor reduce the brutality.

>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??
>(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)


       In the U.S., approximately 60% of murders are commited with firearms.
(50% with handguns, 10% with non-handguns.)  The reason I say that guns, per 
se, are not the problem, is that our non-gun rate exceeds most of Europe's
countries *entire* violent crime rate.  I don't really think we've got
more knives or fists.  

       In any case, I think examples of gun control *applied* to the U.S.
have been abkect failures, just like drug prohibition and other forms
of prohibition.  Until you deal with *why* people are doing what they
are doing, you won't solve your problem.  And if the problem is 
violent crime, you shouldn't concentrate on the tools instead.  The
*vast* majority of guns is never, ever misused.  (On the order of
99.5% over the entire lifetime of the gun).  This says to me that
you can't make the argument that the gun itself causes the misuse.

>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ?? 

       The situation is not "good" in that people fear for their lives.
But recall the scenes of the store-owners during the last riots,
protecting their shops with guns.  Would it have been better they,
too, lost their livelihoods?

>Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

       The problem of poverty and rage in Los Angeles, no it isn't.
However, if that problem becomes a violent action, then yes, it can
be appropriate.  Whether or not some person has been hurt by their condition
won't make me less dead if they burn down my house with me in it.

       You have to examine which problem you're referring to.  If
you're discussing someone violently assaulting you, then it is
a perfectly legitimate response to make them stop.  (Hopefully
simply letting them know you're prepared to shoot them would be enough,
as it was with the above-mentioned store-owners.)

>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

       45% of Households have some form of firearm, usually a long gun.
That accounts for a level of access for at least 100 million Americans.
Firearm ownership is most likely among educated, well-off whites, the
group *least* likely to be involved in violent crime.

       You may take that for what it's worth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54192
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?

For me, it would be an obvious choice: Armed self-defence is clearly
and strongly protected by the Colorado Constitution and the laws
of the state. In the very clear-cut situation of your hypothetical,
I wouldn't have anything to fear from the police (unless I had been
publicly carrying the weapon concealed, something I'm not in
the habit of doing... Even then, the worst I'd have to deal with 
was a class 2 misdemeanor.) Even if the situation were not so
clear, and I might have to worry about arrest for manslaughter or
homicide, it would still be safer to wait for the police. If
I were to leave and try to avoid police involvement, I'd be committing
several felonies and ruining my chances of claiming self-defence
in court ("If it really was self-defence," the prosecuter would
ask, "why did you run away and hide from the police?")

In other states, however, this decision might not be so clear-cut:
If someone in, say, Washington D.C. were to use a gun in self-defence
he would _automatically_ be guilty of several felony violations of
that city's gun control laws. Such a person's choices would be
between certain conviction for a couple of felonies versus possible
conviction for half a dozen. 

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54193
From: billma@utoday.com (Bill Mallon)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339
@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

> Surrender your arms. Soon enough, 
> officers will be around to collect
> them. Resistance is useless. They 
>       ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
> will overwhelm you - one at a time.

Are you certain you didn't mean to post 
to alt.french.captain.borg.borg.borg?

You'd better rush home...I hear Kruschev 
calling "Come to papa, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu!"

"I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory
circuit, using stone knives and bearskins."        --Spock
     - Humble Typesetter -

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54194
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: Tanks against civilians (was Re: That silly outdated Bill/Koresh)

In article <scottj-150493092731@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu> scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
>
> [ ... picking nits over tanks firing the main gun or not deleted ...]
> 

I think the point is being missed - that it is apparantly acceptable for
Big Government (Big Brother?) to use TANKS to control the people, as
long as they don't use the BIG GUN (but everything else is allright...).

Tanks deployed against civilians, let alone FIRING on them with crew
served weaponry (a .50 Heavy Machine Gun is crew-served) is something
both our press and government howl about instantly when done in some
other country.  Against civilians that have, at most, one-shot-at-a-time
LIGHT small arms.  Certainly nothing that places the people in or behind
the tank in any real danger.  Molotov coctails?  A round from a rifle
or pistol deals with anybody approaching with one of those.  And "snipers"
too often turn out to be strays from other cops/guard/army gunfire.

I don't know about the other people in this group (or on the net) but
the idea of tanks being used to control civilians, in anything that
pretends to be a free society is outrageous.  When Big Government feels
it is necessary to use that kind of force to stomp out protests (even
violent) of the citizens, that suggests that the government is totally
out of control, since that is effectively the government declaring war
on its own people.  If the government was living up to its responsibility,
government of the people BY THE PEOPLE, not the 'lords' and other elites
who want to keep their good thing going, the citizens wouldn't feel the
need to be resorting to acts that need to be squashed with a military
boot.  People do things like that because they have become convinced
that it is the only option that remains, other attempts to have grievances
redressed have been ignored.  And yes, there is a criminal element that
will exploit this, but the fact remains that the government has been
unresponsive or such acts wouldn't be apt to happen.  Still not an excuse
to open up on civilians with tanks, heavy machine guns, or whatever.
Its the old 'might makes right' philosophy that is the hallmark of a
government going rogue:  They don't like it? Tough. We will simply
squash them under an iron boot.  Actually addressing their grievances
in other than token fashion with huge volumes of hot air is just too
inconvenient...  Sort of a variation on mushroom management:  Keep them
in the dark, Smother them with shit, and Crush them when ready...

And these are the folks that many liberals are trying to arrange things
so that they will have a MONOPOLY on coercive force (firearms that are
than expensive toys...) by gutting the Bill of Rights (cuz it just isn't
PROGRESSIVE or doesn't fit in with MODERN THINKING anymore)...

Unbelievable.

And I do believe amid the smoke, confusion, etc of a real riot situation,
that it would be POSSIBLE for a tank to get away with firing the main gun
into a building at close range?  One would hear an explosion among many
explosions.  It is loud, but it is not going to stand out like a 1000
pound bomb or a tactical nuke.  There would be a hole blown in the wall,
and some rubble, but with tanks knocking over walls, and other sources
of buildings turning into rubble, and other covering racket such as
gunfire, including 50's tacking away, it would not stand out that much,
and could be explained by "musta been a gas leak... ".  I think it could be
done and not be reported under such conditions - it is POSSIBLE.  It is
not like a tank driving down a quiet street on a Sunday afternoon, turning
and firing, you know.  THAT would stand out, and be pretty impossible
to cover up.

>--John L. Scott


-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54195
From: chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu wrote:
: You are loosing.
: There is no question about it. 
: Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
: how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

  Care to show some *real* numbers instead of something HCI make up?
  I thought so, all "foaming at the mouth" shouting but nothing is 
  ever said...
   
: This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
: RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

  Well, we'll just have to wait and see about that, won't we?  Or are
  you quite satisified with living in your little fantasy?
 
< SNIP >
: cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
< SNIP >
: The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
: you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

  Not true, it is ONLY those who are ignorant and are afraid to understand,
  accept, and deal with the real problems behind this violent society 
  who are proposing gun control as a band-aid solution.  May be I should 
  refresh your memory with a quote from Prez. Clintion? 

    "It's the criminals, stupid!"  

  HEY, why is he cutting the budget for more prisons? May be someone need 
  to remind him of what he promised...on second thought, why bother...

: Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
: them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
: Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
: immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

  Oooh, WACO II, coming to your living room soon...  When was the last
  time you turned off your TV?  Can't remember?  I thought so...

: Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
: are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
: be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

  Wait, I got it, this is a late April fool post, right?  I didn't
  think ANYBODY is stupid enough to post something like this...good one
  guys, this group was getting boring without Holly and Susan. 

--Francis Chiu, Professional Student, Programmer, Tax Payer. 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54196
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: 2%: We're undertaxed/Poll

kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:

>In article <1993Apr16.190829.17141@cunews.carleton.ca> akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous) writes:
>>In article <VEAL.729.734979393@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>       No, what you said was that we had spent money on "guns" rather than
>>>"people," as Canada does.  Which is ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>>Once again I have over estimated the general level of intellegence of
>>the average reader of rush-limbaugh.  Canada PER CAPITA spend more
>>money on people where the US spend more money PER CAPITA on guns.

>What exactly do you mean when you say the U.S. spends more per capita on
>guns than Canada does?  Are you talking about the U.S. government or are you
>talking about the purchase of guns by private citizens or both?  If you are
>referring to private citizens then your point is irrevelant because what
>individuals do with their money is essentially *their* business.

>If, on the other hand, you meant that the U.S government spends more per
>capita on guns than Canada does then your point *is* relevant.  So, if this
>is true then the U.S. needs to get its priorities straight.  People are more
>important than guns.  That is not to say that guns aren't important.  I'm
>just saying that if the U.S government *does* spend more per capita on guns
>than they do on people then something is awry.


    He meant the US spends more per capita on guns than Canada which isn't
really surprising because we were so busy protecting the western world from
the USSR that all other countries could slack off on their defense spending.

    I would like to see if the US spends more per capita on people than 
Canada does.  This is a true apples - apples comparison where the previous
post was apples - oranges.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54197
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 4.

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 4.

Friday, April 16, 1993 was the fourth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Defense attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined agent
Cooper under repeated objections from prosecutor Ronald
Howen.  Spence moved for a mistrial but was denied.

The day was marked by a caustic cross-examination of Deputy
Marshal Larry Cooper by defense attorney Gerry Spence.  Although
Spence has not explicitly stated so, one angle of his stategy
must involve destroying the credibility of agent Cooper.  Cooper is
the government's only eyewitness to the death of agent Degan.
Spence attacked Cooper's credibility by pointing out discrepancies
between Cooper's statements last September and those made in court.
Cooper conceded that, "You have all these things compressed into
a few seconds...It's difficult to remember what went on first."

Cooper acknowledged that he carried a "9mm Colt Commando submachine
gun with a silenced barrel." [I thought a Colt Commando was a revolver!]
Cooper continued by stating that the federal agents had no specific
plans to use the weapon when they started to kill Weaver's dog.

When Spence asked how seven cartridges could be fired by Degan's
M-16 rifle when Degan was apparently dead, Cooper could not say for
sure that Degan did not return fire before going down.

Spence continued by asking with how many agents (and to what extent)
had Cooper discussed last August's events, Cooper responded, "If
you're implying that we got our story together, you're wrong,
counselor."  Spence continued to advance the defense's version of
the events: Namely, that a marshal had started the shooting by
killing the Weaver's dog.  Cooper disagreed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen repeatedly objected to Spence's
virulent cross-examination of agent Cooper, arguing that the questions
were repetitive and Spence was wasting time.  Howen also complained 
that Spence was improperly using a cross-examination to advance the
defense's version of the events.  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge
sustained many of the objections; however, both lawyers persisted
until Judge Lodge had the jury leave the room and proceded to
admonish both attorneys.  "I'm not going to play games with either
counsel.  This has been a personality problem from day 1, so start
acting like professionals."

Spence told the judge that, "When all the evidence is in, we'll see
that ... his [agent Larry Cooper] testimony is not credible, that
he was panicked and cannot remember the sequence of events." 
Spence continued, "We're going to find...that there is a very unlikely
similarity - almost as if it had come out of a cookie cutter - between
the testimony of Mr. Cooper and the other witnesses."

Spence then moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Howen's repeated
objections would prevent a fair trial, "We can't have a fair trial if the
jury believes I'm some sort of charlatan, if the jury believes I'm
bending the rules or engaging in some delaying tactic or that I'm
violating court orders."

Judge Lodge called the notion that his repeated sustainings of Howen's
objections had somehow prejudiced the jury was "preposterous" and
denied the motion for a mistrial.  Lodge did tell Howen to restrict
his comments when objecting.

The trial resumed with the prosecution calling FBI Special Agent Greg
Rampton.  The prosecution's purpose was simply to introduce five
weapons found in the cabin as evidence: However, the defense seized
on the opportunity to further address Cooper's credibility.

Defense attorney Ellison Matthews (Harris' other attorney) questioned
Rampton about the dog.  Rampton stated that there were no specific
plans to kill the Weaver's dog without being detected.  Matthews then
had Rampton read  a Septtember 15, 1992 transcript in which Rampton
had said that Cooper had said that the purpose of the silenced weapon
was to kill the dog without being detected, if the dog chased them.
Rampton then acknowledged that he believed that Cooper had said that,
but he could not remember when.  He then stated that, "I did not conduct
the primary interview with Deputy Cooper, but I have had conversations
with him since the interview was conducted."

Monday, April 19, 1993 will begin the fifth day of the trial.  Scheduled
is the continued cross-examination of FBI agent Greg Rampton.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54198
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 1.


Here is a copy of my first update on the Randy Weaver trial.
After a large response (about 15 email messages), I've decided
that there is sufficient interest here on t.p.g. to warrant
posting.

*** file follows *** 

Hi Folks;

As perhaps the only Boise resident on the list, I guess it
kind of falls on me to keep people updated about the
Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial.

Yesterday marked the seating of the jury.  Apparently no other
legal activities occurred.  The jury was selected and things
start today.

More interesting is what happenned outside.  About a dozen
Weaver supporters showed up to stage a protest outside the
courthouse.  One woman carried a sign that read, "Who stands
trial for the murder of Vicki and (son's name - I forget)
Weaver?"  On the evening news she said, "I am here protesting
because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I thought we all did."  Nice sound bite (grin)!

The news reporter also interviewed some guy named "Tim"
who refused to give his last name.  Not to prejudge the
guy, but he looked like a neo-nazi.  He also said he
expected many neo-nazis to show up throughout the trial.
"Tim" had been handing out leaflets in support of Weaver
and Harris and the news had footage of a Boise cop
telling him to move along or he'd arrest.  I don't know
the finer points of this one.  Perhaps there's a law
against political activity within X feet of a courthouse
or something (what happenned to the First Amendment?!?).

Most ominous of all was that the local reporter filmed
an agent of the Gestapo...err...ATF with a minicam
FILMING THE PROTESTORS!  Welcome to the world of Big Brother.

Anyhow, Gerry Spence came out and asked the protestors to
leave because he didn't think it would help Weaver's case
any.  He said he was confident that, once the evidence
came out, that Weaver would be aquitted.

More stuff as it comes available.

Drew

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54199
From: shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard)
Subject: S414 (Brady bill) loopholes?

Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about
the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).

1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?
     What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".
     How close is that to being made law?

2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important
   differences I missed?

3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:
  A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during
     the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals
     process once the required instant background check system is established,
     but not before).
  B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving
     using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an
     inaccurate record corrected?)
  C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person
     can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an
     immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.
     But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does
     it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception
     statement.
True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?

4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from
   buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?
   At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?

   'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed
   (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised
   to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun
   registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.

Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current
legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits
of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.

	MarkS || shepard@netcom.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54200
From: "Faustus" <p00056@mail.psi.net>
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

>DATE:   18 Apr 93 00:13:19 -0500
>FROM:   jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>
>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. 

In my case I am alive thanks to a gun, that is provable..
even in your twisted logic.

>I think that that there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

No... Wrong again brain trust.. 

>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents 

Huh? What planet are you from? 

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

Wrong... Not as long as freedom remains ..

PS: Get a Dictionary..


Faustus
(Gun of the month club... hmmm.. Glock 10mm this month.. Sig 226 next..)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54201
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
  >What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
  >realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
  >just make me chuckle - I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a
  >...

You consider laughing at others civilized behavior?  What was I supposed to
learn from your article?  Treat people like dogs?

I am not impressed by your attitude.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54202
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
  >...
  >In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
  >No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
  >than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 
  >
  >The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

You know, in many ways this might be just the kick we need to straighten
things out in this country.  Also, people would have a need to replace
guns with something else, perhaps deadly sprays that would make Mace and OC
seem like water.  They would be lighter and easier to conceal.

Guns are really "old" in design and as long as we have tons of them, no one
is motivated to design something better.  I'm sure we could come up with
some real nasty stuff if we tried and getting rid of these guns would get
us moving on this track asap.  This is what we really want, right?  Stuff
that's smaller, lighter and far more deadly.

Remember, in this country we'll really scramble to accomplish impossible
feats if we are motivated enough and I think "self-defense" is high on our
list of motivators.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54203
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.

What's "loosing?"  

>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

I vote.  I don't consider RKBA an abomination. 

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

I'm sure Sarah Brady would be delighted to hear your ranting and
raving.  However, Clinton has not publically stated that he would
like to repeal the Second Amendment.  "Tough titty" to you.

>You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
>cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
>can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 

Are we going to "make do without" like the people in New York City? 
You know New York City: That gun ban utopia you dream about, with
the millions of unregistered handguns?  New York City, by the way,
has a very high crime rate.

Perhaps you should know about a gungrabber's nightmare - Idaho.
Here in Idaho, the police give concealed carry permits to anyone
over 21 without a criminal record.  There are no gungrabber schemes
such as FOIDs, waiting periods, "gun a month," or LTCs.  And horror
of horrors!  You don't even NEED a permit to carry a concealed
weapon while outside of city limits (although you do need a permit
for concealed carry in an automobile).

I feel a hell of a lot safer in Boise than I would in your gun ban
dream state (e.g., Washington, D.C.).

>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

The voting public in Idaho is staunchly pro-gun.  Both senators
are NRA-endorsed "A" rated!  Buy a clue, pal.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 
>
Get out your wallet and buy another clue.  There are millions upon
MILLIONS of pre-1968 (i.e., non-4473'ed) firearms out there.
They have a half-life approaching eternity.  And cosmoline is not
exactly tracked by the feds.

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
>
Gun control laws were passed to PROTECT the KKK from blacks!

Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54204
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr17.235338.2819@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) says:
>
>>>>...I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
>>>> taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.
>
>>>That is the recommended way to practice with a CCW, too.  Aim alone is no   d
>goo
>>>for defense, if you can't get the gun rapidly.
>
>>Very true but the way it was being done was just a little unusual.  It looked
>>to me like they were practicing to shoot someone...

The point that I forgot to bring up here (and this has nothing to do with being
a gang member or not) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in this
area (or in the state of illinois for that matter).  This is not to say that
people in Illinois don't carry concealed weapons illegaly but practicing like
that when there are other people around wasn't too bright of an idea.

>
>There isn't necessarily a conflict between practicing with a concealed
>weapon for self-defence and practicing to shoot someone. Armed
>self-defence does occasionally involve shooting an attacker.
>
>                                              Frank Crary
>                                              CU Boulder

I agree.      If you don't practice at all and carry a gun for self-defense you
most likely would be in big trouble if a situation were to arise.

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54205
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu says:

Ah I love posts like this.  Many people have already replied to this one as I
knew they would.  I'm not going to say much as this just seems like baiting to
me.  Someone decided to post to see how many people would get mad and reply.  I
am just going to ignore it but I do have one thing to say.  See below.
>
>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Listen buddy, if you're going to quote Star Trek get the quote right.  It was
"Resistance is futile".  Get it right the next time :-)

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu


>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54206
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <1993Apr18.061532.3288@uoft02.utoledo.edu>,
steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) says:
>
>Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes:
>>
>> Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.
>>  You give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in
>> their action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My
>> question is what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops
>> or should you collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and
>> get out of there (provided of course you don't think that you have
>> been seen)?  What kind of laws are on the books regarding this type
>> of situation?  What would be the most likely thing to happen to you
>> if you stayed and waited and it was a first offense?  What would
>> happen if you took off but someone saw you and you were caught?
>
>ghods. do you have -any- idea how much trouble you'd get into for
>taking off like that? leaving the scene of an auto accident is bad
>enough! killing someone & leaving is 10 times worse. who's going
>to seriously believe it was self-defense when you took the time
>to collect your spent casings? "But officer, I reload!"
>
Well, like someone said in a reply to this it really all depends on the area
that you live in.  See David Veal's reply to this.  I have heard exactly the
same thing that he said in his reply - to fade away if you think that you
haven't been seen (I heard this from a police officer).  For the record though
he was talking about in Tennessee - not everywhere.

>even if you could get away with it, you're still a fugitive. do
>it nice & legal, keep your law-abiding status & send your story
>into the Armed Citizen column of American Rifleman.
>
>jason
>
>--
Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54207
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <VEAL.744.735151266@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
says:
>
>In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>
>>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>>the people on the net.
>>
>>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?
>
>       As a data point from Tennessee, a friend of mine and a police
>officer essentially recommends that if you can, fade away.  Even if
>you were perfectly justified you're likely in for a great deal of
>hassle.  (A side note, carrying a gun concealed is a misdemeanor.)
>
This is exactly what I have heard before.  If you were to fade away and
nobody saw you what kind of evidence would they be able to get to catch you
(this is assuming that you either collected your brass or had a revolver)?

>>What kind
>>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>>saw you and you were caught?
>
>       It's one of those "by State" things, pretty much.

Guess it's time to take a trip to the library and look at the Illinois statutes
again :-)  Just for the record folks I'm just asking this because I'm curious.
I'm just trying to find out from people who have read more on stuff like this.

>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54210
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle - I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a

[Warning: Flammage to follow...]

Ah, that British sense of humor.  Probably got a real gut-buster going
when the IRA blew that kid up a couple of weeks ago, huh?  Of course,
in Britain, your government has ordered you defenseless, so your way
of coping with violent criminals is to laugh at victims.

>pick-up truck in front of the car that my friend and I were in. It had a bumper
>sticker proclaiming "Gun Control is a firm grip on a .45." Now I'm sure that
>that wanker thought he was pretty cool.

I don't know about a .45.  My own preference is for 9mm.

>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)

Ah, Canada.  Where the criminals don't bother with checking to see
if the victims are home.  They just break on in.  America's a little
different, you see.  Criminals worry a bit more about getting shot,
so they more frequently check to see if anyone's home.

>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore places, just
>so he could experience the sight of people putting guns and ammo into shopping
>carts! I didn't believe it myself until I drove by one in Vegas last year!!!

I've heard Gun World in Phoenix, Arizona, is fantastic!  I'm hoping
to visit there myself soon.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. The BBC recently referred to the American 
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."

Ah, Britain again.  Isn't that the place where you're guilty until
proven innocent?  Tell me, Mr. "jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk" didn't Britain
come begging to us "gun nut morons" in the early 1940s for guns to
defend yourselves against Hitler?  Seems as though your supposedly 
enlightened government had disarmed you: "Aw chaps, you can jolly
give up your guns.  If that Hitler man starts to threaten, we can 
always hit up the Yanks for a few guns.  They've got a bloody
eccentric habit about those guns, you know.  Just hand in your
shotgun, that's it.  Thank you." 

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

Ain't it just amazing how those black markets work?  Damn if those
drugs from south america keep coming over our borders, too, even
though we've banned them.  Guess we might as well legalize them.  
Makes you want to send fifty bucks to the Libertarian Party just
thinking about it, doesn't it? 

>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples of
>why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!
>
Your close-minded ignorance is without parallel.  I guess that's what
happens when you're raised as a "subject" without rights.  Your
type gravitates to those who desire to hold power over you.

>Hell, I miss those NRA ads with Gerald McRainey now that I'm over here! Those
>were like Monty Python sketches!

Just chuckle as the cops beat you senseless to get a confession.
Just laugh yourself silly when you find that confession is valid
in court.  "Hey mate, this is justice, British style." 

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54211
From: keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca (Keith de Solla)
Subject: CDN gun laws

[MODERATOR:  Nice summary, Keith, thanks.]

I talked to the federal Dept. of Justice (DOJ, Ottawa) to try and
clarify a bunch of things regarding changes to Canadian gun laws.
I am posting here for informational purposes; questions to email,
followup to t.p.g.

1. It is still technically feasible (but almost impossible) to get
   a concealed carry permit in Canada.  This is contrary to what I
   was told by a police officer.
2. It is still legal to use lethal force (such as a firearm) to
   protect life, also contrary to what the officer told me.  Guns
   must be stored locked up and unloaded, however.
3. Regarding hi-capacity magazines, it is still not clear who will
   be exempt or how this will be managed.  This is up to each province.
   The general idea is that exempt persons will receive a letter/form
   authorizing them to possess the high capacity magazines.  
   Apparently, the authorization is to specify how many of these
   'prohibited weapons' you will be allowed to possess.  Dealers will
   be allowed to order high capacity mags for those allowed to possess
   them, but will not be allowed to stock them.
4. High capacity magazines converted to comply with the new limits will
   not be considered prohibited weapons.  Amendments to the regulations
   specify some possible methods to alter the magazines.  Some 
   manufacturers (Beretta) will be marketing reduced capacity magazines.
   (God knows how much they'll charge for these)

This covers most of what we discussed.  I have typed this from memory,
do not take it as gospel.  I am not a lawyer and I refuse to play one on TV.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng |  IPSC Ontario, OHA, NFA, SFC, OFAH   |
| keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca    |  Frontenac Rifle and Pistol Club     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54212
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: sign of the times...


Article in this morning's Houston Post...."negotiators send food to
rebellious inmates as humanitarian gesture"...speaking about the Ohio prison
riot where they have killed at least one of the hostage guards.

I know it's not the same "group" but the mindset appears to be common to
"those what rule" here lately....they won't give diddley to the BD's in Waco
but they treat criminals as deserving of "humanitarian gestures".

This is but another indicator that the criminal caste seems to enjoy more
priviliges in today's society than their victims or other law abiding
citizens. What is it that makes the criminal so precious to the "leaders of
the system"?

Could it be that the criminal is one of the "tools" the "authorities" are
using to "excuse" some of the rights negation they are trying to foist upon
the law abiding citizen in the name of crime control....don't solve the crime
problem because then the citizen couldn't be held hostage to "our help".

If the crime problem were solved in favor of the citizen/victim at the
expense of the criminal none of the crap such as RICO and gun banning could
be used as excuses to work the agenda of those who would control our every
move and thought.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.
                                                                                                       
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54213
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it. 

So why did the Australian Customs Service make a public statement to
a parliamentary committee last year that weapons smuggling was a problem
which it was not able to control?  Possibly criminals don't have your 
grasp of economics?

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54214
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

Oh Christ, here we go again. I'm actually going to assume that
this was a serious posting, fool that I am.

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
>there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 
 
And I suppose I should just take your word for it. Did you ever
think that many people who use firearms to protect themselves
might not admit to it because of the ridiculous laws which exist
forbidding concealed carry?

>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.
 
I already own a cool jacket. I ride a bicycle to work and park
it behind my desk. And if my woman decides to go with someone
else, I'd be disappointed but killing her new suitor will probably
not endear her to me any more than before. Frankly, I've never
met a woman worth killing for anyway. (Now, an AR-15 with a chrome
barrel, THAT's worth killing for ...!-))

>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
>No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
>than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 
 
Does this pinhead know something the rest of us don't?
I'm not too worried about federal martials coming to get my guns.
The government can't seem to keep violent criminals in jail since
they don't have enough prison space, and the legal system is over-
burdened anyway. Where are they going to put all the millions of
gun-owners who won't fork over their weapons? Maybe you'd like to
volunteer the services of your humble abode, since you obviously
feel sooooo strongly about this.

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
 
Your argument has been rendered useless. Accept this. Find another
newsgroup.

------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher   NRA                |  My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu   |  No one else's.
------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54215
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio House Bill 278 (Otto Beatty's military weapons ban)

[Note, Ohio legislation unlike Federal legislation, shows the entire
law as it would be changed by the legislation.  These parts are in
ALL CAPITALS, the rest (i.e., current law is in regular type)].

AS INTRODUCED
 
120TH GENERAL ASEMBLY 
 
REGULAR SESSION                       H. B. NO. 278
 
1993-1994
 
REPRESENATIVE BEATTY
 
A BILL

To amend sections2923.11, 2923.17,and 2923.20 and
to enact section 2923.181 of the Revised Code
to expand the defintion of dangerous ordnance to
include military weapons that do not use bolt 
action, to increase the penalty for a violation
of the prohibition against possession of
dangerous ordnance, to prohibit any person from
acquiring a military weapon on or after the act's
effective date, to require the licensure of 
military weapons acquired for aproper purpose
prior to the act's effective dte, to prohibit a
person from importing, manufacturing, or selling
a military weapon, and to declare an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That sections 2923.11, 2923.17 and 2923.20 be

amended and section 2923.181 of the Revised Code be enacted to 

read as follows:

     Sec.  2923.11.  As used in section 2923.11 to 2923.24 of
the Revised Code:
     (A) "deadly weapon" means any instrument, device, or thing
capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted
for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.
     (B)(1)  "firearm" means any deadly weapon capable of
expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of
an explosive or combustible propellant.  "firarms" includes an
unloaded firearm, and any firearm which is inoperable but which
can readily be rendered operable.
     (2) When determining whether a firearm is capable of
expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of
an explosive or combustible propellant, the trier of fact may
rely upon circumstancial evidence, including, but not limited to,
the representations and actions of the individual exercising
control over the firearm.
     (C) "Handgun" means any firearm designed to be fired while 
held in one hand.
     (D) "Semi-automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or
specially adapted to fire a single cartridge and automatically
chamber a suceeding cartridge ready to fire, with a single
function of the trigger.
     (E) "Automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or
specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a 
single function of the trigger.  "Automatic firearm" also means
any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire
more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a
firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle
cartridges.
     (F) "Sawed-off firearm" means a shotgun with a barrel less
than eighteen inches long, or a rifle with a barrel less than
sixteen inches long, or a shotgun or rifle less than twenty-six
inches long overall.
     (G)  "Zip-gun" means any of the following:
     (1)  Any firearm of crude and extemporized manufacture;
     (2)  Any device, including without limitation a starter's
pistol, not designed as a firearm, but which is specially adapted
for use as a firearm;
     (3)  Any industrial tool, signalling device, or safety
device, not designed as a firearm, but which as designed is
capable of use as such A FIREARM, when possessed, carried, or
used as a firearm.
     (H)  "Explosive device" means any device designed or
specially adapted to cause physical harm to persons or property
by means of an explosion, and consisting of an explosive
substance or agency and a means to detonate it.  "Explosive
device" includes without limitation any bomb, any explosive
demolition device, any blasting cap or detonator containing an
explosive charge, and any pressure vessel which has been
knowingly tampered with or arranged so as to explode.
     (I)  "Incendiary device" means any firebomb, and any device
designed or specially adapted to cause physical harm to persons
or property by means of fire, and consisting of an incendiary
substance or agency and a means to ignite it.
     (J)  "Ballistic knife" means a knife with a detachable
blade that is propelled by a spring-operated mechanism.
     (K)  "Dangerous ordinance" means any of the following,
except as provided in division (L) of this section:
     (1)  Any automatic or sawed-off firearms. zip-gun, or
ballistic knife;
     (2)  Any explosive device or incendiary device;
     (3)  Nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose, nitrostarch, PETN,
cyclonite, TNT, picric acid, and other high explosives; amatol, 
tritonal, tetrytol, pentolite, pecretol, cyclotol, and other high
explosive compositions; plastic explosives; dynamite, blasting
gelatin, gelatin dynamite, sensitized ammonium nitrate, liquid-
oxygen blasting explosives, blasting powder, and other blasting
agents; and any other explosive substance having sufficient
brisance or power to be particularly suitable for use as a
military explosive, or for use in mining, quarrying, excavating,
or demolitions;
     (4)  Any firearm, rocket launcher, mortar, artillery piece
grenade, mine, bomb, torpedo, or similar weapon, designed and
manufactured for military purposes, and the ammunition for that
weapon;
     (5)  Any firearm muffler or silencer;
     (6)  ANY MILITARY WEAPON;
     (7)  ANY DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, MAGAZINE, DRUM, BELT, FEED 
STRIP, OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT READILY
CAN BE RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS 
OF AMMUNITION;   
     (8)  Any combination of parts that is intended by the owner
for use in converting any firearm or other device into a 
dangerous ordinance.
     (L)  "Dangerous ordnance" does not include any of the
following:
     (1)   Any firearm, including a military weapon and the
ammunition for that weapon, and regardless of its actual 
age, which employs a percussion cap or other obsolete ignition 
system or which is designed and safe for use only with black
powder, and
     (2)  Any pistol, rifle, or shotgun, designed or suitable
for sporting purposes, UNLESS THE FIREARM IS EITHER OF THE
FOLLOWING;
     (a)  A military weapon as issued or as modified, and the
ammunition for that weapon;
     (b)  AN automatic or sawed-off firearm.
     (3)  Any cannon or other artilery piece which,
regardless of its actual age, is of a type in accepted use prior 
to 1887, has no mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or other system
for absorbing recoil and returning the tube into battery without
displacing the carriage, and is designed and safe for use only
with black powder;
     (4)  Black powder, priming quills, and percussion caps
possessed and lawfully used to fire a cannon of a type defined in
division (L) (3) of this section during displays, celebrations,
organized matches or shoots, and target practice, and smokeless
and black powder, primers, and percussion caps possed and
lawfully used as a propellant or ignition device in small-arms or
small-arms ammunition;
     (5)  Dangerous ordinance which is inoperable or inert and
cannot readily be rendered operable or activated, and which is
kept as a trophy, souvenir, curio, or museum piece.
     (6)  Any device which is expressly excepted from the
definition of a destructive device pursuant to the "Gun Control
Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4), as amended, and
regulations issued under that act.
     (M)  "MILITARY WEAPON' MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING;
     (1)  ANY FIREARM THAT ORIGINALLY WAS MANUFACTURED FOR 
MILITARY USE, OR A COPY OF ANY SUCH FIREARM, IF THE FIREARM IS
NOT A BOLT ACTION FIREARM;
     (2)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A RIFLE OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY OF
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A RIFLE;
     (a)  ARMALITE AR-180;
     (b)  AUTO-ORDNANCE THOMPSON MODELS 1927A1 AND M-1;
     (c)  AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV;
     (d)  POLY TECH AK-47S;
     (e)  CHINA SPORTS AK-47 BULLPUP;
     (f)  MITCHELL AK-47 AND M-76
     (g)  BARRETT LIGHT-FIFTY MODEL 82A1;
     (h)  BARETTA AR-70;
     (i)  BUSHMASTER AUTO RIFLE;
     (j)  CALICO M900 AND M-100
     (k)  COLT AR-15
     (l)  COMMANDO ARMS CARBINE, MARK 111, MARK 45, AND MARK 9;
     (m)  UNIVERSAL 5000 CARBINE, ENFORCER;
     (n)  AMERICAN ARMS ARM-1 AND AKY 39;
     (o)  DAEWOO MAX-1 AND MAX-2;
     (p)  FABRIQUE NATIONALE FN/FAL, FN/LAR. AND FN/FNC;
     (q)  FAMAS MAS 223;
     (r)  FEATHER AT-9;
     (s)  FEDERAL KC-900 AND XC-450
     (t)  GALIL AR AND ARM;
     (u)  GONCZ HIGH-TECH CARBINE;
     (v)  HECKLER AND KOCH HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, AND PSG-1;
     (w)  MANDALL TAC-1 CARBINE
     (x)  RUGER MINI 14/SF FOLDING STOCK MODEL;
     (y)  SIG 57 AMT AND 500 SERIES;
     (z)  SPRINGFIELD ARMORY SAR-48, G-3, BM-59 ALPINE, AND M1A
 
CARBINE;
     (aa)  STERLING MK-6 AND MARK 7;
     (bb)  STEYR AUG;
     (cc)  UZI CARBINE AND MINI-CARBINE;
     (dd)  VALMET M-62S, M-76, M-78, AND M82 BULLPUP CARBINE;
     (ee)  WEAVER ARMS NIGHTHAWK;
     (ff)  MILITARY M14 AND MILITARY M1 CARBINE .30;
     (gg)  SPRINGFIELD ARMORY M1A ASSAULT;
     (hh)  THOMPSON 27A-5 WITH DRUM MAGAZINE;
     (ii)  PLAINFIELD COMMANDO UNIVERSE 5000 CARBINE;
     (jj)  COBRAY M-11 WITH OR WITHOUT SILENCER;
     (kk)  SPECTRE AUTO CARBINE;
     (ll)  SWD    COBRAY;
     (mm)  ARMI JAGER AP-74 AND AP-74 COMMANDO;
     (nn)  ARMSCORP OF AMERICA ISRAELI FN-FAL;
     (oo)  CLAYCO SKS CARBINE;  
     (pp)  DRAGUNOV SNIPER;
     (qq)  EMF AP-74;
     (rr)  IVER JOHNSON PM30 P PARATROOPER;
     (ss)  NORINCO SKS;
     (tt)  PARTISAN AVENGER;
     (uu)  SIGARMS SG 550 SP AND SG 551 SP;
     (vv)  SQUIRES BINGHAM M 16;
     (ww)  WILKINSON "TERRY" CARBINE.

     (3)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A PISTOL OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY
OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A PISTOL:

     (a)  BUSHMASTER AUTO PISTOL;
     (b)  CALICO 100-P AUTO PISTOL;
     (c)  EBCIN NJ-IV, MP-9, AND MP-45;
     (d)  FEATHER MINI-AT;
     (e)  GONCZ HIGH TECH PISTOL'
     (f)  HOLMES MP-83 AND MP-22;
     (g)  INTRATEC TEC-9 AND SCORPION .22;
     (h)  IVER JOHNSON ENFORCER;
     (i)  INGRAM MAC-10 AND MAC-11;
     (j)  MITCHELL ARMS SPECTRE AUTO;
     (k)  SCARAB SKORPION;
     (l)  STERLING MK-7;
     (m)  UZI PISTOL;
     (n)  UNIVERSAL ENFORCER;
     (o)  WILKINSON "LINDA" AUTO PISTOL.
 
     (4)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A SHOTGUN OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY
OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A SHOTGUN:
 
     (a)  FRANCHI SPAS-12 AND LAW-12;
     (b)  STRIKER 12 AND STREET SWEEPER;
     (c)  BENELLI M1 SUPER 90;
     (d)  MOSSBERG 500 BULLPUP;
     (e)  USAS-12 AUTO SHOTGUN.
 
     Sec. 2923.17.  (A)(1) No person shall knowingly acquire,
have, OR carry any dangerous ordnance.
 
     (2)  NO PERSON SHALL KNOWINGLY USE ANY DANGEROUS ORDNANCE.
     (B)  This section does not apply to ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
     (1)  Officers, agents, or employees of this or any other
state or the United States, members of the armed forces of the
United States or the organized militia of this or any other
state, and law enforcement officers, to the extent that any such
person is authorized to acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous
ordnance and is acting within the scope of his duties;
     (2)  Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and users of
explosives, having a license or user permit issued and in effect
pursuant to the "Organized Crime Control Act of 1970," 84 Stat.
952, 18 U.S.C. 843, and any amendments or additions TO or
reenactments OF THAT ACT, with respect to explosives and
explosive devices lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used
under the laws of this state and applicable federal law;
     (3)  Importers, manufactuers, and dealers having a license
to deal in destructive devices or their ammunition, issued and in
effect pursuant to the "Gun Control Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213.
18 U.S.C. 923 and any amendments or additions TO or
reenactments OF THAT ACT, with respect to dangerous
ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used under the
laws of this state and applicable federal law;
     (4)  Persons to whom surplus ordnance has been sold,
loaned, or given by the secretary of the army pursuant to 70A
Stat. 62 and 263, 10 U.S.C. 4684, 4685, 4686, and any
amendments or additions TO or reenactments OF THAT ACT, with
respect to dangerous ordnance when lawfully possessed and used
for the purpose specified in THAT section;
     (5)  Owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the
national firearms registration and transfer record pursuant to
the act of October 22, 1968, 82 Stat.1229, 26 U.S.C. 5841, and
any amendments or additions TO or reenactments OF, and
regulations issued UNDER THE ACT.
     (6)  Carriers, warehousemen, and others engaged in the
business of transporting or storing goods for hire, with respect
to dangerous ordnance lawfully transported or stored in the usual
course of their business and in compliance with the laws of this
state and applicable federal law;
     (7)  The holders of a license or temporary permit issued
and in effect pursuant to section 2923.18 of the Revised Code, 
with respect to dangerous ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed,
carried, or used for the purposes and in the manner specified in
THE license or permit.
     (C)  DIVISION (A)(1) OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE
ACQUISITION, HAVING, OR CARRYING OF DANGEROUS ORDNANCE THAT IS A
MILITARY WEAPON IF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:
     (1)  THE PERSON WHO ACQUIRES, HAS, OR CARRIES THE DANGEROUS
ORDNANCE IN QUESTION ACQUIRED IT BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS AMENDMENT AS A COLLECTOR'S ITEM OR FOR A LEGITIMATE
RESEARCH, SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR OTHER PROPER
PURPOSE;
     (2)  NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE SEVENTH DAY
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE PERSON WHO
ACQUIRED THE DANGEROUS ORDNANCE IN QUESTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DIVISION (C)(1) OF THIS SECTION SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 2923.181 OF THE REVISED CODE FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND
CARRY IT AND THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN DENIED OR A VALID
LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE PERSON.
     (D)  DIVISIONS (A)(1) AND (2) OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY 
TO THE ACQUISITION, HAVING, CARRYING, OR USING OF ANY DANGEROUS
ORDNANCE DESCRIBED IN DIVISION (k)(7) OF SECTION 2923.11 OF THE
REVISED CODE THAT WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
     (E)  Whoever violates this section is quilty of unlawful
possession of dangerous ordnance, a AN AGGRAVATED felony of the
FIRST degree.
     Sec. 2923.181.  (A)  ANY PERSON WHO ACQUIRED A MILITARY 
WEAPON BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION SHALL FILE A
WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY THE MILITARY
WEAPON WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR SAFETY DIRECTOR OR
POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHERE THE APPLICANT
RESIDES OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE APPLICATION
SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE SEVENTH
DAY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A FILING FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS.  THE PERSON SHALL
FILE A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND PAY A SEPARATE FILING FEE FOR
EACH MILITARY WEAPON THAT HE HAS OR INTENDS TO CARRY.  THE
APPLICATION SHALL CONTAIN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
     (1)  THE NAME, AGE, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION, AND BUSINESS
ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT, IF THE APPLICANT IS A NATURAL PERSON,
OR THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE
APPLICANT, IF THE APPLICANT IS A CORPORATION;
     (2)   A DESCRIPTION OF THE MILITARY WEAPON FOR WHICH A
LICENSE IS REQUESTED, INCLUDING THE SERIAL NUMBER AND ALL
IDENTIFICATION MARKS;
     (3)  A STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE MILITARY
WEAPON WAS ACQUIRED AND FOR WHICH IT IS TO BE POSSESSED, CARRIED,
OR USED;
     (4)  ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE ISSUING AUTHORITY MAY
REQUIRE IN GIVING EFFECT TO THIS SECTION;
     (5)  THE OATH OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE
APPLICATION IS TRUE.
     (B)(1)  NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE
FOURTEENTH DAY AFTER AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND
CARRY A MILITARY WEAPON HAS BEEN FILED UNDER DIVISION (A) OF THIS
SECTION, THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL EITHER APPROVE THE
APPLICATION AND ISSUE A LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT OR DENY THE
APPLICATION AND SEND A LETTER OF DENIAL BY ORDINARY MAIL TO THE
APPLICANT.  AFTER CONDUCTING ANY NECESSARY INVESTIGATION, THE
ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT WHOM IT
DETERMINES SATISFIES THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:
     (a)  THE APPLICANT IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, IF
THE APPLICANT IS A NATURAL PERSON;
     (b)  IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL POSSESS AND CARRY
THE MILITARY WEAPON AS A COLLECTOR'S ITEM OR FOR A LEGITIMATE,
SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR OTHER PROPER PURPOSE;
     (c)  IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENT
COMPETENCE TO HAVE AND CARRY THE MILITARY WEAPON AND THAT PROPER
PRECAUTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE MILITARY
WEAPON AND THE SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY;
     (d)  THE APPLICANT OTHERSWISE IS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM
HAVING OR CARRYING DANGEROUS ORDNANCE.
     (2)  A LICENSE ISSUED PURSUANT TO DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS
SECTION SHALL BE VALID FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF ITS
ISSUANCE.  THE LICENSE SHALL BE RENEWED PURSUANT TO DIVISION   
(C) OF THIS SECTION.
     (C)(1)  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN DIVISION (C)(3) OF THIS
SECTION, ANY PERSON WHO IS ISSUED A LICENSE UNDER DIVISION (B)(1)
OF THIS SECTION SHALL RENEW THE LICENSE BY FILING AN APPLICATION
FOR RENEWAL BY REGULAR MAIL WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR THE
SAFETY DIRECTOR OR POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHO
WAS THE ISSUING AUTHORITY OF THE LICENSE.  AN APPLICATION FOR
RENEWAL SHALL BE FILED ANNUALLY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
DATE ON WHICH THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED OR LAST RENEWED.
     (2)  EACH SHERIFF AND EACH SAFETY DIRECTOR AND PEACE OFFICER
OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE APPLICATIONS FOR
THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE ISSUED UNDER DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS
SECTION.  IN THE APPLICATION THE APPLICANT, UNDER OATH, SHALL
UPDATE THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR
A LICENSE OR THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE.
     THE APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE SHALL BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF FIVE DOLLARS.  THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE A
SEPERATE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL AND PAY A SEPERATE RENEWAL FEE
FOR EACH MILITARY WEAPON THAT HE INTENDS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE AND
CARRY.
     (3)  A PERSON WHO HAS CHANGED HIS RESIDENCE OR PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS TO A LOCATION OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF
THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OR RENEWAL OF A
LICENSE UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL RENEW HIS LICENSE BY FILING AN
APPLICATION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY DIVISION (A) OF THIS
SECTION WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR THE SAFETY DIRECTOR OR
POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHERE HE THEN RESIDES
OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  WHEN MAKING AN
APPLICATION TO RENEW A LICENSE AFTER A CHANGE IN RESIDENCE OR
PLACE OF BUSINESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE CHANGE
OF ADDRESS BY REGULAR MAIL TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUING AUTHORITY FOR
THE LICENSE AND THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL ON NOTIFICATION FORMS
PRESCRIBED BY THE SHERIFF, SAFETY DIRECTOR, OR POLICE CHIEF FROM
WHOM HE SEEKS RENEWAL.
     (D)  A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY A MILITARY WEAPON SHALL
IDENTIFY THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ISSUED, IDENTIFY THE MILITARY
WEAPON FOR WHICH IT IS ISSUED, STATE THE PURPOSE IDENTIFIED IN
DIVISION (B)(1)(b) OF THIS SECTION FOR WHICH THE MILITARY WEAPON
WILL BE POSSESSED AND CARRIED, STATE ITS EXPIRATION DATE, AND
LIST ALL RESTRICTIONS ON THE HAVING OR CARRYING OF THE MILITARY
WEAPON AS PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE AND APPLICABLE
FEDERAL LAW.
     (E)  ANY PERSON WHO IS ISSUED A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY A 
MILITARY WEAPON UNDER THIS SECTION AND WHO CHANGES HIS ADDRESS
SHALL NOTIFY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY OF THE CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS
NO LATER THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE CHANGE HAS OCCURRED.
     (F)  THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL FORWARD TO THE STATE FIRE
MARSHALL A COPY OF EACH LICENSE ISSUED OR RENEWED UNDER THIS
SECTION.  THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL SHALL KEEP A PERMANENT FILE OF
ALL LICENSES ISSUED OR RENEWED UNDER THIS SECTION.
     (G)  THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL CAUSE EACH APPLICATION FEE
OF FIFTY DOLLARS, FILED UNDER DIVISION (A) OF THIS SECTION, TO BE
DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY OR MUNCIPAL
CORPORATION SERVED BY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY.  THE ISSUING
AUTHORITY SHALL CAUSE TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS OF EACH RENEWAL
FEE, FILED UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION, TO BE DEPOSITED IN
THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SERVED BY
THE ISSUING AUTHORITY AND SHALL SEND TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS
OF EACH RENEWAL FEE TO THE TREASURER OF STATE FOR DEPOSIT IN THE
STATE TREASURY TO THE CREDIT OF THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND.
     (H)  WHOEVER VIOLATES DIVISION (A) OF THIS SECTION IS
GUILTY OF FAILING TO APPLY FOR THE LICENSURE OF A MILITARY
WEAPON, A FELONY OF THE FOURTH DEGREE.  WHOEVER VIOLATES DIVISION
(C) OF THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF FAILING TO APPLY FOR RENEWAL OF
A LICENSE FOR A MILITARY WEAPON, A MISDEMEANOR OF THE FIRST
DEGREE.
     (I)  A MILITARY WEAPON THAT IS NOT LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY
THIS SECTION IS CONTRABAND, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2901.01 OF THE
REVISED CODE AND IS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE UNDER SECTION 2933.43
OF THE  REVISED CODE.
     SEC. 2933.20.  (A)  No person shall DO ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
     (1)  IMPORT, MANUFACTURE, POSSESS FOR SALE, SELL, OR
FURNISH TO ANY PERSON ANY MILITARY WEAPON;
     (2)  Recklessly sell, lend, give, or furnish any firearm to
any person prohibited by section 2923.13 or 2923.15 of the
Revised Code from acquiring or using any firearm, or recklessly
sell, lend, give, or furnish any dangerous ordnance to any person
prohibited by section 2923.13, 2923.15, or 2923.17 of the Revised
Code from acquiring or using any dangerous ordnance;
     (3)  Possess any firearm or dangerous ordnance with
purpose to dispose of it in violation of division (A) of this
section;
     (4)  Manufacture, possess for sale, sell, or furnish to
any person other than a law enforcement agency for authorized use
in police work, any brass knuckles, cestus, billy, blackjack,
sandbag, switchblade knife, springblade knife, gravity knife, or
similar weapon;
     (5)  When transferring any dangerous ordnance to
another, negligently fail to require the transferes to exhibit
ANY identification, license, or permit showing him to be
authorized to acquire dangerous ordnance pursuant to section
2923.17 of the Revised Code, or negligently fail to take a
complete record of the transaction and forthwith forward a copy
of THE record to the sheriff of the county or safety
director or police chief of the municipality where the
transaction takes place;
     (6)  Knowingly fail to report to law enforcement
authorities forthwith the loss or theft of any firearm or
dangerous ordnance in such person's possession or under his
control.
     (b)  Whoever violates this section is quilty of unlawful
transactions in weapons.  Violation of division (A)(1) OF THIS
SECTION IS AN AGGRAVATED FELONY OF THE FIRST DEGREE.  VIOLATION
OF DIVISION (A)(2) OR (3) Oof this section is a felony of the
third degree.  Violation of division (A) (4) OR (5) of this
section is a misdemeanor of the second degree.  Violation of
division (6) of this section is a midemeanor of the fourth
degree.
     Section 2.  That existing section 2923.11, 2923.17 and
2923.20 of the Revised Code are hereby repealed.
     Section 3.  This act is hereby declared to be an emergency
measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health, and safety.  The reason for this necessity is that
with immediate action, this act will prohibit the continued
purchase, possession, and use of military weapons and as a result
will ameliorate a substantial threat of death and injury to the
public caused by the misuse of improper use of these weapons.
Therefore, this act shall go into immediate effect.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54216
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.
         ^^^^^^^
>There is no question about it. 
 
You can't spell. There is no question about it.

>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 
 
We must be reading different public opinion polls. I agree that the
misguided public would like to see assault weapons banned (mainly because
they are being lied to by the media about the frequency of their use
in violent crime ... ~1%), but if public opinion were so dead-set
against the RKBA you can bet that idiots like Metzenbaum and Schumer
would be seeing their foolish bills getting passed through Congress
a LOT easier than they are. And as governments go broke and can no
longer protect their citizens you can bet that the American people
will start to really appreciate the usefulness of firearms. Contrary 
to what you might think, time is probably on OUR side, not YOURS.

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.
 
Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath. My condolences on the discovery
of uncomfortable resilience in your mammary glands, but this has nothing
to do with the issue at hand.

... ridiculous tripe deleted ...
 
>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
 
Yeah, the liberal press doesn't like us much, but you can't really
expect coherent thought from them anyway. Their opinions are based
more on a desire to appear politically correct than on facts (which
are generously provided by the FBI, if they'd bother to put on their
Birkenstocks and go to the library to read them). Most of my friends
are anti-gun, and without exception NONE of them bases his/her opinions
on facts. They would rather believe (despite all evidence to the
contrary) that disarming law-abiding citizens would make the world
more civilized, when all it really does is make us all sheep. They 
would rather wallow in their pitiful liberal white guilt about how
society has driven the criminal to rob, rape, and murder. They 
support spending millions of public dollars protecting the rights of scum
who have already demonstrated that they have no regard for society
or its laws. They ignore the fact that areas with the strictest gun
control (NYC,DC) have the worst crime and areas with little gun
control (VT,NH,ID) have very little crime in comparison. But they
have to ignore this because otherwise they would need to confront
the fact that law-abiding citizens who own guns are not the ones that
are causing most of the trouble in society. Oh no, we certainly can't
accept that! But I guess I have faith that when crime starts making
significant inroads into their neighborhoods and starts directly
hurting them and their families, they will probably whistle a different
tune. They just better hope it isn't too late then.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
 
Hmmm. I wasn't expecting company tonight. I might be able to whip
up a quick cheese and cracker plate, but they should probably bring
their own drinks. Do I have time to vacuum the rug?

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

I'm glad you ended the posting here. Your medication seems to have
worn off ...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher    NRA               | My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu   | No one else's.
-----------------------------------------------------------



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54217
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 18-Apr-93 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD -
GOOD ! by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 
> Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
> 'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
> there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

excerpted from a letter I wrote a while ago:

     Although less apparent to those who have not researched
the facts, personal protection is as legitimate a reason  as
sport for the private citizen to own a gun.  The most recent
research  is  that  of Dr. Gary Kleck of the  Florida  State
University  School of Criminology.1  He found that  handguns
are  more  often  used by victims to defeat  crime  than  by
criminals to commit it (645,000 vs. 580,000 respectively  in
this  study).  These figures are even more encouraging  when
you  consider the number of crimes that never occur  because
of  the  presence  of a gun in the hands  of  a  law-abiding
private  citizen.  In a National Institute of Justice  study
of  ten state prisons across the country they found that 39%
of  the  felons  surveyed had aborted  at  least  one  crime
because  they believed that the intended victim was  armed.,
and  57% agreed that "most criminals are more worried  about
meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the
police."2
     One  of the most heinous of crimes is that against  the
women  of  this country.  It has been my recent  observation
that  more  women  are purchasing handguns  for  defense  in
response  to  the  present danger of these  assaults.   This
should be taken as encouraging news if the events of Orlando
Florida  are any indicator.  In the late 1960's  the  female
populace was plagued with a series of brutal assaults;  just
the  publicity of the record number of women buying guns and
obtaining training resulted in an 88% decrease in  rape  for
that  area,  the  only city of its size in  the  country  to
experience a decrease of crime for that year.  Additionally,
a 1979 US Justice Department study of 32,000 attempted rapes
showed  that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion
rate  is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with  a  gun,
the completion rate drops to 3%.
 
1 G Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America Aldine
de Gruyter, NY, 1991
2 JD Wright & PH Rossi Armed and Considered Dangerous:  A
Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, NY,
1986
-------

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54218
From: tnyurkiw@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (TN)
Subject: definition of 2nd


	The debate over the Second Amendment rages on.
Arguments continue over what a "well-regulated militia"
is and what TRKBA means in practical terms.  However, the
ONLY authority in this area, is a binding court decision
on the matter.  Even a decision in this area is subject to
an overturning by a higher court.  Is there anyone who
has the facts of a legal precedent, preferably a Supreme
Court decision on the specific meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54220
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

In article <93106.21394634AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
|In article <2001.150.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
|says:
|>
|> Bill Vojak:
|>
|> BV>I read in the paper yestarday that Ted Turner wants to "trim" down
|> BV>his media holdings and is putting CNN up for sale.  The #1 potential
|> BV>bidder?  TIME/Warner of course.  Sigh . . . . . Just what we need. :-(
|>
|> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
|> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
|> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two...
|>
|I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't
|think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening
|until they break down HIS door.
|
|BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a
|minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made
|viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :)
|There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and
|not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would
|STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their
|ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.

I will join the ranks here.  If someone has the ability to actually put this
thing together and get enough support, I'll also contribute $1000 to the 
effort.  And jeeze, people, I'm a *student*, with *no job* yet, and I will
put up my own hard-earned savings if it means we have a shot at getting
the truth told on the airwaves.  Count me in.

Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54221
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes:
|There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
|regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD
|to take a drivers safety class.  I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  My car
|MUST be registered.  I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
|insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
|accident with it).  Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
|of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
|gun owners.

As I'm sure others will have pointed out to you by now, none of the above
measures are required for you *on your own property*.  You do not have to
have a license, your car does not have to be registered or inspected, and
you do not have to have insurance or safety training classes, when you own
and operate that vehicle on your own premises.  If you are going to make use
of this dubious analogy, at least make it accurate.  And by the way, in Texas
you can drive a car in public (with the proper credentials), but an ordinary
civilian can't carry a gun legally in public to save his/her life.

So I won't even consider registration, *manadatory* safety classes, or
*manadatory* liability insurance unless I get a federal law repealing
all local, state, and federal gun control laws which abridge the Second
Amendment, and a non-discretionary federal weapons carry permit, good
anywhere in the United States.  Come on, you wanted the analogy.


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54222
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:You are loosing.

"Loosing"?  Well, I'll avoid the spelling flames and see if this person
can make up for it.


:There is no question about it. 

Oh, there's LOTS of question about it.  People are becoming more aware each
day that their rights are being threatened, so much so that NRA membership 
is growing at the rate of nearly 2,000 per *day*.  We are slowly gaining
our rightful voice, despite the biases, prejudices, and veiled motives of
the liberal media and anti-gun politicians.  We will win.

:Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
:how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

What do you base this on?  Some highly-skewed poll conducted by NBC News?
The same group who faked GM pickup explosions just to make "news"?  Right.

:This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
:RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

It is true that we face even greater obstacles to our rights, betrayed by
those lying politicians who swear an oath to protect the Constitution "from
all enemies, both foreign and domestic."  But the People will take only so
many lies and deceits.

:You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
:cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
:can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 

Then the criminals who live by murder shall die by it.  Honest, law-abiding
citizens need have no fear on that count.  You, however, will evidently
die by (or at least in) ignorance.  And the number of firearms self-defenses
shall spell out our ultimate victory.

:The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
:you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

The flow of history was against the Founding Fathers, but they managed to 
successfully form the first real free republic on the face of this planet,
a republic that has become the model for all others to follow.  The press
is against us, for its own selfish motivations.  And the people will soon
realize the depths of deceit being spread by that media, and nullify its
ill-directed power.  The People are with us.

:Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
:them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
:Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
:immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

I shall never submit to an illegal, unConstitutional police state.  I will
take my own vow to uphold the Constitution, and I shall defend it and my
country against a tyrannical government gone mad, should it become
necessary.

:Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
:are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
:be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

I will not be your sacrificial sheep, and I shall not bow down to you or
anyone else who seeks to control my life.  Being an unarmed target is the
SUREST way of encouraging criminals, and believe me, I shall avoid it as
much as possible.  Then I shall be as safe as possible.  I will answer
with violence only when no other option exists, but I shall surely answer.

Mike Ruff



-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54223
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
:'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
:there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

You "think" wrong.  Ask the FBI.  They've got the proof.  Look it up.

:The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
:opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
:would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
:take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

You lie like a snake.  The "vast majority" of the 200 MILLION firearms
in this country are never used in anger.  Your feelings notwithstanding.

:Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
:In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
:No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
:than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 

We will overcome the kind of blind, pig-headed, utterly stupid idiocy that
you and others spout in a vain attempt to further your own agendas.  We
will make the truth be known, despite your best efforts to the contrary.

:The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

The Second Amendment won't be dead unless it is repealed.  That won't happen.

EVER.

Accept this.  Find another way to try and control other's lives, because we
see you for what you are, and we are not fooled.

Mike Ruff



-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54224
From: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith

papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>...
>Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
>die because of them.  

Do you have any statistical evidence to back you claim that requires another
limitation of the citizenry freedom?
-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54225
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In <1r0qk5INNc5m@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:

> In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> writes:
> > I balance my gut reaction to question authority together with the 
> > independent facts as I see them on video.  I usually adopt the 
> > scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
> > believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
> > scenarios.
> > 
> Then answer the question:  Why was NO ONE ELSE permitted to talk to Koresh, 

  Koresh had a lawyer, Deguin(?) who he spoke to in person several times during
the last few weeks. 

> It cannot be denied that if they had left them alone, there would have been 
>no fire yesterday.

  This strikes me as a tad ingenous.  "If X had done/note done Y, then Z would
never have happened."  I tend to place tha responsibility on the group/person
actually committing the act, not on those whon "forced them to do it".

  After all, to take an extreme example, if the British were not in Northern
Ireland, the IRA would not be forced to place bombs in shopping centers.

  That said, this whole sorry story was a totally unecessary, utterly fucked
up mess from the get go.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54226
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Letter to the President

Here's a copy of a letter I'm e-mailing to the Slickster at
his address of 75300.3115@compuserve.com:

____________________________________________________________________________

To: William J. Clinton
    President of the United States of America

Mr. President:

I am writing to express my utter outrage at the conduct of various
government agencies in regards to the tragedy in Waco.  I DEMAND
the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury,
who bears responsibility for the initial helicopter and grenade attack 
by the ATF against the Branch Davidians, and of Janet Reno, who authorized 
the final assault on the very day that we were commemorating the Warsaw
ghetto revolt.  And I would truly appreciate it if you would make
sure something like this never happens again on your watch.

Respectfully yours,

Kenneth D. Whitehead

___________________________________________________________________________


Get involved, gang.  It's your Republic.  Let's take it back.


**************************************************************************
*   I will be much more willing to believe the Government's side of the  *
*   Waco story AFTER we are allowed to hear from the survivors.  So far, *
*   all we've gotten has been censored by the very people who have the   *
*   most to cover up.  And I'd REALLY like to know how they got the      *
*   press, who complained so loudly about being kept off the front lines *
*   during the Gulf War, be such obedient lap dogs in Waco...  Kind of   *
*   makes me wonder if this so-called "freedom of the press" isn't       *
*   highly overrated.                                                    *
**************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)







Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54227
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

In article <1576@heimdall.sdrc.com> crrob@sony1.sdrc.com (Rob Davis) writes:
> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?

No, but I have several other breakdowns of accidental shootings.
I've never seen one that specifically provides the info that Davis insists
that he has, so I'd love to have a cite.

>If you fall, for example,
> and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.

Wrong.  There's one gun design where that can happen, and it is
supposed to be carried with the hammer over an unloaded chamber.
(Cocking the gun turns the cylinder so that a loaded cylinder is under
the hammer.  In other words, it can be usefully carried in a safe
manner.)  Other handgun designs don't have that property; if their
trigger isn't pulled, the hammer can't hit the firing pin.

> The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of
> deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.

The breakdowns that I do have include the above category.  From them I
can safely say that if Davis is right in ALL of his claims, a large
negative number of people are killed by animals, because we know that
the number of killings by wackos is reasonably large and that the
number of accidents due to gun failures (which is a superset of the
described circumstance) is near zero.

>I can find the figures if you don't believe me.

Please do.  Include a cite for those of us who like looking at
context.  Make sure that your source excludes other types of
accidents and suicides that are misreported.  ("Gun cleaning
accident" is police-speak for "the family needs the insurance
money.")

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54228
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control?


|in L.A., the first recorded survivor of a .357 shot to the heart.  That
|lady not only killed her attacker, but chased him down to do it!  All
|four of her shots, fired after SHE had been shot, struck the perp.  Atta
|girl!  The bullet entered her on a downward angle, went through the apex
|of her heart, down through the diaphragm, clipped her liver and
|destroyed her spleen.  It then exited her back leaving a tennis ball
|sized hole.  She died about six times on the operating table, but was
|out of the hospital in 15 days and was back on full duty in eight
|months!  She was off duty at the time and not wearing her vest.  She was
|on her way home so happened to have her gun.  No, she doesn't think
|civilians should have the same rights.  Sigh.

Well, if police think they are so special that only _THEY_ are worthy
of self-defense, perhaps we start putting the arm on police; maybe
we should start demanding that police are only police when ON-DUTY,
that after that they are just like the ordinary disarmed helpless
chumps they consider "civilians."

Let's prohibit arms carrying by police when off-duty. Or, if they make
the assertion that "Well, I need to maintain my gun" let's make it
regulation that they can carry an UNLOADED firearm home, that it's
only fair that they be just as helpless as poor schmuck coming home
from his computer operator job...

NRA Director/ex-San Jose cop Leroy Pyle states in the latest SWAT
magazine that anti-cops better watch out for this schism between
RKBA folks and the police. He asks the rhetorical question of 'What
if what's left of the gun lobby starts demanding the disarmament
of the police?"

Well, I guess anti-gun cops who think only they should be armed,
along with the wealthy and politically connected, should be made
to realize that screwing can cut in ways they have yet to imagine.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54229
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.221646.2332@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

> >        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> > I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> > that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.

> 	OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
> 	claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
> 	threaten anyone with them.

500,000 to 1,000,000 self-defense incidents a YEAR doesn't count with you?

>       What do they do right ... or are
> 	they just lucky ? 

Maybe they're just UNLUCKY.  If a rapist pulls a woman into an alley
in Boston, chances are almost certain that she won't be counted 
as one of those self-defenders because our local constabulary didn't
consider it important that she be allowed to arm herself.  Even though
the shotgun she owns at home makes her show up in the "gun owner" column.

>       In either case, this means the 'average
> 	threat level' in this country is rather low. 

Ironic words for somebody who lives in Florida.  The "average threat
level" in Florida has been REDUCED by a liberal CCW policy.  It's well
known that your local thugs like to target tourists precisely because 
they are less likely to be carrying than your natives.  Come on up to
Boston, or NYC, or Washington DC, and see how much diddlysquat the 
"average threat level in the country" means to a resident there.

> 	I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
> 	alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
> 	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
> 	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
> 	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
> 	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
> 	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
> 	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
> 	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
> 	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
> 	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 

Sometimes this works.  Sometimes it just lands your good neighbors 
on the dance card for the next wave of drive-bys.  Someone here once
told a story about LA gangs moving into Phoenix.  I've misplaced the
original text, but the story started with one resident calling the 
cops on a gang member.  Sure enough, a few nights later, there was a 
drive-by performed at the resident's house.  Except that this time,
unlike in LA, the entire street came out and returned fire, putting
an end to the car's occupants.  The gang packed up and left.

Of course, in LA, or in a place like Florida after the hurricane,
your first problem is to FIND an officer to step up to and tell
anything.

> 	In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
> 	least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
> 	Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
> 	conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
> 	block party. 

Look, nobody is arguing this.  I have a fire extinguisher at home.  
That doesn't mean I can be careless about tossing my burnt matches 
on the carpet.  I live carefully, monitor the woodstove, get my flue
cleaned twice a year, and test my smoke alarms annually.  But if --
DESPITE all this -- a fire does start, it's too late for any of
these things EXCEPT the extinguisher.

> >        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> > makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> > basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> > solely of force of arms.
> 
> 	Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
> 	all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
> 	set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
> 	illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
> 	twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
> 	the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
> 	cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
> 	a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
> 	gives a rats ass ? 

You seem to be agreeing with your opponent.  You can't trust your
government to protect you from abusers and violators -- white-collar,
blue-collar, epauletted, or tank-shirted.  Ultimately, no one has the
power to enforce your "rights" but you.  Unless you've given up that 
power.

> 	No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
> 	aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.

Too many people fit that category, that is true.  Some of us like to
believe that they are uninterested in the facts behind the case for gun 
ownership because they've been conditioned to believe that there AREN'T 
any.  You seem content to underestimate the electorate; I'm willing to
try to raise their consciousness.

> 	Argue away ... you can't win. 

I think we can.

HCI was founded in what, 1980?  In the mid-80's, they ran a "One 
Million Strong!" campaign for two years before reaching this goal.  
My understanding is that they "reached" it by the stratagem of including
wide classes of people other than dues-paying members.  (I can't speak
authoritatively on this -- maybe somebody else has details.)  Then they
started running a "Two Million Strong!" campaign for a while -- but they
let it slip into unannounced obscurity when it became clear that they
simply were never going to reach that level of membership.

In 1964, just after the commencement of the Dodd Hearings -- the starting
point of the modern gun-control movement, the NRA had a mere 625,000 members.  
By 1968, barely after the first murmurs of future registration, it had 
about a million.  Today, it has over three million members, making it the
third largest membership organization in the country (next to AARP and AAA).
And its membership is GROWING FASTER than at any previous time.  (Historical
figures from Kukla's "Gun Control," pp. 61 and 420.)

As you say, many of the people in the middle of this debate are bemused
by their T-bones and MTV.  That leaves hard-core gun-owners against 
hard-core gun banners.

I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members.
I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.

Yes, I think we can and will win this one.

> 	Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
> 	availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and 
> 	and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
> 	I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
> 	complaints. 

I think they would be used far less to hammer nails, as well, but,
like you, I can't give any citation showing that this utilization is
CURRENTLY significant at more than an anecdotal level.  If you can, 
I'm waiting.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54230
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal
>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information,
>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes
>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.)
>
>	Like I said, I'm not sure of the details.  But it seems to me that you
>could access medical information without giving out a name, or any other
>information.

Medical info without a name/body attached is completely useless for
treatment.

>The article I mentioned the the earlier post described a debit
>card type transaction in which neither the store nor the BANK, knew who was
>withdrawing the money.

Thus making it as secure as cash, for some purposes, but far less
secure for others.

>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information
>stored in the card.

Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting
kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have
known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.

Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to
argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument
that it disclose public info.

>things.  I think anything that you choose to keep unknown should be.

Thus making it useless for negative information.

>could have it so that only doctors can access medical information, police
>criminal records etc etc.

Yeah right.  How are you going to keep doctors from spilling the
beans?  (We already know that you can't keep cops from disclosing
info, but at least that info is typically supposed to be public
anyway.)

>	Like I said, it's best if you read the article for yourself.

The article discusses technology, not appropriate policy.  It also
fails to deal with "what happens if the folks with the secrets blab".

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54231
From: jaf@a2.cim.cdc.com (James Foster x2912)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
|> In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
|> [deleted]
|> []       And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
|> []armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
|> []
|> >What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
|> >proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
|> >cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
|> >to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
|> >time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
|> >day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
|> >see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
|> >revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
|> >of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
|> >disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
|> >gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
|> >taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
|> >and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
|> >are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
|> >state cops are.

Every city and suburban police officer I've seen around the Twin Cities in the
last two years has carried a semi-auto of some type (different brands though
I haven't seen any Glock's). 

With regard to this discussion:  We are getting dangerously far from the usual
rantings of t.p.g, and close to the realm of r.g, but I'd like to put my two
cents worth in.  While there's nothing wrong with a revolver (especially a 
large frame S&W in .357 magnum - my favorite) there are valid advantages to
semi-autos.  I suggest reading Massad Ayoob's (I know, some people can't stand
him and think he's full of bull, but I think that in general his material is
very valid and useful) book _The Semi Auto Pistol in Police Work_ (or something 
like that).  He defines a number of ways that semi-auto's are different, and that
"different is good".  The main advantage is not in increased firepower, but in 
more accurate followup shots when you go to single action mode.  There is also a
certain "propriatory nature" of each gun that takes some familiarity to 
learn.  This may have diminished with time as more criminals become familiar
with different models of semi-autos, but it was cited as stopping or at least
slowing down criminals who had grabbed a police officers gun.

|> 
|> Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
|> Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
|> faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
|> guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
|> in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to
|> 3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
|> like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
|> often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
|> 
|> A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
|> 
|> - A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
|>   the trigger again.
|> - A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
|>   but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.

Yes, but this is best done with a two hand hold.  With a single hand you either
pull the gun far off target to cock, or must fire double action.  The DA semi
auto has the same advantages plus is always SA after the first shot.


|> - A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
|>   to rotate to the next round.

I'm not sure if this is meant to be different from your first point.  In a DA
semi-auto you can pull the trigger again to try dropping the hammer on the same
round - an advantage you don't have in a revolver where the next trigger pull will
always go to the next round (discussing this point now).  This is fine with a dud
but what about a hangfire situation?  Granted it's very rare, but your round will
now go off confined in the cylinder with no place to go.  Slingshotting the slide
on a misfire takes very little time.


|> - A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
|>   hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
|>   easy motion, even one handed.

Actually with modern revolver designs incorporating hammer blocks this is not
necessary or usually recommended.  A revolver would have to fall hard enough and
at the right angle to actually break the hammer and driver the firing pin into the
round to set it off.

|> - Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
|>   on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.

The best speedloader users, especially those using the spring loaded speed
loaders are very fast.  A problem is that ejecting the spent cases is a two
handed job where dropping the expended magazine is one handed.  This means that
while you can be inserting a fresh magazine as soon as the old one clears the
gun, with a speed loader you have to go through more motions that will always 
take more time.  You also don't have the advantage of tactical reloads (replacing
a partial magazine to bring you back to full capacity - the partial magazine can
still be used if needed later).  

|> 
|> - A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
|>   first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
|>   lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
|>   about clearing it.

Yes, the time to recognize the problem is just as important as the time to clear
it.  Really though, in either a revolver or semi-auto the odds of an actual misfire
with factory ammo are awfully small.  You are more likely to get a jam in a semi-auto
but even these are exceptionally rare with modern quality guns (Sigs, Glocks, et.al.).


|> - Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
|>   and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the 
|>   chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
|>   this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
|>   of employment as a revolver.

|> - There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
|>   operation of many of them requires more training.

All common semi-auto's can be carried with a round in their chamber without any
safety problems.  While I put that out as a statement that I believe, I should
say that this applies to all of the ones I've looked at.  For the DA semi's it's
no different from the revolver situation:  The guns all have hammer or firing
pin blocks.  They also have a safety.  Because there's no real advantage
carrying one of these cocked and locked you have the same safety and speed
of employment as a revolver, plus the advantage of SA followup shots.  I'm
not familiar with SA semi-autos except for the 1911-A1.  I admit that I was
initially skeptical about carrying this cocked and locked, but after examining
the design, trying to defeat the safeties (gun unloaded of course), and 
shooting it a lot, I see no inherent safety problems with it, especially in
a thumbreak holster with the strap under the hammer.  This design also gets
you more speed for an accurate first shot than a revolver.

|> 
|> Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
|> switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
|> accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
|> require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
|> as the timer on a VCR.

Yeah, the infamous Glock.  I still can't figure out how it's worse than a revolver
for safety.  If you don't pull the trigger it doesn't go off.  I imagine that if all
your revolver shooting was done double action then you could pull the Glock trigger
far enough to fire before you realized it.  In addition, if you had developed that
nasty habit of keeping your finger on the trigger when holstering your gun and
relying on your thumb on the hammer to remind you to take it off before you blew
off your foot then you'd have problems when the hammer wasn't there.

|> 
|> Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
|> the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
|> and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
|> merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
|> with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
|> equipped for anything short of a riot.

I think this is even okay for a riot (as long as it's a small one B^)).

|> 
|> Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a 
|> wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
|> Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
|> I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
|> to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
|> what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
|> wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
|> extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
|> criminal encounters is less than 5.

I have the poor man's Beretta (Taurus 99) and consider it inferior as a carry
weapon to the Springfield .45 (oops, 9mm vs. 45 arguments are relegated to
r.g).  You are right, though.  If you don't hit what you aim at then the
shooter/gun combination has failed.  I don't ascribe failures in the the
fire real fast with a wonder-nine scenario you mention to the gun.  This is
a shooter failure, whether through lack of discipline or lack of training.


|> 
|> What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
|> .38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police 
|> prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....

9mm's are becoming more popular with crooks too, though the .38 does still
lead the list.  And like I said, around here semi-auto's seem the rule for the
street cop.  Don't know about the State Patrol however, they may still carry
the "Highway Patrolman".

|> 
|> ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they 
|>         introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
|>         as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.

Vincent, please don't take any of this as a flame.  Just my $0.02 (whoops, looks more
like $2.00) worth.  And much of it is IMHO, but do check Ayoob's book.

|> 
|> -- 
|> "If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
|> 	-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54232
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?


In article <Apr15.032620.75908@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
>
>What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. Would
>those work very well in stopping an attack?

Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now
use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired
from something that looks like a tear gas launcher.

There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that
they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly
dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping
someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity
(the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother
warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54233
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: "High Power" Assault guns


High power assault gun?  Why, you must be talking about the 155mm Howitzer.

Or did you want to try a 16 incher?  Or one of the German railway guns?
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54234
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)


In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>, Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
>Fox) says:
>>
>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>>as the timer on a VCR.
>
>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.

Ahem!!!  Hrumph!!!!  You have encurred the wrath of Glock owners.  We will beat
you with our hammers.  Oooops, don't have any  :-)

Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver. 
Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
autoloaders give you, that is.

Every gun has its safe moment and its dangerous moment.  If you just learn how
to handle it, it becomes a lot less dangerous (to you).
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54235
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

In article <81930415084418/0005111312NA3EM@mcimail.com> 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt) writes:

>Recently while looking around in Traders Sporting Goods store, a very well
>stocked firearms store, I discovered a printed document that was being 
>distributed by the good folks who work there.  Traders, BTW, is located in
>San Leandro, CA.
.
.
. 
>The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
>see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.
>
>These ads were run for the law-abiding honest citizens who own firearms for
>sporting use or self-protection.  They certainly have the right to do so, under
>the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.
 
Are you sure about this? I'm currently looking at a copy of last 
Thursday's SF Chronicle and there is the typical one column Traders
ad on page C7 in the Sports section. Not only that, but there is
a part in the middle which rather prominently says "WANTED: We pay
cash for assault rifles and pistols.". Granted, I haven't seen today's
paper yet. But I'd be surprised if there wasn't a Traders ad in it.
It's probably worth it to write to the Chronicle (and other papers)
anyway, because all their anti-gun editorials are disgusting.

By the way, let me put in a plug for Traders. I have shopped all
over the SF Bay Area and I have never seen another store with lower
prices. And their selection is amazing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher                         |   My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu      |   No one else's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54236
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

 / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /
   3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 / 

   >Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread
   >"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several
   >years while posting in this group, as an example.  There are
   >others.

For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time
readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.

This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54237
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr15.201756.29141@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal
>>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information,
>>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes
>>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.)
>
>>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information
>>stored in the card.
>
>Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting
>kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have
>known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.
>
>Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to
>argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument
>that it disclose public info.

       As perhaps some insight into how this sort of thing works, the
local college newspaper had a big crusade to have the U.T. police
release crime stats.  (The school claimed that to do so would violate
federal education records privacy laws).  They swore up and down they
weren't interested in student discipline records, only for stats so people
could make an evaluation of how safe the campus was.

       It was barely a week after crime stats were released before the
Daily Beacon had an editorial calling for student disciplinary stats
to be released, because they complained certain segments of the campus
population were treated administratively rather than turned over to the
police and therefore the criminal states weren't accurate.

       What people say they want public today may not be what they
say tomorrow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54238
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>	I just want to point out that while I am fully in support of privacy,
>it will be possible soon to have a completely secure ID card, useable in bank
>transactions, medical, etc etc.

     There is no such thing as "completely secure," especially when dealing
with High Technology. It's all a question of cost: what cost are you
willing to bear to protect your information vs. what rewards the "bad guys"
are going to get if they break it. The rewards of breaking such a single ID
system would be high indeed.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
     This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
  "Time is just nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54239
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

In article <8110356@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:

>> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
>> 
>> >RM:Just a short thought: 
>> >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>> >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>> >"no, it's total amnesty".
>
>>     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy 
>> back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can 
>> you get if you leave paper trail behind?
>
>In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver
>Nuggets basketball game. 
>
>How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)

       Money orders operate pretty much like checks, with both parties being
supposed to sign them.  I assume you'd have to show the buy-back people
an ID, and you'd then have a money order made out to that ID.  

       As far as traceable as a practical matter, I don't know, it would
depend on whether they bother to computerize who the recipient's name is
on the money order and bother keying that sort of thing in.  I'd say
certainly the police and the buyback people would keep a record of who
they gave money orders out to.

>Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?

       There might be some questions asked, I suppose, if somebody 
brought in a number of weapons each time over a series of "buy back"
programs.

        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54240
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <C5J5IM.3C9@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> by rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat):

> 
> |	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> |	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
> |	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> |	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
> |	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> |	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> |	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> |	pay through the nose for it. 
> 
> This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very
> serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were
> of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness
> machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we
> have a road system that is the envy of the world?
> 
If anybody wanted proof of the nonsense of the "you can't build guns" claim,
they need look no farther than the Philippines.  Amateur gunsmiths there
regularly produce everything from .45 automatics to full auto shotguns.  Now
if this guy wants to claim that the Philippines is either technologically
superior to the US or that their transportation is better than ours, all I
can say is that he's living in a fantasy world.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54241
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
>	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation. 
>	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
>	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.

Proof by assertion!  I love it!  Uh, please explain why the smugglers
do not also rank a notch below (or above) the military in terms
of communications, intelligence gathering (e.g., why fight officials
when you can bribe them..."I'll give you a hundred grand to let that
semi past..."), and firepower. 

>	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
>	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
>	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
>	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
>	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
>	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
>	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer
>	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
>	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
>	good dollar/pound deal. 
>
What's the point here?  You're arguing that the black market
WORKS (which it does, of course).  

>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.

This is the wrong way to quantify things.  The smuggler would
be concerned about value/cubic foot.  Go to a gun show and
price out a crate of good quality handguns.  

>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>	would have to be local. There are not all that many people

What's "local?"  

>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could

What is a worthwhile firearm?  Hell, anything that WORKS!  Go
get yourself a copy of the Army's 1969 Improvised Munitions Manual.
See how easy it is to make a functional firearm.

>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it. 

If paying $10 for inconspicuous parts at the local K-Mart is
"through the nose." 

Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54242
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.

That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.

>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.

Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
outside.)

A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54243
From: sylvain@netcom.com (Nicholas Sylvain)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

In article <DLB.93Apr15130411@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time
>readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.

A long-time reader of t.p.g, I am also a staunch RKBA supporter, yet
I own no firearms.

>This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.

Amen, brother.

--
Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@netcom.com) --- I am the NRA


-- 
Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@netcom.com) --- I am the NRA

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54244
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

In article <15240077@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
|> / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
|> 
|> >Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread 
|> >"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years 
|> >while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others.
|> 
|> Good point, Kirk.
|> 
|> He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts, 
|> and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time 
|> he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns
|> out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start
|> with) act responsibility once given the chance.

I'd like to point out that I was in error - "Terminator" began posting only 
six months before he purchased his first firearm, according to private email
from him.

I can't produce an archived posting of his earlier than January 1992,
and he purchased his first firearm in March 1992.

I guess it only seemed like years.

Back to your regularly scheduled flame fest.

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54245
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in.

That depends only on the profit of doing so.  The differences
in cost of production will determine local vs smuggle.

> 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile

Those of us who have actually made semi-autos (full-autos are easier)
are getting quite a giggle out of this.  I'd estimate that 5% of
the people at my high school couldn't do it.  (I was one of the
few who failed shop.)  People who have actually seen me do mechanical
work would probably say that 1% is more like it.

Starting with even 90% of the population, you can be sure that
"enough" people will be motivated.

> 	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> 	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> 	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> 	pay through the nose for it. 

How much is "through the nose"?  After all, we know quite a bit
about how much a gun is worth to a criminal, so if that is dwarfed
by the price demanded by the "bad" part of that 90%....

The relevant economic analysis has been made.  The "profit" of
gun crime is high enough that the price required to push criminals
out of the market is high enough that everyone will be motivated.
That analysis ignored some "improvements" in the criminal gun
market that could make them even cheaper.  (They're not efficiently
used now, but a "loaner" set up would drive the value still higher
without affecting criminal use.)

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54246
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)


103D CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
  
                                  H. R. 1276 
  
To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms
    in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement
    of such right.
  
                           ======================= 
  
                       IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
  
                               March 10, 1993 
  
Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
    Committee on the Judiciary 
  
                           ======================= 
  
                                    A BILL 
  
To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
    to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
    to provide for the enforcement of such right.
  
        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
    tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
  
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
  
        This Act may be cited as the "Citizens' Self-Defense
    Act of 1993". 
  
    SEC. 2. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND
        TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF,
        FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
  
        (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT. -- A person not pro-
    hibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm shall have
    the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use fire-
    arms in defense of self, family, or home.
  
        (b) FIREARM DEFINED. -- As used in subsection (a),
    the term "firearm" means a --
  
            (1) shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of
        title 18, United States Code);

            (2) rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of such
        title); or

            (3) handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public
        law 99-408).

        (c) ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT. --

            (1) IN GENERAL. -- A person whose right under
        subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring
        an action in any United States district court against
        the United States, any State, or any person for
        damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as
        the court deems appropriate.

            (2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE AT-
        TORNEY'S FEE. -- In an action brought under para-
        graph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the
        prevailing party, other than a State, a reasonable
        attorney's fee as part of the costs.

        (d) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. -- An action may not
    be brought under subsection (c)(1) after the 5-year period
    that begins with the date the violation described therein
    is discovered.

------------------------ (end of HR 1276) ------------------------


Well, this sounds good to me.  The key is Section (2)(c)(2), which
will effectively open up the Federal court system to all the folks
who can't afford to adopt an Attorney with whom to fight city hall.
All of you who've been saying "hey, isn't that illegal?" could just
go hire your own Attorneys on a pay-if-you-win ("contingency fee")
basis, and sue the bums ...   :-)

What you can do now:

(1)  Write your Representative, and ask them to co-sponsor HR 1276.

(2)  Write Representative Roscoe Bartlett, the sponsor --

        Representative Roscoe Bartlett
        312 Cannon House Office Building
        Washington, D.C. 20515

     -- to tell him who your own Representative is, and that you've
     asked them to join him as a co-sponsor of HR 1276.

(3)  Contact Gun Owners of America --

          Gun Owners of America
          8001 Forbes Place
          Springfield, Virginia 22151

     -- which has committed to lobby on behalf of HR 1276.

(4)  For those of us with a RealJob (TM), find out how to reach
     Representative Bartlett's campaign fund (I'm working on it)
     and toss in a few bucks.  You can bet your bippy that he's
     going to be one of the HCI "targets" in the next election,
     which isn't that far away (1994).

(5)  Tell your family, friends, gun club, etc.  Enjoy ...   :-)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54247
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

>NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP
>
>The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
>see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.
>
>If you are tired of newspapers who run sex and liquor ads galor, yet refuse to
>run legitimate gun ads, please send a letter to the editors indicating your
>displeasure over their censorship doctrine.
>
>Following is a list of Bay area newspapers who censor gun ads.  Perhaps you'd
>like to send them your thoughts on this issue!
>
>Contra Costa Times	San Mateo Times		San Francisco Chronicle
>POB 5088		POB 5400		901 Mission St.
>Walnut Creek, CA 94596	San Mateo, CA 94402	San Francisco, CA 94103
>
>San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
>1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
>San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190

I have the April 15, 1993 issue of the SF Chronicle in my lap.  Page
E7 (in the "Sporting Green" section) has a Trader's advert.  (The
copy is a bit screwed up - it says that the prices offered expire
4-14-93, but the ad is there.)

The SF Examiner and Chronicle run the same set of adverts (because
they have a joint printing/biz agreement and differ only in editorial
content).

I've seen gun ads recently in the merc, which is anti-gun editorially,
albeit not from traders, but from its competitors.

I don't know about the other papers.

Does Traders claim that things are changing?  When?

>- Why TV journalists lie

Because it's easier than telling the truth and no one much cares
either way.

>Let me know if you write to any of these bozos.

Before you do, make sure that the bozos are actually doing what
you're accusing them of.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54248
From: pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks


In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:
|> 
|> Do you Rambos who worry so much about rape and murder in the
|> wilderness also carry your guns all the time at home too?  You
|> should, since you're in a hell of a lot more danger there than
|> in the backcountry.

when does carrying a tool classify someone as a rambo.  so all the
pioneers that came west were rambo's?  adrienne!!!  :-)

|> 
|> Does anybody reading this group have an actual, honest-to-God
|> experience with violent crime in the backcountry to tell about?
|> 
|> I can sort of understand the people who want to protect themselves
|> from bears and such, although there are, what, maybe a dozen or
|> two bear attacks on people in North America each year?  But to
|> worry about being raped by some buck-toothed Bubba in overalls
|> is just irrational.  I think we'd all be a lot safer if all the
|> videocassettes of "Deliverance" were gathered up and burned.

would your tune change if you were one of the "dozen or two bear attacks"?
believe me, when you need a firearm, you NEED a firearm.

|> 
|> Public health experts will tell you that you are far more likely
|> have your gun stolen, use it yourself on a family member or
|> have it used on you than you are to use it on an actual criminal.

please cite your references.   i'll let others (please note followup)
cite valid references to show you that this is an untruth.

|> The Rambo warriors we've heard from here undoubtedly consider
|> themselves exempt from this statistical reality -- they're much
|> too smart and responsible.  Living in a city where there's a
|> drive-by shooting every couple of days, and working in a medical
|> center where a day doesn't go by without a shooting victim coming
|> into the ER, I'm just a bit skeptical about the value of gun
|> ownership.  I go to the backcountry to get away from this 
|> environment, and I don't want to find other people there who
|> insist on bringing the urban environment along with them -- boom
|> boxes, computers, or guns.

well, you might as well go naked.  forget the matches, backpack, sleeping
bag and all the rest that's is a modern convenience.  a firearm is just
a tool.  as some people won't carry gaiters, some people do.  firearms
should be in the same category.  it should be a personal choice.

and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
cars.

|> 
|> Please post flaming responses to rec.guns.rabid  >:-(
|> - J. Gever, B'ham, Ala.

marciano pitargue@cisco.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54249
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>        (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT. -- A person not pro-
>    hibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm shall have
>    the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use fire-
>    arms in defense of self, family, or home.


So, you have the right unless the Federal Government says you don't.
I don't think I like this very much.

This would be much better if it said "everyone except those who have
been striped of this right by due process of law" or some such thing.

Also, I don't care for the Federal Government stepping on states rights
regardless of which state right is being stepped on.  If the constitution
doesn't give the Feds some power then they have to just shut up about
it.

The only way the Feds should have anything to say is if the Constitution
prohibits localities from infringing on the RKBA.  In which case this
bill should just reiterate that the RKBA is guaranteed by the Constitution
and that the Feds will take appropriate action if it is infringed.


-- 
-- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54250
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith


 >> Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from
 >> bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be
 >> for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.

   > Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.
   >
   > Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
   > die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as
   > long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few
   > shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One
   > assumes they are moving!)

A better solution:

  If the 'bad' people can't be trusted with guns, then lock them or knock
  them off.  Stop punishing good people.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54251
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car

In article 27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> >All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
> >I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
> 
> That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
> 
> >Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
> >that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
> >that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
> 
> Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
> do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
> Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
> outside.)
> 
> A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
> what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
> off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
> it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
> 
> -andy
> --


   I agree very much.  I have read almost every article written about
   the Glock, and IMO, it is probably the safest auto-loader made.  It
   has the best safty of all, Jeff Cooper's First Rule, "Keep your finger
   OFF the trigger until you want to shoot."  If everyone just observed
   this, there would be fewer "accidents".

   David N. Bixler
   Auburn University

   Standard Disclaimers apply.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54252
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?

In article <1993Apr15.150736.15793@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes:
>
>Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now
>use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired
>from something that looks like a tear gas launcher.
>
>There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that
>they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly
>dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping
>someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity
>(the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother
>warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-)
>--
	Oh, OK.  Just wondering.  I am not a real expert on weapons, I was just
wondering if they would do the job.

					Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54253
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make 
sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.

Say U.S.C. 922 :

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

 Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person" 
might also be an artificial entity that is created by government 
and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
does not make it LAW. Everyone knows that laws are constitional
until it goes to court. So, has it ever gone to court, not
just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"

Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?



-- 
Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'    	 
Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
brians@atlastele.com           U

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54254
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Cop kills teenager

	OK, here's something for all of those people who think cops are always
more responsible then the rest of the population.  I found this article in the
Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado State University's newspaper.

	SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED IN REVENGE TRIPLE HOMICIDE

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer afraid he would be fired for
allegedly assaulting a teen-ager walked into an auto body shop wher the youth
worked, said "You're going to die" and fatally shot him and two others, police
said.

A fourth youth was wounded.  A fifth escaped injury by hiding under a car.

The wounded youth ran about two blocks to a house after the shooting at about
midnight Tuesday and called police.  He was hospitalized in satisfactory
condition Wednesday.

Suspended police officer Robert Sabetta, 23, of Cranston, was arrested at
gunpoint over three hours after the shooting at Wilson's Auto Enterprises in
Foster, a rural town of about 4,000 people in northwest Rhode Island.

	Well, this just goes to show that cops are capable of snapping, just
like everyone else.  Now who was it who said only cops should have guns?

						Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54255
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>see are still carrying revolvers.

So?  Look in the trunk some time.  Heck - look at the dash.  That
funny thing attached with a quick-release is a gun.  The ones in the
trunk are "better".  (I don't have numbers for Chicago, but
Philadelphia police cars carried multiple automatic weapons and
thousands of rounds as standard issue in the 60s.)

>Not that there is anything wrong with a
>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>disadvantage even with training.

What is the nature of this disadvantage?  If the cop can shoot, 6
rounds will do the job against a single opponent (especially since the
cop has guaranteed backup).  If the "gang member" can shoot, the extra
rounds don't help.  The only time this difference can matter is if
neither can shoot, and cops aren't supposed to be throwing lead around
like that.

BTW - most cops carry multiple guns.  You're not supposed to know
about the second, third, and so on.

>I have been at a shooting range where
>gang members were "practicing" shooting.

How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?

They were actually practicing
>taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
>and they weren't doing too badly either.

Then the extra rounds won't make any difference, so why is it an issue?

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54256
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>
k

Guys, guys, (and gals), let's lay off Jason here.  Though he stepped
in it, he has been very good so far about admitting he doesn't know
what he's talking about, and even more stunning is that he seems
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#CIANSAKGBFBI
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#ASSASINATEDEA
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #NAZIPLUTONIUM
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #PRESIDENTFEMA

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54257
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1qk3jm$9sh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members.
>I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.

I've been a member of the NRA for several years and recently "joined"
HCI.  I wanted to see what they were up to and paid the minimum ($15)
to get a membership. I also sent the NRA another $120.

-- 
	Would the founding fathers have approved of encryption so
strong that the government could not break it?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54258
From: bbs.billand@tsoft.net (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Handgun Restrictions

I would like to know what restrictions there are on purchasing handguns 
(ie waiting periods, background check etc..) in the states of Nevada and 
Oregon. Thanks.
                                                -Bill

--
Bill Anderson (bbs.billand@tsoft.net)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54259
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)

In article <1993Apr15.152834.16638@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
(Dillon Pyron) says:
>>>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>>>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>>>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>>>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>>>as the timer on a VCR.
>>
>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Ahem!!!  Hrumph!!!!  You have encurred the wrath of Glock owners.  We will
>beat
>you with our hammers.  Oooops, don't have any  :-)
>
>Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
>revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver.
>Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
>autoloaders give you, that is.
>
>Every gun has its safe moment and its dangerous moment.  If you just learn how
>to handle it, it becomes a lot less dangerous (to you).
>--
>Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
>TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
>(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
>(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
>pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
>PADI DM-54909                     |
>

All very true.  I'm going on what I have read and heard from friends.
Basically the Glock is great but I have heard/read that it is a lot harder to
learn proper handling because of the type of safety that it has.  I was
looking at a Glock .40S&W and the S&W 4006 a couple of weeks ago and the
safties on the guns were very different.  The saftey on the 4006 seemed a lot
more "safe"  (for lack of a better word) than the one on the Glock.  Of course
this could also be a bad thing if you were to pull the gun on somebody.  You
would spend more time fiddling around turning the safety off.  Personally I
like the Glocks because they are very light and I think they look really cool
(guess that's why they use them in so many movies) but I wouldn't get one as
my first semi-auto because of the safety.  I would prefer more training with
a "traditional" semi-auto (ala Colt .45) but of course that's just my opinion.

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54260
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


I HATE long postings, but this turned out to be rather lengthy....


Overall Crime rate:
It fell....just like that...

Acquiring weapons in Norway:
You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a 
permit, and a good reason to get the permit....
If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from 
the police and to be a member of a gun-club.
The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
records of SERIOUS mental diseases.
Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
-club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.
It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

Use of guns in crimes (in Norway):
Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
time befor the crime.

Use of knives:
It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
in public -rigth ??

Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
to take action we DO.
Ask ANY historian or millitary with an knowledge of europe....
(Or ask any German who served in Norway in WW2.....)

Individual vs masses:
Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
extent....
Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
all the others ??


The issue:
I believe the issue is GUNS, and gun-legislation.
We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....
IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
But should it have to be like that ??
Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
it should be free to buy guns ??

Disclaim-her:
I'm not a pacifist or anti gun. 
I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
neccities or toys.
I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....







	This is not a .signature.
	It's marly a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54261
From: awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:


: The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
: has been whether they fired their main guns.  

Never?  This is incorrect.  Either you don't read very well or resort
to falsehoods in an attempt to make a point.

At the risk of boring and belaboring the point, my claim was
the chain was regarding the tanks "last used in Detroit in 48".
The text follows.

:  You did not merely claim that
: tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
: sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.  

Indeed, when Coffman claimed they were only used as APCs, I did say
I had been told they did fire their main guns.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You continue to
: back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
: disputing.

Well, the poster who I responded to did dispute the use of tanks
post-48.  Rude of you to call Gary Coffman a nobody.  

: "Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
: now going to admit that you were wrong?

That was the entire point to *you*.  What exactly did I claim?
   --------------------------------------------------
  "I've heard eye-witness descriptions of tanks using their main guns
to respond to sniper fire.  Quite effectively."
   --------------------------------------------------

  I wasn't wrong . . . I've heard those descriptions.  If you're
paying attention, I've mentioned that I saw the tanks with my own
eyes, but the main gun firing was an account I heard.  That helps
people judge whether or not to kick in the, to use your words,
"bullshit filters".  Stating that I *claimed* this is a falsehood.

  What was it I claimed as fact?  Here's the entire post:
  --------------------------------------------------
>We haven't used tanks against the black ghettos since Detroit 1948. 

Correction.  I know they used tanks in Detroit 1968.  I saw em, it
was well covered in the news at that time.  Gordon Lightfoot mentions
it in his song "Black Day in July".
  --------------------------------------------------

  Since you don't dispute that and claim that nobody else does, that
means I was right.  

: I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
: riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
: without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
: military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
: been *big* news.

   So one would suppose.  Some folks think in happened in 48.  

Awesley goes on:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

: To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
: grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
: perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
: it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

John, again, strawman techniques.  Do you feel you're losing it so you
have to stretch what I said and knock that down?  What I read said
nothing about what they fired.  And so I put nothing in there.  If you
need some help, let me know and I'l take your side of this for a
while.  You're not scoring here, you're boring here. 

: If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
: screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
: it. 

   Glad to know you're such an expert.  Nice to hear some an
authority.  I especially appreciate your basis of knowledge -- if it
had happened, you would have know it.  Since you are such an
authority, you probably know that people did scream about an alleged
massive cover-up in the number of people killed in the Detroit riot.
Some claimed 100+ dead, others said 300.  The offical number is 43 but
the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says it was "several".  I've also
heard some things about that but I won't dare repeat them.  You'd
assert that I claimed they were truth.

: Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 

   Taking the tour after the riots, it was pretty easy to tell the 
difference between Army and Guard troops.  Or so I recall from 26 
years ago.  And I seem to recall it was the Army running the tanks.
So it would have been an Army cover-up.

   Another part of my memories was that while most damaged building
were burnt, some were in rubble.  Based on what I remember, I was and
am inclined to believe an old sarge or two.

: If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
: to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
: those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.

   Given the level in destruction in Detroit, I'm quite willing to believe
that they did fire their guns.

   Now then, we've bored the shit out of anyone whose bothered to read
this far and all you've managed to say is that you don't believe the
account I cited.

: --John L. Scott

                                  -- wes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54262
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>
>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
>do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
>Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
>outside.)
>
Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.  It's basic purpose -
not to let the gun fire until you're ready.  Christ, I've known that since I
had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't know me so don't make assumptions
about what I know and don't know.  I do know that the Glock has multiple
safties from reports, looking at them at a gun shop, and friends who own one.

>A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
>what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
>off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
>it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
>
>-andy
>--
From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the
trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.  Every
article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.  And don't ask
me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or
rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on
here without someone getting right on your ass.  No wonder why there are so
many problems in the world.  Everyone takes everything just a little too
seriously.  By the way,  I'm not going to reply to any of this stuff anymore as
someone made the good point that this discussion is getting too close to r.g
(And yes I know that I had something to do with that).

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54263
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

Andy Freeman (andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP
: >
: >San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
: >1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
: >San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190
: 
Hmmm, the SJ Merc. carries Targemasters West, National Shooting club,
 Reeds sportshop, Sportsmens supply and Big 5 ads. They all sell guns.
No they don't have any adds like in Shotgun news.  If they won't at least
run the current adds I swear I'll cancel my subscription and end to cash
to the CRPA.

Rob P.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54264
From: syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu (Steven B Syck)
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)

In article <93105.164406U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>All very true.  I'm going on what I have read and heard from friends.
>Basically the Glock is great but I have heard/read that it is a lot harder to
>learn proper handling because of the type of safety that it has.  I was
>looking at a Glock .40S&W and the S&W 4006 a couple of weeks ago and the
>safties on the guns were very different.  The saftey on the 4006 seemed a lot
>more "safe"  (for lack of a better word) than the one on the Glock.  Of course
>this could also be a bad thing if you were to pull the gun on somebody.  You
>would spend more time fiddling around turning the safety off.  Personally I
>like the Glocks because they are very light and I think they look really cool
>(guess that's why they use them in so many movies) but I wouldn't get one as
>my first semi-auto because of the safety.  I would prefer more training with
>a "traditional" semi-auto (ala Colt .45) but of course that's just my opinion.
>
>Jason

	At the risk of starting the 'my gun is better than yours' flame
war, I must disagree.
	
	There is no secret in handling a Glock.  In fact, it is often
chosen (besides its other merits) because it shoots like a revolver does
basically.  It can limit the training time (read budget $$$) due to the
fact there are no 'external' safties other than the trigger, hence less
training time required. 

	Smith & Wesson (among other types) are chosen due to the fact taht
they do have the external safties (hammer drop,as well as mag drop) which
if properly used have saved many lives when 'Mr. Bad' snatched the gun
from the officer and tried to shoot said officer the gun was on safe and
would not fire.  This point had been made in many articles in various 
gun magazines.  If fact, one author (can't remember who) staged a little
test where he had a revolver and a S&W on safe laying on a table and asked
people with little firearms experience to on his signal, grab the gun and
shoot a target.  He timed the people using each gun.  The revolver times
were pretty close, but some of the times with the S&W were in minutes, or
the person just gave up because they could not figure out the saftey.

	You don't often see Colt 45 autos issued due to the light trigger
which can be accidentally fired in a stress situation, opening the issuing
city,county, etc.. to lawsuits, bad press, etc..

	Of course any problem can be overcome with enough training, but
such training is not always available to budget crunched departments.  I
know if I were a Cop I would want something like a S&W just for the off
chance of the gun getting taken away.  The safety doesn't guarantee that
'Mr. Bad' won't figure it out and shoot me, but it could buy enough time
to draw a second gun and shoot 'Mr. Bad' before it's too late.

	Don't think I am too biassed here just because I have had 3 Glocks
in my possession at one time, because I have had a .45 as well.  In fact,
it was my first handgun.  Remember, the ultimate 'safety' is YOU the
operator, and no safety is going to stop an negligent discharge (note I
don't say accidental) if you break the rules of gun handling.

	As per the part of being light weight and looking cool, I agree
100%.  I wouldn't rule it out as a first purchase.  

-Just my $.02 + tax
-------   Steve Syck        syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu        --------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54265
From: brant@seq.uncwil.edu (AT-Dreamer)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

Anyone who worries about his own gun should not have one.  If you carry
any pistol with a empty chamber and safety the chances of it going off
are about zero.  Unless you sit it on top of a lite stove for a couple
of minutes or put it in a fire. :-)     

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger"  Spoken by many A.T. hikers         |
|  Kilo Delta Four Zulu Papa Uniform -KD4ZPU 146.82                
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54266
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control?

In article <C5JAtz.5G4@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>...
>Let's prohibit arms carrying by police when off-duty. Or, if they make
>the assertion that "Well, I need to maintain my gun" let's make it
>regulation that they can carry an UNLOADED firearm home, that it's
>only fair that they be just as helpless as poor schmuck coming home
>from his computer operator job...
>
>NRA Director/ex-San Jose cop Leroy Pyle states in the latest SWAT
>magazine that anti-cops better watch out for this schism between
>RKBA folks and the police. He asks the rhetorical question of 'What
>if what's left of the gun lobby starts demanding the disarmament
>of the police?"
>
>Well, I guess anti-gun cops who think only they should be armed,
>along with the wealthy and politically connected, should be made
>to realize that screwing can cut in ways they have yet to imagine.
>...

We all know this will never happen.  Because the Police are under the wings
of Government, they will always be considered more important than Citizens.

Government pens, pencils and paper are considered more important than
Citizens.

I think we have a problem with our Government.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54267
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.734911642.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Overall Crime rate:
>It fell....just like that...

       Two questions:  When was this, and do you have the relevant
numbers.  (Please note, this is *not* in any way an indication I don't
believe you or that you're not correct, but when the drop occured is
relevant.)
   
>Acquiring weapons in Norway:
>You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a 
>permit, and a good reason to get the permit....
>If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from 
>the police and to be a member of a gun-club.

       The primary objection (beyond ones based on the ideal of
RKBA that it is simply not something the government should do) is
that it makes guns a play-thing and tool of the rich and connected.
It discriminates against the poor.

       Is self-defense considered appropriate, and if so, under what
conditions?  (Are you allowed, for instance to get a gun for protection
if you're going to be carrying a very large sum of money on a regular
basis or have been threatened.)

>The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
>records of SERIOUS mental diseases.

       This has been suggested in the U.S., and generally supported among
gun owners.  What many object to is that many, if not most, proposals
contain a sort of "gotcha" clause which allows an arbitrary denial, even
if you qualify in every way.

>Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
>-club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.
>It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
>You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

       At this point, it should be pointed out that in general
a driver's licence in the U.S. is for the most part nothing like its
European counterpart.  I understand getting one is far more difficult
there than here.  In the U.S. it's a joke. 

       But my usual objection is that you're discussing two different
things.  For instance, in the U.S. a driver's license is a permit
to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.  It is not necessary
to own one, or to operate it on private property.  That is, the
ability to require driving permits is generally considered to arise
from the government's legitimate power to enact reasonable regulations
for behavior on public lands.  A permit to own an automobile, for instance,
which is far closer an analogy, would be a much harder thing to get
past legally, since it wouldn't be based on making regulations on public
property, but in restricting activity on private property.              

>Use of guns in crimes (in Norway):
>Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
>for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
>Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
>time befor the crime.
>
>Use of knives:
>It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
>You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
>in public -rigth ??

        This varies *widely*.  (One thing I think Europeans have
a difficult time with is that the U.S. has fifty unique jurisdictions,
where the laws from one state to another can be as radically different
as from one country in Europe to another).

        Some places allow open carry of both guns and knives.  Some allow
concealed.  Some prohibit both, or allow one or the other.  And it can
be either a state or local restriciton.       

>Individual vs masses:
>Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
>extent....
>Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
>What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
>all the others ??

       The question must be asked:  Is the right of *this* individual
affecting the rights of this *other* individual.  What we usually
get is that the rights of this *group* (meaning some individuals within
this group, here defined as "people who own guns,") are adversely affecting 
the rights of some other group.  

       If for instance, "Bob" were using his gun to attack "Steve," you'd
have a point.  But essentially what we're discussing is that becuase
some person who qualifies as a member of the group "people who own
guns" then some third person, perhaps in another *time zone* is told
that their being a member of that group is taking away somebody else's
rights.  It's like trying to punish all newspapers for the libel commited
by one.

>The issue:
>I believe the issue is GUNS, and gun-legislation.

       The issue is crime, violence, and murder.  The question is to
what extent guns and gun legislation impact those.

>We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....
>IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
>But should it have to be like that ??

       Of course not.  It would be nice if we didn't have to fear that
other people might get it into their twisted little minds to hurt us.
But currently we don't have that option.  Nor do I expect we will.

>Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??

       No state does.  In any case, there's a limit to which the state
may enforce it's "wisdom" on me.  Freedom in general is an unwise
concept.  If you pre-emptively restrict everything which might be
"unwise" then freedom becomes a meaningless concept.
   
>If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
>it should be free to buy guns ??

       I'll raise my hand against driver's licenses.  As currently
implemented they're a waste of time and little more than revanue
generation for the State and ignored by a startling number of
drivers.  It does not guarantee a level of skill any higher than is
necessary to get your car on the road and get yourself or somebody
else killed, or a knowledge of traffic laws beyond what any ten year
old will have picked up riding around in his parents car.

       But, as I mentioned, they're two different things.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54268
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:

>                                     A BILL 
>   
> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54269
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
> You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make 
> sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.
> 
> Say U.S.C. 922 :
> 
> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
> any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
> 
>  Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person" 
> might also be an artificial entity that is created by government 
  ^^^^^
> and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
> don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
> an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
> me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> does not make it LAW. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.

> Everyone knows that laws are constitional
> until it goes to court.

Not exactly:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
 no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
 contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
 Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
 form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
 ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
 time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
 branding it."

"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
 bound to enforce it."
 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
      late 2d, Sec 256

> So, has it ever gone to court, not
> just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"
> Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
> by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?

Automatic weapons?  No.  The Supreme Court has never heard such a case.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54270
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: ACLU policies

ACLU Official Policies.

Policy 18, for example, opposes rating systems for motion
pictures: "Industry sponsored ratings systems create the
potential for constraining the creative process and thus
contracting the marketplace of ideas. Despite the stated goal of
providing guidance to parents, experience has shown that ratings
inevitably have serious chilling effects on freedom of
expression."

In regards to the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU states in its
Policy 84: "The insertion of the words `under God' into the
Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the constitutional
principle of separation of Church and State."

Policy 120 states that, "Military conscription under any
circumstances is a violation of civil liberties and
constitutional guarantees." The ACLU objects to the draft even
during wartime because of the "anti-democratic power it gives
government to wage war without support of the people."

Policy 125 states, "The ACLU calls for a broad-based inquiry into
war crimes within the widest possible definition of war crimes
against humanity, and crimes against the peace, focusing upon the
actions of the United States military and other combatants
against the people of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and North
Vietnam."

Policy 133 states, "The ACLU recognizes that US government
reliance upon nuclear weaponry as a dominant element of foreign
and domestic policy, while propounded as a defense of democracy,
is in fact a great threat to civil liberties. Four decades of
adherence to this policy has fundamentally altered the nature of
our constitutional democratic process and poses a paramount
threat to our civil liberties."

Policy 217 objects to roadblocks "where drivers are stopped for
sobriety tests" because they "violate Fourth Amendment
principles." 

Policy 242 states the following on criminal
sentencing: "The most appropriate correctional approach is
reintegrating the offender into the community, and the goals of
reintegration are furthered much more readily by working with the
offender within the community than by incarceration. Probation
should be authorized by the legislature in every case; exceptions
to the principle are not favored, and any exceptions, if made,
should be limited to the most serious of offenses, such as murder
or treason."

                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54271
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: UPI News Release


  UPI Washington DC, Update Desk			4/15/93

  For the past several months the Clinton administration has been
  stymied by mixed signals coming from the economy.  While most
  leading indicators has shown an apparent improvement in the 
  economy, there has been no corresponding improvement in the area
  of jobs creation.

  The unemployment figures seem stalled at the 7% mark.  last month,
  in an effort to understand this problem, President Clinton appointed
  a blue ribbon panel to try to resolve the apparent conflicting
  economic signals.  This panel was chaired by Vice President Gore.

  Today the panel released their results, providing a shocking conclusion.
  "It's the guns" Vice President Gore said.  Apparently NRA members, and other
  "gun-nuts" are purchasing firearms at in record numbers, pulling the
  economy out of the recession.  "Their buying them five times faster than
  ever before, and stockpiling left and right", the Vice President said.  

  However, since many domestic firearm and ammunition manufacturers have
  been experiencing hard times during the past few years, including several
  declarations of bankruptcy by many leading American gun makers, they have
  not rushed to increase hiring to meet the new demand.

  "We want to see if this run will continue before hiring more people", said
  the President of Colt industries.  "As long as Clinton is in office, we
  suspect it will", he added.

  In response to this new information, President Clinton announced a new
  Gun Control measure to be introduced into Congress this session.  It's 
  called the "Ban-One-A-Month" Gun Control Bill.  Under the terms of this law,
  every make and model of all firearms will be written on individual index 
  cards.  The cards will all be put in a big hat and the President will draw
  one card every month.  Sixty days later that gun will be banned from any
  further manufacture/importation or sale in this country, except to the
  politically connected and to members of the National Police Force.

  The President said, "This law will benefit America two ways.  When the
  Gun-Of-The-Month is announced every thirty days, the gun-nuts will run
  out and buy thousands of them, boosting the economy even more.  In addition,
  over the long run, we will get all of these icky-evil guns off of the
  street."  He also announce the appointment of Sarah Brady to oversee
  this program, citing her "Honesty, and unbiased view on the subject
  of gun control".

  Senators Metzenbaum, DeConcini, Feinstein, and Boxer have proposed an
  amendment to the Bill which would add additional index cards containing
  caliber designations for all know ammunitions.  "Their stockpiling,
  stockpiling, stockpiling" screamed Metzenbaum during a press conference
  at the national Headquarters of Handgun Control Inc.

  Senators Simon, Metzenbaum, and Moyenhan also introduced an amendment
  that would make all guns illegal to possess once the last card has been
  drawn from the hat.  Senator Simon was quoted as saying, "First we'll
  fuck em, then we'll kick em out of bed in the morning", during a press
  conference he held in the second floor Mens Restroom of the Senate
  building.  He of course was referring to the fact that he would allow
  the people to purchase the guns to help the economy, but would require
  the BATF to seize all of the guns in America sometime in the year 2008,
  after all of the cards have been drawn.

  The head of the BATF responded by saying, "We will have to see if this
  thing in Waco is over by then.  We may be too busy to seize all those
  guns".

  US House Representatives Pat Schroeder and David Skaggs of Colorado
  declared this proposed law as being "reasonable gun control which won't
  affect anybodys Constitutional right to own sporting guns".

  - end article -

  For the humor impaired :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-) 

                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54272
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....

In article <1qanj0$22d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>How many are aware that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a verbatim translation
>of a Nazi gun control law passed shortly before the Holocaust?
>
>For those of you who think I'm being paranoid in asking these questions,
>pray that you are right.  Unchecked democracies usually end in
>dictatorship.  Remember, Germany was a democracy when Hitler rose to power. 
>Can we be absolutely certain nothing like that could happen today? 

I can't speak for the organizations you cited but everywhere you look in
our society and government, one can see the relentless movement toward
one world government.  The fact that the media demeans such charished 
values as patriotism, nationalism and protectionism are some of the
clues.  The fact that we are sapping the economic strength of americans
to prop up a former and possibly future enemy is just another.  The fact
the words like community of nations, global village and international
business are in vogue are others.  International corporations are 
destroying our identy and economy and the propaganda they are playing
through the media and government is over powering our ability to resist.
Our porous border both people and trade are an indiciation that we have
already lost a great deal of sovergnty.

The bottome line is that the single most evil aspect of One World
Government is that you have nowhere to run to and history has proven
that would be a disaster.  

Beware the LIBERAL and the conservative and the moderate.  Think for yourself


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54273
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.734911642.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from 
> the police and to be a member of a gun-club.
> The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
> records of SERIOUS mental diseases.
> Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
> -club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.

So, like, what do you do during those six months to be "active?"
My town has a similar requirement, and it's rather stupid.  Before
you can buy a handgun, you have to be an active member of a gun club.
Well, how active can you be without a gun, chief?

Most gun owners feel a check of criminal records for crimes and mental
disorders would be a very good thing -- IF it couldn't be abused by the
government.  But every time this is proposed, there is always some
trapdoor by which the government can deny your purchase EVEN IF you
are perfectly qualified to own a gun.  And we oppose this.

> It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
> You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

Since the fatal accident rate for licensed automobile drivers in the US 
is around 50 times the fatal accident rate of largely unlicensed gun
owners, I'd think twice before using this analogy.

Besides, the problem is criminal use of guns, not accidents.  (There
are about 500,000 criminal uses of guns in the US every year -- but
only 1,400 accidents.)  I don't think it's necessary to spend a lot
of energy making sure a criminal CAN shoot a gun before he gets one.

Just like the check, most gun owners feel positively about requiring
safety courses -- IF they couldn't be abused by the government.  But 
they already have!  One state doesn't hold the courses, another doesn't 
fund them, a third holds them only once a year with limited attendence 
to those with political connections.  Is this fair?

> Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
> time befor the crime.

And how many of them acquire these guns from legal retail outlets?
How many are borrowed, stolen, smuggled, bought on the black market?

> Use of knives:
> It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
> You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
> in public -rigth ??

Some states allow ONLY open carry.  Some allow ONLY concealed carry.
Some allow both.  Some allow both, but require licenses for concealed 
carry.  All you can say is if one of these modes has a clear advantage
over another in terms of reducing crime or any other public good,
then state legislators SOMEPLACE are doing exactly the wrong thing.
Which means that they really don't have any objective reasons for 
these laws other than their preferences -- a bad way to govern.

> Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
> We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
> to take action we DO.

("Hot-livered."  I LOVE that expression.  Here, we say "hot-headed.")

> Individual vs masses:
> Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
> extent....
> Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
> What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
> all the others ??

Typically, the only criminals who can affect the rights of ALL the other
people are criminals in government offices.  The rest of our criminals
affect the rights of only one or a few people at a time, and they do this
during the commission of a crime.  POSSESSION of a gun by someone hurts
NO ONE else.  It is when they do something violent with that gun that
the crime occurs.  Of course, it is a crime for a felon or ex-felon to
possess a gun, but we don't feel it is right to treat common citizens
who have lived good lives as if they were just "pre-felons" waiting to
commit crimes.

> We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....

I don't understand this sentence.

> IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
> But should it have to be like that ??

Life isn't fair.  I shouldn't need a fire extinguisher either, or
flood and theft insurance, or to lock the doors of my house and car.
But pining for a better world won't do anything to address what I have
to do to live in this one.

> Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??

None of ours, I'm sure.

> If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
> it should be free to buy guns ??

Frankly, I'm not sure I know what good a driver's license does anyone,
either.  The people who drive safely never use it, and the people who 
drive drunk, drive without it!

However, a car is a good tool, but not one that protects my right to life.
I rank the right to life somewhere north of the right to travel freely.

> I'm not a pacifist or anti gun. 
> I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
> neccities or toys.
> I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
> want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....

The question is not whether or not you want to own guns personally.  It's
whether or not you think that ALL people should be forced to do as you do.
I don't have any problem with someone who says they would never own a gun.
I do have a problem with someone who says I should be prevented from owning
one, too.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54274
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: [long]: Gun Hearings Day in Massachusetts (April 7)

[This is a co-authored report from two of us who were there.]

Gun Owners Action League, our state rifle association, started the day
with a rally in the secluded courtyard behind the statehouse at 9:30.
It was looking sparse (about 40 people) until the speaker began,
whereupon about 120 more people followed the loudspeakers from
wherever they had been lost, and filled out the area something proud.

Mike Yacino of GOAL spoke.  One of his best throwaway lines was to
remind us that all of us holders of carry permits there had been
checked and certified clear of all crimes by the state; while the
people in the Statehouse behind us only had to be certified clean of
"election fraud" to hold their jobs.

Nancy Snow and Amos Hamburger were busy handing out ID buttons and
sheets describing all the bills to be presented at the hearings, and
telling people where to find their own representatives (and in too
many cases, who they were).

Mike warned us that the committee was going to suspend its rules and
discuss a bill that hadn't made it onto the official list.  It seems a
delegation of students from Simon's Rock of Bard College (alma mater
of Wayne Lo, who shot up the place with an SKS late last year) was
being bussed in to testify for a bill to ban all sales of firearms or
ammo to anyone who is not a state resident.

The hearings were originally scheduled in the (large) Gardner
Auditorium at 10:30, but that had been pre-empted by the Governor's
hearings on the Framingham Eight (women in prison for killing abusive
husbands, and seeking release).  So we had until 1:30 to buttonhole
our representatives, after which we would be squashed into an
inadequate hearing room.

One of my representatives' staffers was somewhat offensively smarmy.
He said, "Oh, it must be gun hearings day again!  The gun lobby is
always so organized every year."  I got a little pissed, and replied,
"I'm not from the gun lobby -- I'm from your district."

At 12:30, your second reporter arrived in time to notice a
demonstration going on in front of the statehouse (where the
pro-gunners weren't).  Randy Price from the TV News was there, in his
mirror reflective shades, talking to one of the anti-gun types, and
several Simon's Rock anti-gun "close-the-loophole" protestors.
(Earlier, Randy had covered the GOAL rally.)

The room we had been assigned seated about 50.  Remember, there were
about 160 gun owners there, plus another 20-30 students and teachers
from Bard.  One of us had already reserved a seat; the other never got
closer than the atrium outside -- and there was a crowd behind HIM.  A
cop took up station at the entrance and prevented the rest of the
crowd from coming in.  Soon after the debate started, a loudspeaker
was set up outside in the hall for the benefit of everyone else.

Everyone who was there (inside and outside) got to sign up on a sheet
saying what their position was on which bills.  Most of us signed up
to "support GOAL's position" on "all bills."

First, because of their time constraints, public officials got to
testify.  And first up was the bill that nobody had seen (the students
had some curfew, I guess).  

Currently, Massachusetts law allows a non-resident to purchase long
guns or ammo from a local dealer provided he complies with the laws of
his own state.  Previously, the law was similar, but applied only to
non-residents from states adjoining Massachusetts.  The Simon's Rock
folks called the current law a "loophole" and wanted it closed.

Two of their reps spoke about Wayne Lo and his "SKS assault rifle."
The second one, Hodgekiss, a co-sponsor, had done his homework so well
that he kept confusing Montana (Wayne Lo's home state) with Missouri,
and became belligerent when about five gun owners in the gallery
corrected him after his second muff.  Carr, from Gloucester, claimed
that the new bill would put the law back the way it was, but he was
lying: the new bill allows purchases by non-residents of adjoining
states ONLY if they have licensing in their own state "as strong as"
that in Massachusetts.  Since none of them do, that's that.

Some of the things these two said were really offensive.  "In some of
these other states, anyone can buy a gun as long as he's breathing!"
(Oooooo!)  "We have some very, very good gun laws in Massachusetts; if
only the other states would adopt the same type of laws, we wouldn't
be having this situation -- but they won't."  (Naughty, naughty!)

Next up was Boston city councilman Albert "Dapper" O'Neill.  He was
there to testify pro-gun, but in some ways he was a liability.  He's
reasonably elderly and tends to wander and repeat himself, plus he's
almost a caricature of a law-n-order politician.  He badmouthed the
ACLU, said violent criminals should be executed, and that if he were
judge, he'd give arrestees their "last rights" (pun intended) on the
spot (at which many of the gun owners applauded, which bothered me.)
He said that all the proposed gun restrictions were a step in the
right direction -- for the criminals.  He said this FOUR times :-(

Two of the bills under consideration would allow police to rescind a
CCW or FID, and confiscate all your guns, if someone had filed a
restraining order against you.  (Note that the filing of a restraining
order requires no warrant, no hearing, no evidence, and no conviction
-- just an accusation.)  Senator Barrett of Reading testified in favor
of it, and patronized the pro-gunners there several times by saying,
"I'm sure all the gun owners here will agree with me that we have to
get these weapons out of the hands of people that our courts have
convicted."  I haven't seen such a disgustingly disingenuous
performance since Nixon whined that he wasn't a crook.

Barrett also spoke in favor of the bill making the FID card renewable
every five years, instead of permanent as it is now.  The stated
purpose is to remove FID cards from those who have become ineligible.
"Revenue has nothing to do with it."  (Yeah, right.)  Apparently, some
congressmen think we're stupid enough to swallow the argument that
it's preferable to process 1.6 million renewals every cycle in the
vague hope of catching a recent felon than to simply take the goddamn
card away from a criminal at conviction time.  As usual, hassle the
law-abiding instead of the crook.

The two co-chairs of the committee were Rep. Caron and Sen. Jujuga.
Jujuga didn't say much (he was a co-sponsor of both "restraining
order" bills) but Caron struck me as a sharp guy that wouldn't let any
bad logic or lies on the part of either side to go unchallenged.  (He 
was a co-sponsor of one of the "restraining order" bills as well.)  One
of the younger reps on the committee (forgot his name) was
vociferously pro-gun, somewhat embarrassingly so.  His heart was in
the right place, but his arguments seemed to be confined to, "every
year it's the same damn thing, you come in here with this crap..."
It's nice to have a friend on the committee, but he could have been
more effective.

At about 3:00, it was clear that the hall-jam couldn't continue.
Someone came out of another meeting hall and yelled at the cop because
the loudspeaker was disturbing their meeting, so the loudspeaker was
disconnected.  So they found a bigger hall upstairs.  One of us had
to leave to catch his charter bus, and so missed the "public"
testimony; the other got a seat this time.

Caron began by talking about how he got his FID 16 years ago, left the
state, and then returned without notifying them of his address change.
He complained that the state record system was not up-to-date and that
his PD back in his city of birth still thought he lived there.  Great
quote: "If you purchase a gun today, it will not get into the state
computer system until 1999."  (This was also an argument he used
against the renewable FID card.)

Testimony was heard from several "battered women," one of whom had
been attacked by some guy in his 20's who had an FID card because he
got it when he was 15 or thereabouts.  They used a lot of emotion and
said how they were scared of these men.  A staffer of Attorney General
Harshbarger testified in favor of this anti-gun bill, saying how
50,000 restraining orders were granted last year, and how these women
needed to be protected.  Caron noted that a restraining order was
granted for 10 days, and then a hearing was held to determine whether
the order would be extended to a year.  He asked whether she would be
satisfied if the FID were revoked at the time of this hearing rather
than after the initial issuance of the FID.  She gave some long
rambling circumlocution in response.

Then testimony against the bill was heard.  Mike Yacino (who looks
something like Einstein) got up and made the point that restraining
orders were issued on too little evidence, that judges like to issue
restraining orders just to let things cool off no matter who they
think is right (man or woman), and that the hearings for restraining
orders are lightning sessions with little time to consider facts.
Atty. Karen McNutt spoke with him a few times during his testimony.

Other pro-gunners got up to testify.  One said he had had to file a
restraining order against a tenant to clear her out, and that she
countered by filing one against him!  He noted that this would have
allowed the state to confiscate his guns if the new bill became law.
One of the junior reps noted that "this is America" and we have to be
certain that individual rights are respected.  Senator Jujuga
reiterated this, saying that "people who abuse smaller people can go
to Hell as far as I care, but we have to be careful about equating
conviction with a restraining order."  (Point and match, Senator.)

Another pro-gunner got up and testified that he didn't know his
citizenship "expired every 5 years," and that a driver's license was a
privilege, not a right like the right to keep and bear arms.

A third got up and said the problem was with the criminal justice
system, and argued in favor of a death penalty bill and public
hangings.  Senator Jujuga said he had himself tried to get a death
penalty bill passed, and joking responded that he, too, favored public
hangings.  The speaker then responded, "I'll make you a deal.  You get
me the rope, and I'll tie the noose."

Next came public testimony on the Simon's Rock bill.  A teacher
testified that she had been the teacher of Wayne Lo, and that "he
wouldn't have been able to shoot people inside a building while he was
outside" without his evil gun.  She said that the "loophole" should be
closed to prevent something like this from "ever happening again".

Four or five other kids testified in favor of this bill, one of
spilling tears for the good legislators.  One of the students actually
shot by Wayne Lo was also there.  Many of them had T shirts on,
saying, "As long as one person can buy a gun in anger, none of us are
safe -- support gun control."  The committee was reluctant to grill or
correct the kids, except for Caron, who corrected one student who had
claimed that anyone could apply for an FID.  "Only residents can get
FID's," he said.  (How much do you want to bet that this kid had no
idea he had been conned into testifying for a bill that would cut
out-of-staters completely off?)

Yacino and McNutt spoke again, this time noting that the bill as
written would affect both ammo AND ALL guns possessed by
out-of-staters.  Karen also noted that hunters in CT, NH, and VT could
be put away for a year if they wandered across the MA boundary
somewhere in the woods and got challenged by game wardens.  Yacino
underscored the fact that Lo COULD have gotten an FID as a resident
student -- and, hell, even an CCW, as he had NO criminal or mental
record.

One junior rep was upset that it would take MA residents longer to buy
a gun than out-of-staters, and thought it was "elitist".  Another
(Caron?) said that we need the protection of preventing non-residents
from buying without an FID because only two other states in the union
had "FID-type" cards, so complying with all the laws of one's home
state was "not enough."  One pro-gun speaker replied that this
resembled a mother watching her son in a marching band and exclaiming,
"Everyone's out of step but Johnny!"

All the Bard College people were filing out as the pro-gun testimony
for this bill was made, and thus only pro-gunners were around when the
other bills came under consideration.  The main bills remaining (and
GOAL's position) were:

o  H.4375 and four others: Notify police chiefs so they can pull 
   licenses when a holder is convicted (strongly supported)

o  H.1732: Require trigger locks on all handguns sold (opposed)

o  H.962: Require trigger locks on all loaded firearms (strongly
   opposed)

o  H.1350: Allow every municipality to enact their own gun laws 
   (opposed)

o  H.1731: Fund bullet-proof vests for municipal police (supported)

o  S.1097: State Constitutional Amendment for the RKBA (supported)

o  Several on police discretion in the issuance of FID cards (opposed)

o  Several altering non-resident license conditions (supported)

o  H.1135: Ban damn near all guns everywhere in the state (guess!)

Some of these took only 30 seconds to consider, as the remaining
pro-gunners raised hands in unison either for or against them.

Mike Yacino noted that, besides the danger in screwing with a trigger
lock on a loaded gun, that bill would make it illegal for a licensee
to carry his concealed handgun unless it were locked.

Caron blew right through H.1350 when he saw that we opposed it.
Again, he brought up the state's archaic records capability and said,
"This would create hundreds of different licensing systems."

The session ran late -- since it was the last scheduled hearing, it
could not be adjourned until everyone who wanted to had testified.  It
ended at about 6:30.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54275
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:

>>                                     A BILL 
>>   
>> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

>Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
>I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.
>-- 

>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...

I don't think your objection is beyond the bounds of rationality.  The
right mentioned in the bill is already established under the Second
Amendment; the bill should be reworded to reaffirm the Second Amendment
RKBA, and then establish the procedures for redress through the federal
court system.

The right already exists and is already embodied in our Constitution.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54277
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do 
>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it 
>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?

This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills. 
In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them, 
you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54278
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Re: UPI News Release


Cathy Smith posting for L. Neil Smith

Dear Bill -- 

Very, VERY good -- you made my whole day with this post. Thanks
a lot.

L. Neil Smith

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54279
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>>I have been at a shooting range where
>>gang members were "practicing" shooting.
>
>How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
>or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
>
"We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on
the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.  There
are many, many bad things going on in that area.  Also, I have several friends
that live very close to that area who have had problems with some of these
folks.  By the way, where did I say that they were minorities?  Do you think
that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned
it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.  I
don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.  If
you would have been there Andy it would've been obvious to you too.  Of course
it might not have been.  Who knows.  All I do know is that I was there, I live
here and I know that they were gang bangers.  When you live here long enough it
becomes pretty easy to spot them via gang colors, gang signs, etc.  One last
thing.  My sister is a social worker.  She makes it her point to find these
things out (gang signs, colors, etc) because it is in her best interest to do
so.  She is nice enough to let me know these things so I can watch out for
myself as I live right on the border of the west side of the city. Enough said.

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54280
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1qc5sa$obl@pandora.sdsu.edu>, chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:
}     A note on the lighter side, I've noticed most gun-banners (some of my
}   friends included) are the one who make comments that indicate they are 
}   more likely to resort to violent.  So are they really banning guns so they 
}   wouldn't end up shooting someone else?

Could be.

It is also likely that since they feel they are more likely to resort to
violence, they have a hard time believing that anyone else would react
otherwise.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"Well, I did say we'll put it out and we'll put it out when we can.
 But I don't know what we can put out or when we can put it out."
 -- George Stephanopolous.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54281
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
} 	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
} 	own, use or display a firearm.
} ...
} 
}       Given society
} 	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
} 	as many guns as possible.

Considering that the uses include self defense, hunting, target shooting
and collecting, I don't buy the notion that the vast majority of people
don't "own, use or display a firearm".

But let's say your contention is true.  What's the point of "get[ting]
rid of as many guns as possible", if they weren't being used anyway?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"Well, I did say we'll put it out and we'll put it out when we can.
 But I don't know what we can put out or when we can put it out."
 -- George Stephanopolous.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54282
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements


I don't know what Traders is claiming, but it appears to me that
the Oakland Tribune has censored gun ads in the past.  Likewise
for the San Francisco Chronicle, and I have never seen a gun
ad in the San Francisco Examiner.

Specifically, about a year ago on Thursdays, when Traders placed
its ads, the Chron. ad would not have any graphics representing
any handgun sale, though text could list it.  The Trib. would
run a graphic of a handgun.  The Examiner would not have a Traders
ad at all.

Over the past year while Oakland politicians have made a lot of noise
about measures to fight crime the Trib stopped taking the Traders
ad, then started publishing it, but without any handgun graphic, then
stopped, then started.  Since the Trib. was sold some months ago it
has not had the Traders ad.  During one of these non-ad interludes
a Traders employee told me that the Trib. had refused to take their
ads.

Yes, the usual Chron. Thursday ad was there today, with graphics
representing rifles, safes, etc. as usual.

Joan V

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54283
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
>> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?

There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year.
The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500
fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those
occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted
gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably
well under 250 per year.

>>If you fall, for example,
>> and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.

Handguns designs have included a "hammer block" since around 1960
or earlier. This is a metal part which physically seperates
the cartridge and the firing pin: Even under impact, the gun
cannot fire. The hammer block is connected to the trigger and
is pulled out of the way as the trigger is pulled. As a result,
modern pistols can fire _only_ if the trigger is pulled (or 
in some cases, if they are cocked by hand and then dropped.) 

>> The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of
>> deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.

I don't know about animal attacks, but there are 23,500 murders 
each year and under 500 die in the manner you suggest. If only
2.1% of the murders were killings by "wacko"s, you would be
wrong. Worse, there are also 102,500 rapes and 1,055,000 aggravated
assaults each year. These numbers make violent attacks, and 
preventing them, thousands of times more significant than the
accidents you are worried about.

(These figures, by the way, are from the FBI's "Uniform Crime
Report" for 1990. I'll stop by a library tomorrow and look at
the "National Crime Victimization Survey", which is more
specific about where and when the crimes occured.)

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54284
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: DeConcini -- ten years ago and today

 Dennis Deconcini, 1982
 
...In these and similar areas, the
Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5
U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by
administrative bodies.
   These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Sub-
committee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded
rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
   It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise
of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
   It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably search-
ing and seizing private property.
   It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property
without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens with-
out regard for their right to due process of law.
   The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was
utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the
Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities
were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons ille-
gally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to
be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently
made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documen-
tation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before
BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence
was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF
gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither
criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into
unknowning technical violations.
 
( Exerpt from: 97th Congress; 2d Session   COMMITTEE PRINT
     T H E   R I G H T   T O   K E E P   A N D   B E A R   A R M S
                                REPORT
                                of the
                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                                of the
                      COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                         UNITED STATES SENATE
                        NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
                            SECOND SESSION
                             FEBRUARY, 1982
        Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-618 O
                        WASHINGTON : 1982
 
 
Letter to Constituent: April 1993
 
 
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms (ATF), which is the Federal law enforcement agency with
jurisdiction over firearms violations and regulations.
 
It has been my experience as chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government which
funds ATF, that ATF is one of the most competent and highly
professional law enforcement agencies in the Federal government.
The agents of ATF have proven their value again and again in
successful, legal operations to curb the unlawful possession and use
of firearms, especially in the area of  drug-related crimes.  It
enforces the Armed Career Criminal Act which calls for mandatory
minimum sentences for repeat felons using firearms to carry out  an
illegal activity.  The Bureau has made itself a key component in
preventing gang related violence, also, both by educating at-risk
youth to the dangers of gang membership as well a s by depriving known
gangs from access to weapons.
 
The Waco, Texas case involved the execution of search warrants by ATF
on the Branch Davidians for illegal firearms and explosives possession
(automatics, semi-automatics, and machine-guns, in addition to bombs
and other explosives.)  In virtually every gun case, ATF is asked to
trace weapons through its' National Firearms Tracing Center, where
they keep all dealer and Federal firearms license information.  ATF
is the Federal governments' firearms expert and routinely works with
state and local police to execute warrants.  ATF, working with state
and local law enforcement in Texas and the U.S. Attorneys' office
felt it was necessary to execute these warrants in order to legally
establish that a crime had been committed and conclude a long and
thorough investigation of illegal gun and explosives held by members
of the Branch Davidians.  In addition, ATF carefully selected a
Sunday morning, knowing from their source, inside, that the men would
be separated from the women and children and not in the area where
it was known that the illegal weapons were stored.
 
As you may be aware by now, Vernon Howell a.k.a. David Koresh
spiritual leader of the Branch Davidians was tipped of the impending
execution of the search warrants.  Unfortunately, ATF lost the
element of surprise and the cult was able to arm themselves  and
prepare for ATFs' entry into the compound.  Once a hostage situation
presented itself, the ATF asked the FBI to become involved since the
FBI is skilled in hostage negotiations.  In addition, and military
tanks were brought in due to the serious nature of the situation and
firepower of the Branch Davidians.
 
Based on what I have learned about ATF's role in the Branch Davidian
raid, I believe the agency acted responsibly.  I am, however, deeply
saddened by the loss of lives of the 4 law enforcement agents who
attempted to enter the compound and the civilian members of the
cult.  I fully expect the Department of  Treasury to conduct a
thorough evaluation with representatives from law enforcement outside
the Department to be headed by the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement.  In addition, ATF will conduct its' own review of the
Waco operation.  I look forward to reviewing the findings of the
evaluators and hope this situation in Waco will be brought to a quick
and peaceful conclusion.
 
Sincerely,
 
Dennis DeConcini
Chairman
Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service and
General Government
 
April 7, 1993
 
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54285
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Crimestrike Alert for Texas

Fellow Texans and Members of Crime Strike in Texas
 
Crime Strike in Texas has a loosely knit coalition with most
Victims Rights Groups in Texas. We ask that you write a
letter protesting the release of the following murderer.
 
This letter should be written to :
 
Raven Kazen - Victims Services
Board of Pardons and Paroles
P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station
Austin, Texas 78711
 
The letter should be written if at all possible on RED PAPER
as that was agreed on at one of our first meetings . It
represents the coalition and all of its parts as well as the
heart ache of those left behind and the blood spilled by
these criminals. The letter should have only one name on it
so it can be filed in the folder of that criminal waiting for
his next try at parole.
 
List of Criminals:
 
Today we have only one parole to protest , On October 4,
1990, Mark Steven Hughes rendered numerous blows to the head
of James Allen Pompa . Ten month old James went into a coma
and died two days later.
 
On July 8, 1992, Mark Steven Hughes pled guilty to Injury to
a Child and received a ten-year sentence. According to Texas
law, Mark became eligible for parole on January 4, 1992 --
six months before he was even sentenced!
 
Would you join us in strongly protesting the release from
prison of Mark Steven Hughes, who beat a baby to death .
 
Mark Steven Hughes - beat to death the baby boy of
Russel Pompa -- Reference Mark Steven Hughes - TDC# 633546
 
 
Mark your envelope   "PROTEST LETTER" on the front and back.
 
A typical letter is indicated on the next page ---
 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
 
Irvin Wilson - Volunteer Crime Strike Texas
 
 
Date: April 13, 1993
 
Raven Kazen - Victims Services
Board of Pardons and Paroles
P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station
Austin , Texas 78711
 
I protest the parole of Mark Steven Hughes TDC#633546, who,
murdered James Son of Russel Pompa.
 
He should be kept in prison for his full sentence and not be
released at any time prior to his full sentence for any
reason.
 
 
Irvin Wilson
Houston, Texas
 
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54286
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio Legislative Alert -- H.B. 278

OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE  TUEDAY, APRIL 6, 1993
 
H.B. NO. 278- REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY
 
        TO AMMEND  SECTION 2923.11, 2923.17, AND 2923.20 AND TO ENACT 
N 2923.181 OF THE REVISED CODE TO EXPAND THE DEFINTION OF DANGEROUS 
ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE MILITARY WEAPONS THAT DO NOT USE BOLT ACTION, TO 
INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBTION AGAINST POSSESION 
OF DANGEROUS ORDINANCE, TO PROHIBIT ANY PERSON FROM ACQUIRING A MILITARY 
WEAPON ON OR AFTER THE ACT'SEFFECTIVE DATE, TO REQUIRE THE LICENSURE OF 
MILITARY WEAPONS ACQUIRED FOR A PROPER PURPOSE PRIOR TO THE ACT'S 
EFFECTIVE DATE, TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM IMPORTING, MANUFACTURING, OR 
SELLING A MILITARY WEAPON, AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
 
As of Monday, April 12, 1993  H.B. 278 had not been assigned to a 
committee.  Introduced as an emergency measure if this passes there is no 
chance for a reforendum, and would go into effect immediately as opposed 
to the state requirement of 90 days before a law goes into effect.
 
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54287
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio Legislative Alert -- H.B. 287

OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE   THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993
 
H.B. NO. 287- REPRESENTATIVES SEESE, DAVIS, BATCHELDER, AMSTUTZ, T. 
JOHNSON, VAN VYVEN, WACHTMANN, WHITE, DI DONATO, BOGGS, LOGAN
 
        TO AMEND SECTION 1531.01 OF THE REVISED CODE TO ADD MOURNING DOVE 
TO THE GAME BIRD LIST AND PERMIT THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE IN 
THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO REGULATE THE HUNTING OF MOURNING 
DOVES, AND TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION.
 
This would allow the hunting of mourning doves in Ohio and give the 
sportsman something they have been pushing for.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54288
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his
chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
Duke.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54289
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

In article <1993Apr16.030706.3318@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
>>> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?
>
>There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year.
>The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500
>fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those
>occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted
>gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably
>well under 250 per year.

       I'm neither a doctor nor a firearms tech expert, but it would seem
that given the way a holstered gun points, accidental injuries inflicted
that way would be among the least lethal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54290
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:

> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
> >and unequivocally, without infringement.

> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last 
> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:

> 	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security 
                         ^^^^^^^ Militia

> 	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear 
                  ^^^^^ State

> 	arms, shall not be infringed.
        ^^^^ Arms

You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
Constitution. 

> This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
> to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined 
> structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.

Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!

    James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of
    being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
    every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to
    which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
    are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
    ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
    of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military
    establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
    carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
    are afraid to trust the people with arms."
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right
    of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed.  A
    well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
    country..."

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of
    the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
    respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
    will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
    a year."

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing
    armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the
    government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
    formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large
    body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****
    own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
    ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But *surely* Hamilton and Madison didn't mean the PEOPLE when they
said "people", right?  That's why the Amendment refers to "the Right
of the Militia"?...  ;-)

> Your average 
> 17-45 year old male does not fall into the definition.

You're right, the Militia consists of ALL able bodied males (and
probably females under current interpretation). 

> Therefore most
> members of The Militia, the one the every gun advocate refers to, are
> not members of a well organized militia and therefore are not directly

The Amendment does nor refer to "well organized", it says "well
regulated".  I have some targets you may examine if you wish to check
how _well regulated_ I am. 

> mentioned in the amendment.

> If this amendment wanted to allow every member of The Militia to keep
> and bear arms, why did it specificly mention a "well organized militia" 
> in the SAME SENTENCE as the right to keep and bear arms?

Correct.  That's why the Right is reserved to the People.  And that
was to insure the People could form a "well regulated Militia", not a
"well organized militia".

> It could be
> argued that the first part of the sentence is separate from the last 
> part.  If so, why was it include in the same atomic unit of written

What do Atomic Units have to do with this argument?  Any moron can set
h_bar = C = 1...

> instead of a separate sentence?

Oh, I see what your question is; Why don't you read the federalist
Papers?! 

    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
    Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
    to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
    recital of particulars."

But what does Madison know about the grammatical style of the 2nd?  He
only wrote it.

> The amendment also implies that the right to arms has to due with 
> the security of a free state.  The Federalist Paper's mention of a
> well regulated militia gives many examples of how this militia protects
> the security of a free state.  All these examples are actions of a
> very organized force, not some John Q. Public with a gun.

That's obviously because you've never actually *read* the Federalist
Papers. 

> All that the Second Amendment clearly states to me is that the people's
> right to form well regulated militias shall not be infringed.  That is 
> people have the right to join a well organized militia.  This well
> organized militia will, of course, provide training in how to use arms
> and in basic military tactics.  These training members of the militia
> can keep and bear the arms.

Can't read, huh?  Show me where the document says "well organized
militia". 

> Lastly, reading through the Federalist Paper's on well organized 
> militia it is very clear that many of the reasons for these militias.
> One reason stated is the protection from a standing army.  These days
> the standing army could easily defeat a group consisting of every 
> 17-45 year old male and female not in the armied forces.

That is *exactly* why EVERY PERSON should be allowed to own *any*
weapon currently in use in the armed forces.

> Another
> reason stated for well organized militias is to reduced the need
> for a standing army.  Well, the US Armied Forces have been a standing
> army for more than half the history of the US.

But the major reason is to protect against that very same army.

> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.

    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
    to raise an army upon their ruins."

So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
our Liberties and Rights.

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54291
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Nuclear/heavy weapons and the Militia [Long]

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

	Down to 170-some odd lines.  We must be making progress!
On an ironic note, where I deleted lines Emacs continually gave me
the message "Garbage collecting... Done."  Think it's trying to
tell me something?

>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>And thank you: It's a great change from the same tired old debates...

	You lurkers can join in at any time, you know!  Ahhh..
Talk.politics.guns -- the kindler, gentler newsgroup.  Who would
have thought?

>No, not exactly: The only reason for this sort of restriction is
>the possible endangerment of others. A poorly maintained 
>rifle is dangerous, but only to the user; since it doesn't
>endanger others, there is no justification for such restrictions.

	I remind you of shrapnel.  I consider 5' a reasonable space
limitation, but make no mistake a gun blowing up is a hazard to
those nearby, say in the next lane at the range.  My point was at
what distance, or level of threat, we draw the line.  Is it the
endangerment of others, so we do a 5' restriction, or the possibility
of being shot, hence we draw a 1.5 mile restriction, or a nuke and
draw a 5 mile restriction?  To me they al suffer from the fundamental
flaw that they restrict based upon the instrument rather than placing
the responsibility for usage squarely upon the shoulders of the user.
Perhaps Sen. Metzenbaum declaring the Barrett Light Fifty an assault
rifle has made this more apparent to me, since the Barrett has
only range and acurracy going for it.

>They have determined that their lives are worth the effort to
>protect their homes and families. Using nuclear weapons close 
>to home will not accomplish this.

	I disagree, on the grounds that a house can be rebuilt much
more easily than my family once I have died.  I assume that word
would get to the citizens that such an attack was planned.  If this
is not the case, the tactical and strategic implications change
quite a bit.  Personally, my home is worth, say, twenty Martians
intent on taking over the world.  My family?  All of them.  The
balancing act here is hard to judge sitting at my desk.

>There is, however, another problem: In any case of civil war,
>the strength of the militias fighting on each side should
>reflect the popular will. If the public is split 67% versus
>33%, then the minorities' militias should be at a 2:1 disadvantage.
>Such a need for popular support would, hopefully, prevent 
>insurrections unless the people really were behind the rebels.
>But heavy weapons owned by a small fraction of the militia 
>could distort this: What if the 33% minority included all the
>tank and artillery owners?

	That seems to be the case already, given that heavy
weapons aren't commonly owned by the citizenry.  With such low
numbers, obviously due to cost, I don't think the superior
weapons are going to be of great effect against a numerically
superior foe.  Furthermore, it is even more doubtful their training
includes proper tactical movements that best utilize tanks,
whereas the commonly rifleman is not so hampered in effectiveness.

>I think it is vital to avoid such a situation, where a small 
>minority would have a reasonable chance of gaining political power
>through violence. To prevent this, it may be necessary to give 
>control of heavy weapons (e.g. those which only a small number
>of individuals would own _and_ whose firepower would grossly 
>distort the relation between popular support and military 
>strength) to someone other that individual militiamen. This is
>certainly not a good thing, but I think it is the lesser of two evils.
>Whoever controls these weapons must be a democratic body,
>responsive to the will of the people.

	I had envisioned that the armorer, perhaps the officers
of a select group, and the like would exercise control over the
heavier, more complex weapons.  But, if Joe Bob owns an old Sherman
tank I certainly wouldn't ask him to give it up.  Follow orders
from the officers, yes.  Since the expense of a tank is so large,
though, chances are it would be jointly purchased and should
therefore be jointly maintained and operated.

>Here, I think we have to be carefull about _which_ "state" we
>are talking about: Certainly one role of the militia is to
>overthrow a repressive government, and it would be completely
>destructive to that end for that same government to control 
>the militia's arms. But the United States have several levels
>of government, each able to act independently, but not all
>likely targets of rebelion.
>As such, rebelions against state and
>local governments are very unlikely. I think, therefore, that the
>state (or possibly local) governments could safely be allowed to
>keep the select militia's heavy weapons. The risk of abuse, while
>still something to consider, is far less than the similar risk
>were the federal government in control.

	This I'll agree with to a point.  The State having control
over the heavy weapons should not be justification for the state
to have them centrally located.  Keep them spread out, such that
the ability of the State to lock them up isn't so easy.  Otherwise,
I would have to assume that State control would rest on the
authority of the Governor and militia officers.

>That is eaxctly why I think they should be removed: The select
>militia should privide the militia's heavy weapons and highly-trained
>specialists. For the reasons I have outlines above, I think 
>these heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc...) are
>better off being kept by local governments than by a small 
>number of individuals. However, local governments shouldn't
>be able to use the select militia without the support to the
>people. Ideally, the general militia, under the direct 
>control of the people, and the select militia, under the direction
>of democratic, local governments, would opperate together.
>But even in the worst case, the general militia should be able
>to functional without the select militia. Similarly, the
>select militia should be incapable of action without the
>aid of the general militia.

	I'm having a hard time seeing how these heavy weapons,
fairly few in numbers, could not be easily wielded by a few
people with government support.  Just as you argued above that
the weapons should be divvied up and under democratic control
so one side doesn't have all of them, I can't see where this
situation is alleviated in having the select militia holding
all the weapons and the unorganized militia being the infantry.
I think a better mix is called for.  But, I would argue that
the Federal army should rely upon the select militia and the
unorganized militia for the bulk of its infantry units.

>Consider, then, the effect of removing the National Guard's
>infantry and placing the Guard under the control of local
>governments. The government-controled select militia could
>not fight effectively without infantry support provided by
>the general militia (an inherently infantry organization.) 
>On the other hand, the general militia could function (although
>at a disadvantage) without the backing of local governments and
>the select militia.

	We have to assume that there would be those who would
side with the government-controlled forces, and if they've all
the equipment an infantry force 3x the size would be in trouble.
I'd like to see that heavy stuff, say tanks, offset by the
local troups having a few 105's and anti-tank weapons in their
armory.  These would be much more useful to infantry than the
tank would be when cost and training requirements are figured in.
I suppose I'm quibbling over what constitutes heavy equipment.

>>...but a mechanized infantry unit is what builds
>>dikes in times of flood, sets up disaster relief cities, and
>>the like.
>
>I would much rather see these things handled by the local, 
>general militias.

	So would I, but the resources often aren't available to
outfit local units well enough.  Thus, we will certainly have to
call in others, and a mechanized unit carries more stuff faster
than anything else.

>Perhaps the National Guard isn't as close to my conception of
>the select militia as I thought: I was considering them to 
>be the heavy weapons/armor arm of the militia, not the infantry
>arm of the regular army.

	Perhaps our ideas of heavy weapons are different?  I think
main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, and 155mm and up
field pieces are heavy stuff.  M113 troop carriers, 2 1/2 ton
trucks, HumVee's, old M60 tanks, 105 Howitzers, are more the stuff
of a mechanized infantry.  Actually, this is what the Guard units
in Iowa are currently fielding in some units.

	Perhaps it is just my innate fear of having the real heavy
equipment under State control, with little but numbers and light
stuff to act as a deterrent.  Allowing main battle tanks to the
states should be balanced with anti-tank capability in the local
ranks.  Similarly, local units would need to band together quickly,
hence small and fast response means mechanized infantry.  Finally,
the militia is more than just fighting.  Equipment is needed for
other responses.  The Federal army, I'm convinced, should have a
very minumum of infantry, relying on the state and local militias
for these functions.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >









Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54292
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>I HATE long postings, but this turned out to be rather lengthy....

	That's OK -- you can mail me if you want more discussion.

>Acquiring weapons in Norway:
>You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a 
>permit, and a good reason to get the permit....

	Around here, long-guns are proof of age and fill out the forms.
For pistols, nation-wide check for felonies and three days wait.  The
"good reason" is the difference, and one Americans tend to get annoyed
over as we see no reason the guy with the badge is any better than us.

>It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
>You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

	Not when dealing with America.  I can drive an 18-wheel truck
with no permit, no license, and at age 12 if I'm engaged in farming
work.  Strange, that, but there is little to no problem with this.
Again, personal rights versus collective security.

>Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
>for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
>Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
>time befor the crime.

	Strange that the rates would decline, since killing somebody
is much more frowned upon than merely stealing a gun.

>Use of knives:
>It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
>You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
>in public -rigth ??

	Why attract attention?  I carry my sword openly to and from
practice, as that is the only legal thing I can do.  I also attract
a lot of attention doing this.  I'd rather be lost "in a crowd of one"
than be the subject of attention while carrying a weapon.  Think of
the word "intimidation" and you can see where intimidation is not
the preferable method for the normal citizen.

>Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
>We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
>to take action we DO.
>Ask ANY historian or millitary with an knowledge of europe....
>(Or ask any German who served in Norway in WW2.....)

	Aggressive towards whom?  Southerners?  Germans?  Precisely
why I think your society is less violent, weapons aside.

>Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
>extent....
>Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
>What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
>all the [masses?? -- editor barf -- Dan]

	Then the masses have the same rights as the individuals, because
everything comes down to the individual in one instance or another.  To
draw an analogy, Norway is involved in the EEC.  The USA in involved in
NATO.  The EEC requires certain changes in your laws.  NATO requires
no such changes in USA law.  These laws affect citizens, and hence
Norway is saying Europe is more important than, say, Norwegians having
motorcycles that make over 100bhp.  In the USA, we'd likely tell the
EEC to get stuffed since the EEC has no business, in our eyes, in
telling us how much horsepower we can safely ride.  While I note
that our own state governments often play with game with the federal
government, in essence this is a cultural difference between us.

>IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
>But should it have to be like that ??

	It shouldn't.  Since neither of our countries has managed to
remove criminals from society, in America we feel (and remember we
have individual states that are larger than your country) that if the
police cannot protect us then we must do so ourselves.  The criminals
in our country are quite violent, hence we prepare for them.

>Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
>If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
>it should be free to buy guns ??

	We don't.  E-mail me to find out just how difficult it really
is in this country.  It is easier than in yours, but theft is far
easier than the troubles we go through to purchase over here.

>I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
>neccities or toys.

	They are neither.  They are an option.  We would never force
you to own guns if you lived here.  We would, however, fight to keep
that option open to you.

>I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
>want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....

	Then you show you are a responsible, rational user of weapons.
Welcome to our ranks.  Now, how do we teach the young people this sort
of responsibility?  Cultures seem to have a grave impact here.

	I notice you didn't use my great-grandfather's name.  Well,
he didn't like it much either ;-)

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54293
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

In article <1993Apr14.165633.2170@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>As for the MOVE incident, wasn't the mayor of Philadelphia at the time Black ?

For the first Move incident (no bomb, several members killed in
gunfire, circa 1978) the mayor was the very white Frank Rizzo.  
For the second (bomb included) the mayor was Wilson Goode, who 
is indeed black.

-jim halat

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54294
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: A Scoop of Waco Road, Please

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>Your "lite" posting for the day, from rec.humor.funny:

>In article <S539.2adf@looking.on.ca>, bellas@tti.com (Pete Bellas) writes:
>> 
>> There is a new Ice Cream Flavor inspired by the incident at Waco.
>> 
>> It's called Mount Caramel, it's full of nuts but you can't get it out
>> of the carton.
>-- 

>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...


Even though I find this to be funny on the surface, the original poster of the
joke has  tried and convicted the members of the BD to be a bunch of "nuts".
This may be a dangerous thing to do.  It is my opinion that most educated
or well informed people of this country have some distrust of the government.
This should exist because as a bureaucracy, any government given enough time
will tend to exist for it self and not for the original purpose it was 
created for.  This distrust by the people should keep those in power in-line.
That and a properly functioning press.  When a sensationalism oriented press
portrays a group of people as "nuts" or crazies, a violation of those
people's civil rights seem justified.   Since we, as American's, have the 
gurantee of rights as enumerated in the constitution, to include the
2nd ammendment, the government must appease the public's opinion or risk 
voted out of existance, or if it has become corrupt enough to tamper with
domocratic process itself, being thrown out by force.
  Our government as it stands, must appease the public.  Therefore the 
official press releases portray the BD's as fanatics who are a threat to
public safety.  We must not prejudge people based on one sided information.
So far the only information that we are being given is comming from the very
agency that was embarrased by the BD(Branch Davidians sp?).  It is to their
advantage to make the BD's as fanatical and dangerous as possible.  If they
were portrayed as law-abiding citizen's, then they(ATF) had no justification
what so ever of doing what they did.
   So let's keep an open mind.  Jokes like above, even though it may be funny,
may mislead the public from the truth of the matter.

Just as an aside,  my understanding of U.S. vs Rock Island and U.S. vs Dalton
leads me to believe that the National Firearms Act, which allows the Fed's
(in this case ATF) to regulate firearms(machine guns), has been deemed to be
unconstitutional since 1986.(By two federal district courts at least).
And since, I believe the only reason ATF was involved
in this case is because of firearms violations, it would be interesting to 
find out whether or not the search warrent was based on the NFA.
It would be very embarrassing indeed if a search warrent based on a possibly
unconstitutional law has resulted in 4 deaths(Law enforcement). 


****************************************************************************
The above opinions are mine and mine only.
I'm solely responsible for my opinions and my actions.  If you must flame
then flame away, but a well constructed argument will be much more respected.

Young-hoon Yoon                         yoony@rpi.edu
211 North Hall                          n6zud@hibp1.ecse.rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute        N6ZUD/2   HL9KMT(former)
Troy, NY 12180


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54295
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr16.022926.27270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do 
>>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it 
>>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?
>
>This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
>coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
>national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
>must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
>you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills. 
>In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them, 
>you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
>so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
>24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
>your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
>wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
>the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.
>
>                                                 Frank Crary
>                                                 CU Boulder
>
Which works fine until you end up in the hospital because you were hit on the
head and your wallet, with your insurance card, is stolen.  This happened to 
me, and it took six months to sort the mess out.  These sorts of plans sound
nice at first, but in the end they just create a lot of paperwork and
bureaucracy to deal with all the checking and filing they involve.

				Tom the non hacker
				tsmith@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
				The return address is set wrong, send personal
				response to the above address.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54296
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

>>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
>>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
>>gun owners.
>
>       The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are
>significant difference between making rules for *use on public property*
>and *making rules for ownership*.
>
>       The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this
>have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and
>have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are
>never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for
>a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York,
>Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun
>owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the
>numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that
>intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of
>the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion
>they've already seen abused.

Gun safety classes sound good in theory, but they kind of remind me of
the "literacy tests" used in the bad old days to keep blacks from voting.
They came with the "grandfather clause": if your grandfather could vote,
you could vote.  Sort of like the gun safety laws that only let the
political ass-kissers have guns.
						Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54297
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>Well, maybe I AM overreacting.

This is probably the best part of your post.  Everything else is
shrill speculation.

Tom Gift
tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54298
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)


|You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
|mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
|neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
|gas on his/her property.  

There is no law prohibiting having biological weapons or nerve gas
on his/her property, or even walking on government property with such
items: ipso facto it is now one's _RIGHT_ to have such weapons of
"mass destruction."

Hell, the U.S. patent office has patents on the manufacture of nerve
gas that anyone can obtain simply by sending a $1.50 to the Patent
Office in Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 8). These same patents are
verboten to English citizens from their own patent office, which doesn't
surprise me based on the mistrust of the UK government against private
ownership of semi-automatic rifles.

|If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of
|the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?

So, you are saying we should have legislation prohibiting owning 
biological warfare agents or nerve agents? Will you pass laws against
owning chlorine gas or cyanide as well? Will you pass laws against
owning acetylene gas that could have been used against the Bradley
IFVs had the Branch Dividians known of their anti-combustion engine
effects? Will you pass laws against owning 5-gallon cylinders of
propane because they could have been used as flame throwers? Yes, the 
proverbial "Road to Hell;" it's always for "Our Own Good."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54299
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Change of name ??



	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY

	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..

	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup

	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
	let's say 1000 people ????
	



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54300
From: mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
> but here goes:
> 
> Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
> 
>                     MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
> 
> CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
> the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
> lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
> gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
> ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
> the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
> napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> 
> THIS IS MURDER!
> 
> ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
> 
> THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
> 
> I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
> it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
> still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
> alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
> 
> I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
> 
> God help us all.
> 
> 
> PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!
> 
> 
> W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

Flame on!!

Is this guy serious????

If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media
   for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts 
   are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe). 
   Any ways one of Koresh's DEVOTED followers that DID I REPEAT DID survive this
   "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine 
   survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David
   was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of 
   these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
   this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also
   someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat
   then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)

Flame off

" Aaah Daniaalson yah wanna fight,  fight me!!"      
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              |
| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    |
| Kent State University	| 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|      Look here for future advice.quotes.sayings.jibberish.philosohy        |
|                                                                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54301
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

>True, Congress has said that possesion of an unlicensed automatic 
>weapon is a violation of the law.  Congress did not, however, say
>that such possesion was a capital offense or a transgression worth
>getting four good government agents killed and 16 others wounded.


Even if it were a capital offense, the warrant was not even an arrest warrant,
but a search warrant.  In other words, there was no evidence of illegal
arms, just enough of a suggestion to get a judge to sign a license to
search for illegal evidence.

Question:  As in the Rodney King case, will the US DOJ institute
criminal civil rights proceedings against the BATF?  Or at least an
investigation?  OK, sorry I asked.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54303
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

>>Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this
>>thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business
>>as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order?
>>Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...?
>>
>>And if Clinton and friends have their way, (highly likely at this point)
>>the New Order Government will also have all the guns...  So what if
>>"1984" is going to be ten years late...  I think we are going to discover
>>that we will be paying DEARLY for putting this fellow in office for decades
>>to come.  Even some die-hard supporters are having serious doubts about
>>their Savior.

Ahem.  See the War on Drugs, as sponsored by the Bush and Reagan
administrations.  The precedent had well been set for federal agencies to
step on more than a few of what people consider "rights."  I won't make
excuses for anyone, but most of the damage had been done before Clinton
even entered the race in '92.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54304
From: kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19


In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
> Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
> by cult members.

Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire
was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away,
we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's
claims in this matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn       | Is your religion BATF-approved?
vanhorn@bert.cs.byu.edu |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54306
From: dswartz@osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF


A few comments on the ATF's botched handling of this case:

1. Attempting to storm the compound in broad daylight?  The explanation
   we were given (at least at one point) was that they thought the cult
   members would be at religious services.  My only comment on this bit
   of idiocy is that if you're going to operate as a quasi-military unit,
   you'd better understand basic military tactics.  One cardinal rule
   is that only a fool plans an operation where if one assumption is
   incorrect, the operation will fail disastrously.

2. We were told that ATF got four agents killed because they were
   outgunned, they didn't expect such heavy resistance.  When
   questioned about why such an overwhelming military-style assault
   was planned, we were told that it was because the cultists were
   thought to be heavily armed.  Can you say contradictory?  I knew
   you could!

3. The BATF has had a bad reputation for years as a bunch of arrogant,
   hotdoggers.  I was talking to relatives a couple of weeks ago and
   referred to them as a bunch of Crockett and Tubbs wannabes.  I'm
   more than ever convinced that's right on target.  An anecdote not
   related to the Waco fiasco is that apparently the BATF screwed up
   some of the evidence in the World Trade Center bombing.  There's
   now an excellent chance some of the forensic evidence gathered by
   the FBI will not be admissible in court.  This is not hearsay.  I
   was told this by a relative of my wife's who happens to be an FBI
   agent.  His opinion of the BATF was, ummm, well, let's just say
   uncomplimentary.

4. I have *still* not been presented with one iota of evidence that
   the BD's had *any* of the alleged illegal weaponry which was the
   reason for the raid in the first place.  BTW, we're *still* hearing
   this justification.  AG Reno, on CNN yesterday, made references
   to this issue, without any substantiation.  She also waved around
   the "He's a child abuser and we heard he was beating the children!"
   flag.  Sigh.

5. A point re the Feds in general: their handling of the whole siege
   reflected a complete lack of understanding of the probable thought
   processes of the cultists.  AG Reno said they pushed the button
   because they were afraid a mass suicide was in the offing.  My
   only comment on that is that if the cultists were that close to
   the edge, what the hell did she think their reaction would be to
   an hours-long assault on the compound where holes were punched in
   the walls and CS gas pumped in?  If I were a BD, I'd expect the
   forces of the godless government to assault me at any time.  In
   that light, whether they torched themselves or drank Jim Jones
   Kool-Aid is irrelevant.  Also, look at how the siege was conducted:
   Bright lights, loud rock music, cutting off communications and
   other contact with the outside.  All measures designed to make the
   BD's feel more and more isolated and threatened.  This might have
   been a great strategy - if they were dealing with criminals.  As it
   was, it looks to me like everything they did fed into Koresh's
   paranoid delusions.




-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54309
From: paale@stud.cs.uit.no (Paal Ellingsen)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com>, Jim De Arras writes:
|> Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  Humans died  
|> yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the actions  
|> they did.  That is the undeniable truth. 

...the question is: for how long? Even if the FBI had done nothing, I guess the 
BDs would have committed suicide, but maybe not until hunger and thirst gave them
the choice between sucide or surrender. 
The BDs was warned in beforehand about the FBI action. They HAD the chance to
surrender and get a fair trial. No matter who started the fire, the BDs were 
responsible for 80+ peole dying. No one else.

-- 
============================================================================
Paal Ellingsen       | Borgensvingen 67/102 | Tlf.: 083 50933
paale@stud.cs.uit.no | 9100 Kvaloeysletta   | DATA = Dobbelt Arbeid Til Alle
============================================================================

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54312
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....

In article <1993Apr17.082102.4155@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <KCKLUGE.93Apr16155756@krusty.eecs.umich.edu>, kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:

>> 
>> ...and I'm sure that people who were big fans of fuedalism pissed and
>> moaned about the emergence of the modern nation-state. Imagine, the King
>> allowing serfs their freedom if they could live in the city for a year!
>> Times change, technology changes, viable forms of social organization
>> change. While concerns about preserving Western notions of civil liberties
>> in the face of cultures with very different values is a valid one, it's
>> a waste of effort to try to turn back the tide. It's much smarter to focus
>> on trying to make sure that the emerging forms of social organization are

>
>	Your response is yet another sign of the trend towards One World
>Government.  Many people such as yourself, who are otherwise probably
>likeable and intelligent, show every sign of having been successfully
>brainwashed.  You don't recognize that your "inevitable tide" is rolling
>into chaos and in no way represents an advance for civilization.  Some
>of us do indeed "lament the passing of old forms", such as the Bill of
>Rights, which are indeed inalienable rights of man that cannot be
>changed, transferred or surrendered...rights of man that far transcend

>
>	Yes, Napoleon wanted a Grand New Order.  Hitler wanted a
>Thousand Year Reich.  Lenin knew that Bolshevism would give us the
>Universal New Man.  The New World Order is just so much of the same
>old tired garbage.  The pathetic part is that so many Americans seem

"Put not your trust in princes" is the Biblical proverb.  The modern
analog is governments.  At the time of the founding of the US, the
idea that citizens had rights above those of the government was not
that common, but was explicit in the writings of the founders.  To a
considerable extent, Englishmen also had those rights.

Yes, times change, and technology changes.  The possibility of 
a few governments enserfing all of mankind was not possible until
quite recently.  In the feudal system, the lord was almost as
restricted as the serfs, so having the people enserf themselves
does not make anything better; most feudal lords, and even most
slaveowners, did not mistreat those under them.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under real attack NOW.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54313
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.

This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
and then fire?

Do tell.

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54314
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Gun Talk -- State legislative update

April 19, 1993
 
As William O. Douglas noted, "If a powerful sponsor is lacking,
individual liberty withers -- in spite of glowing opinions and
resounding constitutional phrases."
 
The legislative scorecard outlined below resulted from subcommittee,
committee, and floor action.  Many important victories, however, come
from coordinating with legislators to ensure anti-gun/anti-hunting
legislation is either amended favorably, rejected, or never voted.
These quiet victories are no less impressive in protecting our
fundamental civil liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
 
  ****
 
Arizona - SB 1233, NRA-supported legislation concerning minors in
criminal possession of firearms  passed the House 36-18, is currently
awaiting action by the Governor.
 
Arkansas - HB 1447, Firearms Preemption Legislation was signed by the
Governor making this the forty-first state to pass preemption.
Preemption had passed twice in previous sessions only to be vetoed by
then Gov. Bill Clinton.  HB 1417, mandatory storage of firearms,
amended and then killed in committee.
 
Colorado - SB 42, mandating the storage of firearms with a
trigger-lock, killed in committee.  SB 104,  prohibiting the sale of
certain semi-auto firearms was killed in committee.  SB 108,
so-called Colorado Handgun Violence Prevention Act, including a
provision for a 10-day waiting period, killed in committee.
 
Connecticut - Substitute Bill No. 6372, imposing a 6% tax on all
firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment killed in Environment
Committee.
 
Florida - A bill to require a 3-year license at a cost of $150 to own
or possess semi-automatic firearms with a second degree felony
provision (15 years in prison) died in committee along with numerous
other anti-gun owner bills.  No anti-gun legislation passed in
Florida this year.
 
Georgia - SB 12, supposed instant check with provision allowing for
up to a 7-day "waiting period,"  defeated in House Public Safety
Committee and sent to Interim Study committee.  Mandatory storage
bill -- SB 247 -- was defeated 39-15 in the Senate.  The same bill
passed the upper-House 52-2 in 1992.
 
 
Illinois - HB 90, prohibiting the sale, possession, manufacture,
purchase, possession, or carrying of certain semi-auto firearms, was
defeated in House Judiciary II Subcommittee on Firearms. HB 91,
mandatory storage legislation, failed in House Judiciary Subcommittee
on Firearms. HB 1550, repeals FOID and makes FTIP, point of sale
check permanent, passed out of Judiciary Committee by a 10-4-2 vote.
Presently on the calendar for third reading in the House.
 
SB 40, mandatory storage bill, defeated in committee.
SB 265, imposing a handgun excise tax, failed in Senate committee on
Revenue's Subcommittee on Tax Increases.
SB 272,imposing a tax on all persons engaged in the business of
selling firearms, failed in Senate Revenue Committee's Subcommittee
on Tax Increases.
 
Indiana - SB 241, Statewide Firearms Preemption, passed in the Senate
34-16, and in the House 77-22.  Twelve amendments were introduced on
the House floor to SB 241.  Among these amendments were a ban on
certain semi-auto firearms, Mandatory Storage, Trigger-Lock, a ban on
"Saturday Night Specials" (Similar to 1988 Maryland Bill), and
Handgun Rationing (one handgun per month).  All were defeated.

	[I read this morning (4/20) S.B. 241 was defeated -- lvc]
 
Kansas - HB 2435, providing for a 72-hour waiting period on all
firearms was defeated in committee.  HB 2458, presently on the
Governor's desk, HB 2459 and SB 243 and 266 all relating to victims'
rights, are expected to be enacted into law.
 
Maine - Funding for the Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-94
budget, was restored following severe  reductions in the Governor's
proposed budget.  LD 612, an anti-hunting bill which included reverse
posting and 1000 yard safety zones, killed in committee.
 
Maryland - SB 6-(Firearms Incendiary ammunition) died in committee on
a 8-3 vote, SB 41 (Reckless  Endangerment - Firearms - Sale or
Transfer) died in committee on a 11-0 vote, SB 126 (Gun Control -
"Assault Weapons") died in committee on 9-2 vote, SB 182 (Weapons
-Free School Zone) was withdrawn, SB 185 (Weapons on School Property-
Driver's License Suspension was withdrawn, SB 265 ("Assault Pistols"
- Sale, Purchase or Transport) died in committee on 8-3 vote, SB 328
("Assault Pistols" Act of 1993) died in committee on a 8-3 vote, SB
682 (Baltimore City-Firearms-Rifles and Shotguns) died in committee
on a 9-2 vote.
 
HB 274 (Pistol and Revolver Dealers Licenses - compliance with zoning
laws) was withdrawn, HB 366 (Regulated Firearms-sales and transfer)
died on the Senate Floor, HB 374 (Handguns and "assault weapons" -
Advertising for sale or transfer) died in committee, HB 384 (Handguns
and "Assault Weapons" - Exhibitors) died in committee, HB 495
("Assault Pistols" Act of 1993) died in committee on a 14-9 vote, HB
496 (Gun Shows-Sale, Trade, or Transfer of regulated firearms) died
in committee on a 19-6 vote, HB 601 (Firearms - Handguns - "Assault
Pistols" - Handgun Roster Board) was withdrawn, HB 683 (Rifles and
Shotguns - Registration) was withdrawn, HB 945 (Pistols and Revolvers
- Private sales  or transfers- required notice) died in committee,
and HB 1128 Prince Georges County -
 Weapons - Free School Zone) was withdrawn.
 
Mississippi - HB 141, closing a loophole allowing felons to possess
firearms, passed both Houses and signed by the Governor.  The bill
codifies into law mechanism for certain felons to have their Second
Amendment liberties reinstated.
 
Nebraska - LB 83 and LB 225, mandatory trigger-lock bills, killed in
committee.
 
New Hampshire - H.B. 363, providing for reciprocity for concealed
carry licenses passed.  H.B. 671,  increasing the term of a License
to Carry Loaded Handguns passed.
 
New Mexico - SB 762, imposing a 7-day "waiting period," defeated in
Senate committee (0-5) and then on  floor of the Senate (15-24).  HB
182, mandatory storage legislation, was killed by a vote of 1-8 in
committee.  HB 230, legislation safeguarding sportsmen in the field
from harassment by animal rights extremists, signed into law by the
Governor on March 30.
 
New York - Seven-day waiting period was defeated in the City of
Buffalo.   Ban on certain semi-autos was defeated in Monroe County.
The tax and fee bills to be imposed on guns and ammo were not
included in the 1993-94 budget. SB 207, making pistol licenses
provides for validity of pistol license throughout the state, passed
Senate.  Currently awaiting action in Assembly committee.
 
North Dakota - HB 1484, granting victims compensation in certain
circumstances, was signed into law by the Governor on April 8.
 
Oregon - SB 334, banning firearms on school grounds and in court
buildings, withdrawn as a result of gun owners opposition.
 
Rhode Island - HB 5273, mandatory firearms storage legislation,
defeated in committee by a vote of 8-5. HB 6347, an act prohibiting
aliens from owning firearm; defeated by unanimous vote in committee.
HB 5650, excepting NRA instructors from the firearms safety
requirement, reported favorably. HB 5781, exempting persons with an
Attorney General's permit from the 7-day waiting period, reported to
the floor by a vote of 11-1.
HB 6917, extending the term of a permit to carry from two years to
three years, reported to the floor unanimously.
 
Utah   HB 290, reforming the state's concealed carry statute, passed
out of House committee.  SB 32, creating civil liability for
so-called negligent storage of a firearm, and SB 33 creating the
offense of "reckless endangerment" with a firearm, killed on Senate
floor.
 
Virginia: S.B. 336, and S.B. 803, requiring proof of state residence
to obtain Virginia Driver's License passed.  S.B. 804, which
increases the penalty and imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for
"straw man" purchases of multiple firearms passed.  S.B. 858,
allowing possession of "sawed-off" rifles and shotguns in compliance
with federal law passed.  S.B. 1054, making it a felony for first
offense of carrying a concealed firearm without a license (which the
NRA opposes until law-abiding citizens can acquire a concealed carry
license for self-defense), was defeated. H.B. 1900, increasing the
penalty for use of a firearm in committing a felony was passed.  H.B.
2076, requiring proof of residence to obtain a driver's license
passed.  H.B. 2272, providing for a referendum on the imposition of a
statewide three- day "waiting period" in handgun purchases was
defeated.
 
Washington: SB 5160, calling for waiting periods and licensing for
all semi-automatic firearms, died  in committee.
 
West Virginia - S.C.R. 18, which calls for a study to control
transfers of handguns and "Assault Weapons" was defeated in the
Senate 24-10.
 
Wisconsin - In a referendum up against all odds, the determined
efforts of the Madison Area Citizens Against Crime paid off on April
6 when a nonbinding referendum banning the possession of handguns in
Madison, Wisconsin, was defeated.  Despite opposition to the ban --
aired largely by firearms owners at a series of public meetings on
the issue -- the Common Council voted on February 17 to place the
referendum on the ballot, allowing only seven weeks of campaigning to
reverse public opinion on the controversial issue.
 
An October 1992 poll conducted by the Wisconsin State Journal found
57% in support and 38% opposed, with 5% expressing no opinion.  By
election day, of the more than 56,000 voters who went to the polls,
51% cast ballots in opposition to the proposal while 49% voted to
have the Madison Common Council enact such a ban.  The campaign
committee, spearheaded by the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement and NRA-ILA,
relied on neighborhood canvassing, direct mail and radio/TV
advertising to educate voters on the civil liberties implications
raised by enforcement of the ban if the referendum was approved.
 
Despite the surprising defeat, it is expected that the Madison
initiative's chief proponent, Mayor Paul Soglin, will attempt to have
the Common Council enact an ordinance banning handguns.
 
                Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-719-6406)
                A service of the
                National Rifle Association
                Institute for Legislative Action
                Washington, DC 20036
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54315
From: bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones)
Subject: Re: Letter to the President

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

>the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury,


In case you haven't sent it yet, it's "Bentsen", not "Bensen".

Brad

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54316
From: mporter@cis.ohio-state.edu (matthew dale porter)
Subject: Re: Reasonable Civie Arms Limits

In article <1993Apr19.223925.2342@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>A poster claims he 'always asks [anti-gunners] what they think would
>be reasonable personal firepower restrictions'. OK then ...
>
>Caliber : Not greater than 32
>Muzzle  : Not greater than 300 ft/lbs with any combo of bullet wt/vel
>Action  : Single shot rifles and single action revolvers 
>          Revolvers bearing no more than six rounds and incorporating
>          an 'anti-fanning' mechanism to discourage Roy Rogers wannabes.
>Bullets : Any non-explosive variety, HPs just fine.
>
>Now - these specs leave the 32 H&R magnum as about the most powerful
>allowable civie cartridge for handgun or rifle use. It would be
>reasonably effective against home intruders, muggers, rabid wolves
>and other such nasties, even with the firearm-type limitations. At the
>same time, this caliber/power limit would reduce the ultimate lethality
>of hits. The chances of the average joe encountering a gang of huge
>individuals all drunk and stoned on PCP and crystal meth and with a
>bad attitude and all armed and willing to die ... well, it's about
>zero - far less than the chances of getting killed driving your car.

When will you people realize that our right to keep and bear isn't
primarily intended to be for protecting against criminals and beasties
in the wild?  Granted, it is a big part, but we also need military style
weapons so we can fight off the government when they come to our door.
When ten agents come to my door, it would be nice to be able to shoot
all of them for 'not upholding the constitution to the best of their
ability'.  It will be a lot harder doing that with the puny weapons you
listed above.

Please read the Federalist papers for all clarification on RKBA.  These
documents have cleared up plenty of misnomers that friends of mine have
had.





-- 
Matt Porter       
mporter@cis.ohio-state.edu
mporter@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54317
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> thomasp@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Parsli) writes:
:
:
:	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
:	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY
:
:	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
:
:	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup
;
:	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
:	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
:	let's say 1000 people ????
:	
:
:                        Thomas Parsli
And everybody who talked about the evil arising in Europe was labeled 
reactionary in the late 1930's... after all, we could negotiate with Hitler and
trust him to keep his end of the bargain... at least that's what Stalin and
Chamberlin thought... I guess they forgot to teach you about your country being
overrun by the Germans in WWII, 'eh Thomas?  And I'm sorry you consider outrage
at government excesses to be ####... Everytime the Israelis conduct a mass 
operation against a terrorist group that is actively killing their citizens and
soldiers, the world gets indignant, but it's ok for the US to assault it's own
citizens who were a religous minority and accused of sexual deviation and 
hoarding weapons... I find it real ironic this happened the same day Al Gore
arrived in Poland to recognize the sacrifices made in the Warsaw Ghetto where
the same 'justifications' were raised for an armed assault by black-clad troops
with armor support...  

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54318
From: jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
> 	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY
> 
> 	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
> 
> 	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup
> 
> 	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
> 	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
> 	let's say 1000 people ????
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 	This is not a .signature.
> 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
> 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
> 
> 
>                         Thomas Parsli
>                         thomasp@ifi.uio.no

How about a group called talk.that.thomas.parsli.approves?
-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)
-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54319
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
>>next?  The Mormons or Jews?

>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)

I believe we still remember Masada, where Jews killed themselves rather
than being captured by the Romans.  While I do not agree with the
Davidians, I must admire their willingness to die for what they 
believed, which Jews have had to do often.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54320
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>
>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
>in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
>out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
>and then fire?

I've already corrected my mistake earlier in this thread.  I saw a brief 
news report which led to the above inaccuracy.  I have since seen detailed 
summaries that show the tanks returned in the late morning.

So, why didn't the BD's leave when the gas was first introduced much 
earlier in the morning?  Didn't they care about the children?

Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?

>
>Do tell.
>
>  -joe


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54323
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>
>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
>in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
>out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
>and then fire?
>
>Do tell.
>
>  -joe

Not to mention that the story was rewritten today. Those two BD's who
"admitted to starting the fire", forget 'em, they don't exist anyone.
Today, "a few saw someone starting a fire" and "our aerial surveillance
showed them starting fires" at this morning's press conference. 
Tomorrow, even this excuse may evaporate. A reporter pointed out
that a BD being brought to arraingement shouted that tanks knocking
over lanterns started the fire. Curiouser and curiouser.


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54324
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93109.172450U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz 
[...]

> It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up
> the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on  
the
> gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part.
> 
> Jason


I guess that just means "Everyone else" was mistaken?

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54326
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <C5MzyK.E7G@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>
>No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed
>is defined as:
>	To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath, 
>	an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate.
>	To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach.
>This definition implies the following of some form of existing 
>agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance. 

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution were considered to be
pre-existing.  The only agreement was that they exist.  Therefore, no
law grants such rights. Laws can only guarantee, protect, or infringe
such rights.


Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged  1986

infringe
  1.a. to break down:DESTROY
    b. DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
    c. CONFUTE, REFUTE
    d. IMPAIR, WEAKEN
  2. to commit a breach of : neglect to fulfill or obey : VIOLATE,
     TRANSGRESS
     vi : ENCROACH, TRESPASS

infringement
  1. the act of infringing : BREACH, VIOLATION, NONFULFILLMENT
  2. an encroachment or trespass on a right or priveledge : TRESPASS
                                      ~~~~~
  
Now, by what stretch of the imagination do you get your ideas about
infringement of rights?  

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54327
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

>>The two situations are hardly analogous, unless you wish to make the
>>>dubious claim that the US legal system would provide equivalent treatment 
>>>to BD children that the Romans did for those of conquered rebels.

>Actually, all the analogy calls for the the Branch Davidian _feeling_
>their treatment would be along these lines. After a military
>assualt (instead of a peacefull effort to serve a warrant) and
>weeks os siege, such a feeling might not be completely irrational.


Actually, if I were one of the survivors and wanted to institute a civil
rights violation lawsuit against the Treasury Dept., I would claim that
the BATF/FBI itself was to blame for any mass hysteria/insanity...

without due process, the siegers shone lights, laser beams, multi-colored
spotlights, all the while playing loudly amplified music consisting of
everything from Tibetan Chant to Heavy Metal, and coupled with the fear,
the poor nutrition, the rampant paranoia, I'd say it was very likely
those poor nuts were made even nuttier.  After all, isn't sleep deprivation,
sensory overload, etc., part of the "new age" method of torture?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54328
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
 
>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:
>
>Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
>
>                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
>
[...]
>
>THIS IS MURDER!
>
>ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
>
>THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
 
      Well, chalk one up for driving away sympathies by looking like
a paranoid lunatic.
 
>
>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
>
>I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
 
       Last I heard there were nine.  Apparently as of this point they've
found no bodies, except those killed during the initial assault a couple
of months ago.
 
       Be cute if Koresh hit the trail.
 
       Maybe he was bodily assumed into heaven.  Wouldn't that just
make AG Reno's day?
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54329
From: tmh@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Todd M. Helfter)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge


>Does anyone have any idea about the size of Waco?  I'm just curious because
>if it were a small town that may have something to do with it.  Possibly not.
>It sure didn't take it very long to burn down though.  I was watching ABC and
>it only took like a little over 30 minutes to burn down.

	Waco is a city of about 100,000 people.  The population temporarily
   raised to about 102,000 people when all the feds, and state police officers
   arrived.

	I tell you what, I stayed in a hotel room about 4 miles from the BD
   compound around 3 weeks ago.  I have never felt more paranoid in my whole
   life.  There were at least 100 state police in the hotel.





>
>>The claim "we had the water turned off, so the fire engines had to bring
>>their own" doesn't hold up:  If they had cut off the water, they surely
>>could have turned it back on just as quickly.  They just didn't want to:
>>There were some scores to settle.  Message to anybody else is very clear:
>>"DON'T FUCK WITH US.  WE WILL DO YOU IN..."
>>
>Not that I am one to believe that everything that the government tells us is
>true but if that was the message they wanted to send why did they wait 51 days?
>I think the message would be better sent by charging in there right away - not
>waiting for 51 days and pounding them with sound, etc.
>
>>A bunch of dead BD members are not going to be so able to tell their
>>side of the story, so now all we have is the story according to the BATF
>>and FBI.  Also, Mr "care about the rights of people" Clinton, or his
>>administration approved this action (FBI said 'Washington had approved
>>it').  They FBI said the gas masks used by the BDs have a finite life,
>>and were close to running out.  WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE JUST WAITED?
>
>Well, there are 9 people supposedly alive.  They can tell their story.  As far
>as Bill Clinton is concerned don't you think he has more pressing matters to
>attend to besides some small group of people in Texas?  How about Bosnia?  Now
>there's a problem......    Why couldn't they have waited?  They waited too long
>as it is.  Something should have been done earlier.
>
>>
>>They gov is trying to say it was a mass suicide.  In the past they had
>>expressed this was a real possibility, but now they decided it wasn't
>>a possibility so they could go on with the raid.  Apparantly what they
>>feel Korash was or was not capable of or going to do was driven by
>>what was most convenient at the time...
>>
>>Now this means that:
>>
>>1: The public and media will forget about all this - having become weary of
>>it.
>
>This has already happened for many people.
>
>>2: There will be no investigation (independent or otherwise) or a whitewash.
>
>Very much a possibility.
>
>>3: There will be no unsealing of the warrant and related documents.
>>4: What anybody will know about this incident will be the BATF version.
>
>With the way our government is I wouldn't doubt it.
>
>>5: The BATF has just been given Carte Blanche for further abuses, with
>>   the effective support and approval of the Administration.
>
>Clinton said on the news that he knew about what was happening but that it was
>all in the hands of the FBI.  That is if you choose to believe the media.
>
>>6: There WILL BE more abuses, with no concern of Administration censure.
>>7: The precident has been established that the Feds can kill in quantity
>>   to achieve their aims.  Especially if the target is excercising their
>>   rights under the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,
>>   and is a government-declared un-nice fellow.
>
>If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why
>shouldn't they have done something?  What possible use would a religious cult
>have for a rocket launcher?  Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of
>Rights?
>
>> : LLs and CLAMs will be pleased.  Dung Tsow Ping(sp) will be pleased.
>>   Saddam Hussein(sp) will be pleased.  Idi Amin would be pleased.  Stalin
>>   would be pleased.  Even Hitler would be pleased.  Any self-respecting
>>   despot would nod and say "Well Done, Bill Clinton!!"
>>
>Well, then there are probably a lot of self-respecting despots in the US cause
>I'm sure they feel the same way.
>
>>God Bless America - Land of the Free!!!  (past tense).
>>
>>Well, maybe I AM overreacting.  But I see on the TV as I am typing where
>
>Maybe, maybe not.  There are a lot of questions that should be raised about
>this incident.  The problem is, who will do it and be heard?
>
>>govt spoksewoman (the new attorney general, known to be almost rabid
>>about private ownership of guns - wants to ban 'assault guns' and just
>>about everything else), is saying the FBI had "amazing restraint", then
>>falls back into the official goverenment line about how the BD were
>>guity of child abuse, and were into it in an on-going basis, and so on.
>>Note that according to the Liberal Elite, giving a child a spanking is
>>regarded as child abuse (seriously - if it gets known, the STATE can
>>take your child away from you if you spank your kid).  She also is saying
>
>Which state is that?  The federal government  or an individual state government
>?
>
>>CLINTON PERSONALLY APPROVED THIS OPERATION - she "told him it was
>>appropriate and so on, and he SAID OK, DO IT".  Somehow, I am not
>>surprised - the people MUST KNOW WHO IS BOSS - WHO IS IN CHARGE!!!
>>And it is obviouly no longer the people.
>>
>It seems to me that the people haven't been in charge for a long time.  If they
>really were I don't think the government would be doing as many things as it
>has in the past.
>
>>And I maintain the appropriate response, as far as this raid by BATF is
>>concerned, regarding child abuse is "so what?".  BATF are not our Child
>>Protective Services Police.  Yet.  After all the BD had been TRIED on
>>that charge before and found NOT GUILTY.  The gov't people have pretty
>>much gone silent on the terrible illegal guns BD supposedly has, and
>>stress the "continued child abuse" (apparantly to make it a seem as sort
>>of a 'rescue' operation, figuring everyone hates child abusers, and
>>anything is OK to use against them).  Occasional references to ammunition
>>possesed by the BDs and so on is irrelevant: it is NOT ILLEGAL to have
>>ammunition (yet).
>>
>True but is it illegal to have a rocket launcher?
>
>>Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this
>>thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business
>>as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order?
>>Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...?
>>
>>And if Clinton and friends have their way, (highly likely at this point)
>>the New Order Government will also have all the guns...  So what if
>>"1984" is going to be ten years late...  I think we are going to discover
>>that we will be paying DEARLY for putting this fellow in office for decades
>>to come.  Even some die-hard supporters are having serious doubts about
>>their Savior.
>>
>Shit, if people dont get what they want right away there is an instant problem.
>Clinton has only been in office for a few months.  Give him a chance to get
>something done.  The guy had a lot of shit thrown in his lap in the beginning.
>Give him a chance to work on things a little.  As they say - Rome wasn't built
>in a day.
>
>>Yes, I am UPSET.  I see NO GOOD as far as civil/individual rights to
>>come of any of his proposals/decisions for the last month or so...
>>We have really been HAD.  Or Bill of Rights is now nothing but a quaint
>>curiosity.
>>
>I highly doubt that it is that bad yet.  How about the Rodney King trial?  The
>two people who were most responsible got the axe.  How bad the axe falls tho
>is yet to be seen.
>
>>Anybody for impeachment?
>>
>Nope.   I would prefer to give Bill a little more than four or five months to
>solve the nations problems.
>>--
>>pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
>>         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
>>WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
>>         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien
>
>Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54330
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r0v4c$i1j@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)  
writes:
> In <1r0poqINNc4k@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:
> 
> > In article <C5rDAw.4s4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> zed@Dartmouth.EDU (Ted  
> > Schuerzinger) writes:
> > Well, it's now Tuesday morning.  Where are those two arsons, now?  I said  
> > yesterday they would vanish, and there has been no further mention of them,  
> > just the desired "impression" is left.
> 
>   According to KIKK radio in Houston, all nine survivors are either in hos-
> pitals or in jails.  Inlucding the two who allegedly helped start the firess.

In the FBI briefing, no mention was made of having the fire starters in  
custody.
> 
> > Why could no one else even talk to them?  Why could Koresh's grandmother  
not  
> > talk to him or even send him a taped message?  Why the total isolation?
> 
>   Well, it wasn't TOTAL, 100% isolation.  After the lawyer snuck in the first
> time, they (the FBI, etc) let him go back inside several times, including, I
> think, the day before the final assualt.
> 

Why not his mother?  Why not the media?

> semper fi,
> 
> Jammer Jim Miller 
> Texas A&M University '89 and '91
>  
_______________________________________________________________________________ 
_
>  I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
> "Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing  
System."
>  "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
>       ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54331
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu> mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu  
(The Lawnmowerman) writes:
>Also
>    someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the  
heat
>    then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)
> 
This tops the cold-hearted bastard list!  Unbelievable!  Had this countries  
morals sunk this low, that the death of innocent people is so callously viewed?

> Flame off
> 
> " Aaah Daniaalson yah wanna fight,  fight me!!"      
> -- 
>  
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A               
|
> | CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)     
|
> | Kent State University	| 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |		 
	     |
>  
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |                                                                             
|
> |                                                                             
|
> |      Look here for future advice.quotes.sayings.jibberish.philosohy         
|
> |                                                                             
|
>  
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54332
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.151131.8531@news.uit.no> paale@stud.cs.uit.no (Paal  
Ellingsen) writes:
> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com>, Jim De Arras writes:
> |> Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  Humans died  
> |> yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the  
actions  
> |> they did.  That is the undeniable truth. 
> 
> ....the question is: for how long? Even if the FBI had done nothing, I guess  
the 
> BDs would have committed suicide, but maybe not until hunger and thirst gave  
them
> the choice between sucide or surrender. 
> The BDs was warned in beforehand about the FBI action. They HAD the chance to
> surrender and get a fair trial. No matter who started the fire, the BDs were 
> responsible for 80+ peole dying. No one else.
> 

This is, of course, your opinion.  I differ greatly.  There can be NO doubt the  
FBI at least shares in the blame.

> -- 
> ============================================================================
> Paal Ellingsen       | Borgensvingen 67/102 | Tlf.: 083 50933
> paale@stud.cs.uit.no | 9100 Kvaloeysletta   | DATA = Dobbelt Arbeid Til Alle
> ============================================================================

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54333
From: croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale


I will add my voice to the (hopefully) growing multitudes.

I hereby pledge $1000.00 towards the purchase of CNN, under the same conditions
as already described.  I will also post this idea on the other nets I can 
access (RIME and Libernet).

We may have to organize this ourselves, so I am looking for help.

Frank Ney  N4ZHG  EMT-A  LPVa  NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA 'M-O-U-S-E'

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54334
From: dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54336
From: oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham)
Subject: Blast them next time

What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
of ours.

With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
to death 51 days later.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54337
From: mech24135045@msuvx2.memst.edu
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
> the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
> lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
> gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
> ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
> the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
> napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.

Well, actually, the Davidians (Koreshians?) started the fire themselves, 
the last I heard ( around 15:00 EST). Eight people ran out into the feilds
surrounding the compound. All were captured and two admitted to setting the 
fire. I don't buy your napalm theory at all (although it would have made a 
great commercial for my .sig). Why the hell would they have a wood stove
burning on such a warm day?  Flame throwers use liquid petroleum, napalm 
is more of a gel. Now to further dispute your theory, the diluted CS gas
was inserted around 06:00 if I understood correctly. The place didn't start
burning until around 10:00 or 11:00.
 
> THIS IS MURDER! ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
> THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
> I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
> it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
> still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
> alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
 
Calm down kid. Vernon (Koresh's real name) said himself that he would not leave
that compound alive. The inhabitants thereof had accepted the fact that they 
may very well have to kill themselves before it was all over.

> I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!

There are at least eight survivors. A caller on Rush Limbaugh today suggested
that the rest may even be hiding in underground bunkers. That's not such a wild
idea considering their weaponry and resolve. 

> God help us all.
> PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE 
> CHILDREN!
> W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

Sheesh! Get over it. I haven't heard (read) such ranting since the Hindenberg
burned. This should have ended 50 days ago. I'm glad my tax dollars have
finally stopped working to pay a bunch of guys to stand around and give press
conferences. Now they can get back to more important things, like catching
cigarrette smugglers.

			Troy
Napalm sticks to kids.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54338
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r00ug$d60@btr.btr.com> michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn  michaelh@btr.com) writes:
>Pol Pot				100,000s Killed?

I've read estimates that Pol Pot killed somewhere in the neighborhood
of 2 million.

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54340
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>
>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
>
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.
>
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.
>


Well, it's said that people get the government they deserve.

Don't worry, you'll get yours.  You'll sleep much better when
everyone with thoughts not on the government 'approved' list
is rounded up and executed.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54341
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <121415@netnews.upenn.edu> egedi@ahwenasa.cis.upenn.edu (Dania M. Egedi) writes:
:In article <1993Apr16.222604.18331@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
:|> In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes:
:|> >wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the
:|> 
:|> Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.
:|> 
:
:Aha.  That's the part that makes me nervous too.  Who gets to decide if
:I am a threat?  Based on appearance?  Would someone feel more threatened
:
Actions determine whether someone presents a threat... and I don't carry a gun
so much for people, cause I tend to fade if there are any about, but due to 
several encounters with formerly domestic dogs...  these critters ain't scared
of folks, and can get aggressive.

:on staying at and saw someone sitting there cleaning his gun.  Softly I backed
:away, and hiked another 5 miles to get *out of there*.  I'll freely admit it here:
:I'm not afraid of guns; I'm afraid of people that bring them into the backcountry.
:
I'd count that as a fear of guns... somebody having the sense to keep their
weapons maintained isn't as likely to present a threat.  The Army taught me to
clean any weapons DAILY, since they usually need it, regardless of whether 
they've been used... You'd be amazed how sweaty a holster can get, or how much
trail dust will get in it.  And I guess you'd be scared of me and my former
Explorer Post... seems the advisors were National Guard Special Forces grunts,
and considered it heresy to be out in the woods without a weapon... course, 
usually you wouldn't notice 'em... :)  They tended to avoid public scrutiny...

:Of course, that may be the way to solve the solitude problem.  Just carry a gun
:and display it prominently, and one probably won't see most of the other hikers
:out there, who will be hiding in the woods.  1/2 :-)
:
: - Dania
My 9mm goes in a hip holster, mixed in with magazine pouches (hold lotsa stuff 
in them), canteens, knives, compasses, and such...  Not so easy to notice, in 
the off chance I decide to be visible... I prefer not to be, since walking 
quietly away from active areas increases the number of non-human type critters
I see...

James


-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54342
From: William_Mosco@vos.stratus.com
Subject: RE: Blast them next time


>        #DELETED BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TWISTED" 
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed 
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is 
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look 
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country 
>of ours. 

 ##flame thrower on## 
 Well I don't want my tax dollars going to that kind of philosophy. 
 maybe if the good folks you are talking about are people like you 
 than I might be inclined to accept it. What does the batf do anyway? 
 Why don't we have a bureau for militant, paranoid, freedom killers 
 like yourself. People like you are more dangerous than alcohol, 
 tobacco and firearms. 
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with 
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few 
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn 
>to death 51 days later. 
 Maybe we should just have nuked the whole city, I mean, what's a 
 100,000 good souls anyway? 
 Get real, you sound like a racist.  I guess life isn't so precious 
 to you, do you realize that there were  24 children KILLED!!! 
 They will never get to fall in love, they won't see another sunrise, 
 no prom, no first date, no football, baseball no NOTHING.  Why doesn't 
 some people think first before they let everyone know how narrow they 
 are. 

 "Flame thrower off" 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54344
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>
Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."

>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>scenarios.

The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.

>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>ludicrous.

I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54345
From: mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:
>
>Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
>
>                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
>
>CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I watched the CNN report and I never heard them report that the ATF started the
fire.  They did speculate that the type of CS gas might have _accidentaly_
started the fire.  

>the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
>lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
>gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From my understanding of the CNN report it was 6 HOURS after they started.

>ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
>the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The track vehicle that I saw in the vicinity of the building where fire was 
first noticed looked more like an armored recovery vehicle (the type used to 
tow tanks of battle fields) and not an armored flame-thrower vehicle.

>napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
in Texas.  It seems to me that it would be very poor planing to hope for a wood
stove to ignite the "napalm" when the stove would probably not be in use.  And 
I doubt that it would have taken 6 hours to ignite it.

>
>THIS IS MURDER!
>
>ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
>
>THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
>
>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right Clinton is in office.  (Sorry I couldn't resist, please no flames :))

>
>I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
>
>God help us all.
>
>
>PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!
>
>
>W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

In short Mr. Gorman (I am assuming Mr. as a title because I don't think a woman
would be stupid enough to make this post) I don't know what episode of CNN you
were watching but it obviously was not the same one that I was watching or your
tears seamed to have blured your hearing along with your eye sight.

Please excuse any mispelled words as I am a product of the Arkansas education
system which Slick Willie of the "Double Bubba Ticket" has so greately improved
during his tenour as Governer of my great state (taking it from 49th in the 
nation in 1980 and allowing it to drop to 51st, how I don't know, and bringing
it to 44st and back to either 48th or 49th in 1990--sorry I can't rember the 
source of these numbers but they can be found).

Michael F. Rhein



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54346
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: So much for "infinite patience"

In article <1993Apr19.225700.3976@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
:
:So much for "infinite patience."
: 
;I find it hard to swallow that prolonged exposure to "massive" amounts of
:
:And they said that the bomb dropped on MOVE wouldn't start a fire, either.
:
:The real kicker, though, is the stated justification for the government's 
:sudden loss of patience: They wouldn't be able to "rotate their teams" 
:
:This outcome could be foreseen a mile (or two) away, but Reno didn't even
:
:Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick

The really good part:  "At this point we're not negotiating," FBI spokesman
Bob Ricks said at a news briefing about a half hour before the fire began. 
"We're saying,'Come out.Come out with your hands up. This matter is over.'"

Criminal... so much for Billary saying we won't force the issue... anybody
have the WH information number?  Figure ol' Bill could use a lesson from the
ROTC he scorned: "You are responsible for all that your unit/troops do or fail
to do."  Want to ask him how he enjoys being responsible for violating the
Constitutional rights of a group, resulting in the deaths of over a hundred of them, plus four Federal agents...

James

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54348
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
>>next?  The Mormons or Jews?
> 
>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)
> 
>Be thankful that the BATF standoff at least got some of the kids out before
>the cult committed mass suicide.
> 

	Dont you believe that the Branch Davidians committed suicide for one
minute. I would not put it past the FBI to lob in some incendiary grenades
while they feed your their story. Don't ever ever trust what your wonderful
government tells you. Janet Reno and the FBI have the murder of a hundred
people on their hands. Hope they can sleep at night....

P.Vasilion, kb2nmv
SUNY @ BUFFALO
<<STD.DISCLAIMERS>>

"All you cult haters happy now? Just hope that your not next."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54349
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>
>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
>
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.
>
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.
>

Did you forget to put in a sarcasm flag?

Al
[standard disclaimer]





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54350
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <C5sE5E.Coy@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>Ahem.  See the War on Drugs, as sponsored by the Bush and Reagan
>administrations.  The precedent had well been set for federal agencies to
>step on more than a few of what people consider "rights."  I won't make
>excuses for anyone, but most of the damage had been done before Clinton
>even entered the race in '92.

Not to mention last year's Weaver affair.

Anyway, here's how I see the Waco affair; I'd be interested in other peoples'
interpretations...

1. Koresh and his people were basically minding their own business.
2. Some weapons violations may have been committed and I wouldn't have
   disapproved of prosecuting him for those violations.  However, I think
   the BATF was criminal for starting negotiations with a military style
   assault and for firing into a house where there were children and other
   noncombatants.
3. I don't see they couldn't just leave a token guard on the place and wait
   the BDs out; I don't approve of the tear gas approach and, if it caused
   the fire to be started, I think the FBI agent responsible should spend
   10-20 years in jail.
4. However, if Koresh's response to the tear gas was to kill everyone there,
   I hold him largely responsible for their deaths.

   don






Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54351
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

Hmmm... I hadn't heard about rockets. ATF must be escalating their
tall tails... anyway
>If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why
>shouldn't they have done something?

Why should they have "done something"? The Davidians had not attacked
or even threatened anyone.

>What possible use would a religious cult have for a rocket launcher?

It is not yours nor the governments right to tell others what they have
a legitimate right to own.

>Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of Rights?

Is child abuse now within the jurisdiction of the department of the
treasury? Attacking citizens without due process on the strength of
unsubstantiated rumors about a violation of a law which does not
fall under your jurisdiction is a pretty serious breech of rights.

>Shit, if people dont get what they want right away there is an instant >problem.
>Clinton has only been in office for a few months.  Give him a chance to get
>something done.  The guy had a lot of shit thrown in his lap in the beginning.
>Give him a chance to work on things a little.  As they say - Rome wasn't built
>in a day.

If he gets any more done we will really be in trouble!

				mike

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54352
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

Hmm... am I the only person that remembers Masada?  This isn't the first time
a group has committed suicide to avoid persecution/capture... and you seem to
miss the point that the raid SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
I find the FBI actions too damn reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto... fitting 
that Al Gore was in Poland for events marking the 50th anniversery of that...
Remove any references to dates and you have two raids by government troops
wearing black uniforms, carrying automatic weapons, backed by armored vehicles,
against religious minorities they claim were practicing sexually deviant 
behavior and hoarding weapons... Too damn similar...

James

ps: I am not advocating the BD's, I just find the whole situation too damn 
troubling.

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54353
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>Anybody for impeachment?

Yeah, me.  Both the Slickmeister and Hillary's buddy Janet say
they're responsible... I want both their resignations on my desk 
yesterday.  I also want both thier butts up on federal civil rights
violations.... something which carries life in prison as a penalty.

Oh, and I'll contribute $20 to Arlen Specter's presidential campaign
for having the 'nads to launch the Senate investigation.

-- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)       ==================
America in Distress                             ==================
(flag upside down = SOS)                        *******===========
Save your Republic before                       *******===========
it no longer exists.                            *******===========

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54354
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith

In article <C5D05G.6xw@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
}In article <1993Apr10.155819.18237@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
}>Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from
}>bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be
}>for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.
}
}Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.

Japan did this.  It required near-total isolation from the rest of the world
for 2 centuries.

}Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
}die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as
}long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few
}shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One
}assumes they are moving!)

Hunting weapons are great for extortionist sharpshooters.  "Send me money or
else I'll pick you off from 2 miles away."

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com

Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54355
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <16BAECE99.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
}In article <C5D4Hv.8Dp@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
}papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
}
}>In article <92468@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHPLEIGH) writes:
}>>
}>2.If Guns were banned, and a bunch showed up in south florida, it
}>would be 100x easier to trace and notice then a small ripple in the
}>huge wave of the American gun-craze.
}                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
}       Do they teach courses in rude in Canada?

They don't have too.  Canadian culture is handed down largely from the United
Empire Loyalists who fled from the American Revolution.  Canuckleheads tend
to have a "cratophilic," or government-loving attitude towards authority.

Paul Prescod is right in line with this elitist bigotry and prejudice that
all my Canadian friends hate in their fellow citizens.  His sort of snobbish
Canuck have an irrational horror of American democratic "armed mobs."

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com

Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54356
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <C5D42C.88K@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
}
}>  Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
}
}Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
}
}No comparison.

You, sir, are an ignorant fool who knows nothing about either the drug
business or the gun business.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com

Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54357
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: WEIRD SCIENCE -- by L. Neil Smith

Posted by Cathy Smith for L. Neil Smith

                           WEIRD SCIENCE

Everyone knows how to tell when a politician is lying:  his lips 
move.  What may not be equally obvious is that there are 
politicians and then there are politicians -- and that the phrase 
"political science" is subject to more than one interpretation.  

Years ago, we heard how "scientists" were worried that a new Ice 
Age might be coming, and later on that "nuclear winter" -- smoke 
and dust thrown into the atmosphere by full-scale international 
unpleasantness -- was a possibility.  Something like that may even 
have killed the dinosaurs.  

What we didn't hear was that no actual data supported any of this, 
that real-world events (the burning of Kuwaiti oil fields) tended 
to discredit it, that mostly it was propaganda meant to weaken 
values that made America the most successful culture in history, 
and that the dinosaurs probably died of something like the Plague 
when continents drifted together, exposing them to new germs.  

We miss a lot like this, unless we listen closely.  Prince William 
Sound, site of the famous oil spill, and Mount St. Helen's weren't 
supposed to recover from their respective disasters for at least 
100 years.  That turned out not to be true, although you'd never 
know it from watching network nightly news or CNN.  It doesn't fit 
their agenda to inform us that the earth is vast and resilient, and 
that nature is rougher on herself than we could ever be.  

But for once, the media aren't entirely to blame.  As ignorant of 
science as they are of everything, they trust "scientists" to 
unscrew the inscrutable.  The trouble is that today's "scientists" 
have agendas of their own.  

Nobody in government, that wellspring of scientific wherewithal, is 
going to offer grants to an investigator who states truthfully that 
there is no respectable evidence for "global warming".  The money 
and power for bureaucrats and politicians lie in mass transit, and 
they hate the automobile -- blamed as a major cause of the mythical 
crisis -- as a source of privacy and freedom they find intolerable.  

The same appears true of "acid rain", a deliberate hoax cooked up 
by the Environmental Protection Agency (which hates private 
industrial capitalism almost as much as it does your car) and 
foisted on real scientists through trickery which has depended on 
specialists in different fields not talking to each other much.  

The list goes on, always with a common, disreputable thread.  
"Ozone depletion", for which evidence is even more suspect and 
contradictory than for acid rain or global warming, is no more than 
a last, desperate attempt to indict private capitalism in an era 
when state central planning and the command economy have failed and 
can only find this final, withered leg to teeter on.  

Decades of anti-nuclear alarmism, resting on foundations of myth 
and panic-mongering, have failed to erase the fact that nuclear 
power is the safest, cleanest, most efficient source of energy 
known to mankind -- and more to the point, that the greater amount 
of energy there is available to any individual in society, the 
freer that individual -- and his society -- become.  

Honest studies on the effects of individual gun ownership and 
self-defense on crime -- conducted by investigators who began as 
ideological opponents to those concepts, but which show massive 
reductions in the latter to be the result of the former -- have 
been suppressed, most recently by the California state government.  

And what the media didn't say about recent EPA "discoveries" on the 
effect of "secondhand smoking" is that, although some harm to non-
smokers may have been detected, it was less (by an order or two of 
magnitude) than that associated with frying bacon a couple times a 
week or keeping a pet bird.  It's enough to make you wonder whether 
there was ever anything to the claim that smoking causes cancer.  

That, of course, is the real threat represented by politically 
correct science.  The world is a dangerous place.  It would be nice 
to know the hazards.  I've never believed smoking to be a healthy 
practice, but, given a lack of credibility on the part of today's 
science, how am I to decide what to do about it?  Nicotine is 
highly addictive, to that much I can attest from experience.  Yet 
the stress of quitting may be riskier than to continue.  There 
isn't any way to tell, thanks to the corrupting influence of 
government money on the scientific establishment.  

Two centuries ago, the Founding Fathers spared us certain agonies 
to which every other nation in the world has been subject at one 
time or another, by creating a legal barrier between politics and 
religion.  Each time some short-sighted individual or group has 
tried to lower the barrier (most recently over the issue of 
abortion), blood -- real human blood, hot and smoking in the street 
-- has wound up being shed.  

Real human blood is being shed over scientific issues, as people's 
lives are ruined through the loss, to agencies like the EPA, of 
livelihood, or property it may have taken a lifetime to accumulate, 
to diseases caused by toxins associated with burning fossil fuels 
for electrical power, or thanks to bans on things like cyclamates, 
when they die from the effects of obesity.  

What we need now, if we hope to survive as a civilization for two 
more centuries, is another barrier, a Constitutional separation of 
state and science -- including medicine.  Knowledge is valuable; 
real science won't languish for lack of funding.  The money will 
simply come from contributors unwilling to pay for lies, and 
everyone will benefit.  

L. Neil Smith
Author:  THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN, 
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54358
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

In article <1qksp9$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
>> and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
>> don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
>> an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
>> me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> does not make it LAW. 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.

I guess what I am really asking, like I did above, how does my government
who is my servent, tell me the soveriegn what I can or cannot possess?

It would seem to me that the act of possessing a machine gun is no less
"criminal", by definition, than the act of possessing a television set. I also would seem
to me that it would be better to pass laws that say, that if I harm
or kill someone with the machine gun or the television set that there 
would be specific penalties for doing such. 

>
>> Everyone knows that laws are constitional
>> until it goes to court.

Sorry, I was close.

>
>Not exactly:

>"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
> bound to enforce it."
> 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
>      late 2d, Sec 256


-- 
Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'    	 
Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
brians@atlastele.com           U

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54359
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back



>>Ron Miller wrote:
>>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>>"no, it's total amnesty".
> (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)

> I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is 
>no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing. 
> 
>  
>	Myron Petro
>	NRA, USPSA
>        DVC y'all
>	**************************************************************************
>	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
>	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
>	 Second Amendment.   

If amnesty was their concern, they should pay in cash rather than moneyorder
and they should check to see if the gun turned in was stolen or not.
This way if a gun turns out to be stolen, then even if they wanted to 
prosecute, they don't know who to prosecute.
Since the only concern of these(HCI and the like) people seems to be the total
eradication of guns( legal or illegal ), why should they bother to check for
stolen property.  If they knew who the rightful owner is, then they would have
to return the gun and hence contrary to their intent to ban all guns.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54361
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

In article <1r1173INNajc@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> 
dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Even if it were a capital offense, the warrant was not even an arrest warrant,
>but a search warrant.  In other words, there was no evidence of illegal
>arms, just enough of a suggestion to get a judge to sign a license to
>search for illegal evidence.

It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from
the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search
warrant AND an arrest warrant.

     don



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54362
From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>I am sick, dismayed, discouraged.  And ASHAMED of our Administration.
>
>Anybody for impeachment?

I have already called senators, legislators and the Governor demanding
that the warrants be unsealed, and that all involved in this atrocity
(including the President, Attorney General and Governor) be suspended
pending an investigation.

I seriously doubt, however, that anything will ever be done.


Welcome to Amerika!


-- 
                            REMEMBER WACO!
     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54363
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1qvjh9INNh4l@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)  
writes:
> NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!

I really don't understand all this!  I watched on satellite network feeds as  
perhaps 90 people died before my eyes, while the two Huey's fanned the flames,  
and the FBI stopped the firetrucks at the gate. 

Something was VERY wrong with that scene.

Perhaps if I'd watched RAMBO movies, I might've been dulled to the pain of  
fellow humans dying.

Thank GOD I still feel.  I'm very sorry for you who don't.  For you who think  
they got what they deserved.  Can you really believe that?  Even if Koresh was  
the sadistic mad man they said he was, did the others deserve his fate?   If,  
in fact, he was mad, wasn't that even more reason to believe he duped his  
followers, and therefore they were innocent, brainwashed, victims?  Is there  
any scenaro that justifies all that death?

And if not, it is clear that the deaths would not have occured if the BATF has  
not FUCKED UP initially, and now the FBI got impaitent and pushed Korech over  
the edge.

And that's if you buy the latest version of the "story" hook, line, and sinker.   
I have believed all along that they could not let them live, the embarrassment  
to the BATF and the FBI would've been too severe.

Remember, this was a suspicion of tax-evasion warrant.  There were no  
witnesses, except the FBI.  All information filtered through the FBI.  All they  
had to do was allow one remote controlled pool camera be installed near the  
building, and the press could've done their job, and would've been able to back  
the FBI's story with close up video, while incurring no risk to the press.   
Unless they did not want the public to see something.  The complete lack of any  
other source of information other than the FBI really causes me concern. 


Sick to my stomach, and getting sicker from all the Government apologists
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54364
From: zed@Dartmouth.EDU (Ted Schuerzinger)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:

> I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
> but here goes:
> 
> Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
> 
>                     MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
> 
> CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
> the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
> lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
> gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
> ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
> the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
> napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> 
> THIS IS MURDER!
> 
> ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
> 
> THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
> 
> I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
> it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
> still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
> alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
> 
> I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
> 
> God help us all.
> 
> 
> PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!
> 
> 
> W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

The latest news I saw was that two of the eight known survivors (not NO
SURVIVORS!!! as you so rudely put in all caps) said they started the
fire.

I won't go on with the things the wacko of Waco did.


--Ted Schuerzinger
zed@Dartmouth.EDU
This is not the secret message.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54366
From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote:
> The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
> transports. ...

> With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
> mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
> women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
> to death 51 days later.

Is this a joke?  The legal way to serve a search warrant is to knock on
the door.  Tossing in a grenade to serve a search warrant violates the
US Constitution and is hence, illegal.  The BD complied with legal
search warrants in the past.  I do not understand why the BATF used an
illegal means to serve their search warrant last February.

- Steve Kao

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54367
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: my reply to NY Times editorial "Dear Member of the NRA"

In <1993Apr20.004532.23086@husc3.harvard.edu> kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:


>as a legal gun owner, I must disagree.  Even when I don't see eye-
>to-eye with the N.R.A. on a particular issue, they are the only
>national group which has effectively fought for my rights to target
>shoot, hunt, and protect myself from dangerous criminals.  

One more time.

It ain't about duck hunting.

It ain't about lone perps on lonely streets.

It's about DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS from the *GOVERNMENT*, which 
has seen fit to ignore history and attempt once again to take
them from us.  They WILL SUCCEED if we don't do something NOW.

That's why I think the NRA is a bunch of WEENIES, because they
have FORGOTTEN that fundamental fact.

Pardon all my shouting, but there seem to be a whole helluva lot
of people on Condition White, fat, dumb, and happy, sucking that
glass teat for all they're worth.... Wake up and smell the cordite,
gang, they're shooting at us, and it's high time we shot back,
at least with our keyboards..... 

my two bits'

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
fly your flags at half staff and upside down,
to mourn and protest the death of the BoR.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54368
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: AMA Support Brady Bill

In article <1r044aINNh9f@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

>The following was sent to me by a friend of mine (a med student).  It
>originally appeared in a medical discussion list.
>
>--GUN CONTROL - The AMA expressed support for S. 414 and H.R. 1025 (the "Brady
>--Handgun Violence Prevention Act").  Citing its strong support for the "Brady
>--Bill" in past Congresses, the AMA termed as "particularly alarming" violence
>--associated with, and stemming from, the widespread and easy availability and
>--use of firearms.  The AMA proceeded to comment:  "While we recognize that a
>--waiting period of 5 business days before a handgun purchase will not address
>--all of the difficult problems that have made violence so prevalent in our
>--society, we believe that it is a beginning and will save lives.  Physicians
>--are first-hand witnesses to the horrendous cost in human life being exacted
>--by firearm violence. A reasonable waiting period before the purchase of a
>--handgun is a protection that the American people deserve."  (Letters to
>--Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum and Representative Charles E. Schumer; March 11,
>--1993.)

       I wonder if the AMA has an exact listing of "lives saved" in 
Tennessee, California, and other waiting period states.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54369
From: chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote:
: What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
: had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
: compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Initial assault on the "compound" ( more like a wooden farm house if
  it burned to the ground like it did ) for WHAT?  Regardless of who
  started/caused the fire, NONE of this would have happened if the
  ATF can HONESTLY justify their initial assault and handled it 
  properly!  

   QUESTION AUTHORITY!
  
<SNIP>
: With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
: more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
: the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
: at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
: of ours.
: 
: With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with

    Show me some evidenence instead of repeating what the FBI/ATF
  told you.

: mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
: women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
: to death 51 days later.

    Then I'm sure you won't mind if the ATF or the DEA raid your house
  someday on a bogus informant tip.  So what if they killed/wounded your 
  family "accidentally" during the raid, it's just a fair price to pay
  for law and order in this country, right?  Answer this question 
  honestly before making anymore ignorant statements!

    What is even more disturbing than out of control government agencies
  are citizens who allow them to be irresponsible. 

--F. Chiu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54371
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> thomasp@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Parsli) writes:

>	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
>	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY

>	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..

What does this <censored> from NORWAY think he's doing telling us
how to run the place?  I wanna know... somebody please 'splain.

Guess how NORWAY survived the Third Reich?  Give you a hint,
it wasn't by passive resistance the way the Danes did it....

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
wearer of asbestos underoos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54372
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:

> Yet, the FBI mouthpiece at this afternoon's press conference characterized
> the quantity of CS gas pumped into the building as "massive", and speculated
> that after a few hours of exposure any Davidian gas masks would become
> useless.
> 
> Does this sound "not harmful" to you?

Hm.  A previous poster argued that the fact that the BD's did not rush to
escape the burning building indicated that it was they, and not any of the
government actions, that started the fire.  On the other hand, I wonder if,
with a face full of "massive amounts of CS," *I* would be able to escape
a burning tinder-box like that ranch house assuming my best efforts.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54373
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Waco, they did it.    ( MASADA )

In article <C5rtLJ.Aqz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:

> I can't see these people standing calmly around while they burned to
> death. Sorry. I just can't see them choosing a death as horrible as
> this. The story doesn't wash. It'll take some convincing to get me
> to believe it. The FBI said today that Koresh had earlier intended
> to strap himself with explosives, come over to the FBI agents and
> detonate, but lost his nerve. He lost his nerve for a quick, clean
> death but not to roasted alive? Sorry, don't believe it, even if he
> was nutty as a fruitcake.

On Ted Koppel last night, the ubiquitous Australian woman claimed that
Koresh trained the women (years ago) how to commit suicide by swallowing
cyanide or by putting a gun in their mouth.  With cyanide on hand, why
choose to roast yourself?  There are too many unanswered questions here.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54374
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!


In <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET writes:

>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:

Fret not, you made it.

>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.

Not while we still have our guns.  <evil grin>  

Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys,
it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming
houses and violating civil rights under color of law. 

Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution?

-- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54375
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:

   [flame-bait, pure and simple]



-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54376
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
> In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:

> >> The massive destructive power of many modern weapons, makes the
> >> cost of an accidental or crimial usage of these weapons to great.
> >> The weapons of mass destruction need to be in the control of
> >> the government only.  Individual access would result in the
> >> needless deaths of millions.  This makes the right of the people
> >> to keep and bear many modern weapons non-existant.

> >Thanks for stating where you're coming from.  Needless to say, I
> >disagree on every count.

> You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
> mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
> neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
> gas on his/her property.  

> If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of
> the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?

I don't sign any blank checks.

When Doug Foxvog says "weapons of mass destruction," he means CBW and
nukes.  When Sarah Brady says "weapons of mass destruction" she means
Street Sweeper shotguns and semi-automatic SKS rifles.  When John
Lawrence Rutledge says "weapons of mass destruction," and then immediately
follows it with:

> The US has thousands of people killed each year by handguns,
> this number can easily be reduced by putting reasonable restrictions
> on them.

...what does Rutledge mean by the term?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54377
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

If anyone is keeping a list of the potential contributors, 
you can put me down for $1000.00 under the conditions above

Keith Emmen
kde@boi.hp.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54378
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>>
>Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
>really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
>a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."

Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
come out with their hands up several weeks ago.

>>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>>scenarios.
>
>The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
>that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
>how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.

More than someone who would not release children from the compound.

I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.

I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.

>>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>>ludicrous.
>
>I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
>risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
>were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
>
>Drew 
>--
>betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
>*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
>*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
>*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
>    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54380
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: A picture is worth a thousand words...

begin 644 outOfControl.gif
M1TE&.#=AN@*6`?```````/___RP`````N@*6`0`"_@Q@J)O-[XQ4#IYX::Z3
M9PUB4ZAY9`<NY59*:/!2L0C-J^W>2(>?[-C3Q70,6A`H9)&2OA=*ELQ)?RW+
MP3HT5F%1RQ%INGZNVMF4&WR0?4+>"OO!,-7(-SO,K#^I=2_<=J?4,QB(`X-V
MN)-X>+;C1^B&UI7C&#E)=7E&F)?9"?9X`OEH.77CE(*I!5KI^08H-I8PMC9:
M26HW"RLFN]LK>@NH1PN[UT>YQ,&ETL#[)#=BVO0<ZZ=VB7S=**D)!?G+\]M&
M%`[<2MY]$=[*JFW8V>6ZYHSZG6V.#DVZ-XS?[8*X:`@M6;SB;5M'<""U3VS&
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MTGT]+%:WZW&B]=*%2U.U2(3>*<)[FRUT68-87I>_N_I:3DF2`\/^UWLI1I^)
M_L:?@]D18E6AIMQ1A2F6T&S-074@3R+(%$5V]ODCDGI(I71:=_&)UYHJL#4H
M3(`U",?67N?A@B!A$:18FQ$%O;C%;B>!4Z$OF!!(8BF**:21?@8.J(1++A5H
MV&:118><=*PEEY^,$X)&6V;DL.B=@E)&.>1W[/&&TGL,;>FC<<:(R1]\C9'G
M!(.Y(1(-2,4YZ$]G5)H()7U!PHACBDQ5)I6<EH%YHD)P>,EDFF"5XV&&U=G4
MD'KV:*C@HW0-Y^<V%FY7(G?[04E,F_;DV>"??74*VF'7L4E=@N8IF1&5[&'S
MVW%^018<8Q)-8YT5KQ[G!IAIK"7A;KZ2Z%ELSUFZ_DI\RI)W47@6+:@HA`DV
M&DJ1ITK*:K,_X->K4=P"I!M@-5Z:#YV>*IDH9$%N.I^DQ>F)WFS'+E83<GEA
MB.I/)H4W)X>I601%I+PM9VZEPVXU+WA%FANP>U_86.>_CG(Y[KG<ZFO+*_RP
MVJ^6'!-,%#6S=)D/O3:^:F#"@9+\W%\W3A?AC,`@BF^U_";9\,+$+BMPGR])
MZS%S/&8YAXH2[ZP5Q#*&&Z.F8[);C,A0P3CUH&&HNZZJQ*#'Z9Z1Z@=KO7;A
ME300BSP+8K`7GPTMM@9=60Z[)_+<6L^IPMGOCJ7B[0Q-SB)-,=<4^L9,6/"M
M'6*]I)(Y<7VQXIIR3R4G_FY-5B+#K)G-FMV-VLI>#UXLC0I/;F;!N08>](:-
M2_=4EF.O&G3J3)YY,^H(&UOBAXP*FQUV`OJ5"NQZUR65D24_[C6#I(L-XIVZ
MQKLDN;1OF;OANB>)**>9.MPNDM,;&RVA>;]T\-RN?U^TSH";\FU^K5[7Y/7*
M_RF4<T[E$J;D(Y.)2\AAW[N9`0GN;M#C%?^X%S5W:()M<(D=D1*X'N)`2WH_
M`A30;J>HZ55I>/!26<5^!9C:X2R$WQH5?[03+E,QC&I#XY,!*Z<4>RTI:?LS
MTE7PQC\8BDI(QZ!.0T0TL_B!2WRE:U%7E,&Z"Y4F?'GP$/.26)+Y(5!>4FSB
M_ODL`1W&?<U"[0O(D5("CAGMBC3/RYE3=G*_,\8J:_B;UCXHUR[@=7"'-)RC
M#SL&P5J@$%D1&YWG("B_[FD1:!MYS\^&Y2X.;E%E'^M0``_904.A2FQFX-U/
M,$8?\`UF5V#KT<MZY"C@C<B*D&O$(Q>YA'LEXXJ)>1`F[V.W]!`1B4$13HZJ
M()]9GL^`BJ2;EM#'LQ9N+D#54UN^=B@:9$7#<X1B(Z[X8;]FH**-SGGAY1K'
MR#J6[UTMBV';.H2=^`&S#2SBG-%,IS/*G,9\BD03BJ!&H$:R,S>3>@44L2G)
M4NUM1(;@7>_DF3(*DJ$H]A-EYJ0YOQH&4!6G;,XH_L=&0_35R$RJ*6'&)CH^
MN0CH%+Q$&2Y?]QV!T/*>533=E,J7KEC:\V`T8QRD9&G16S2O'ERLA6W$2$#C
MI!(WB[G<-$TFJS)"CHYJ<J,9=>J8>39R@9($H[_V=D&4EDT>VSLJDM3I1POB
M,"WH.)/;1C5%A&)0H/OJ#=MF]=5)BE.!TS'E$R-Z/VLJ1X;&"X0$M[I!M![T
MHX.DW=HNR30=-?,_BA/L^HPHCD+!+*4@S:A'+[78>HY%'04=Z3D7%A;$B?2R
M3$7;*E=J2_WEL)IJS$5IU4C0,$5/:,W+GS2IJL&7LC6?:J-6'XE5NBQ"2IX^
M@YL@'4E(DQ*S9YP]%\[,_H%0ZU`P=W$B'&,X&,(*`==%YK,A'G"37+[P,PZ6
M]&#?D!I'2OE,5B4][KB8ZT6#M<AE@K,2/<DZ3A,I-FJZ]*U7WQ))MDIUMMX%
ME8;2:[3ZKBA?WC(N4/*81LMY\F0)[531/`FDU2ZO2O-R[4K0])$]=I5BARV3
M+Q\82T@6]S^'_&H_PI>I^!9ON\YM4^\"8^!WP+BQ)HN;`.O3)6C&58Z"RJWH
M>-C1U':RL@<4$A$?BZ\,?]"=`AVF?0%*18FNIX`)317G5/?(`2X3N)Z@+'OM
MMJ_H"D].W-C64`E;U%/R-+PAFY8.9:PU03[%B>"]B.8<FAD/[Y'`8$;N?.LK
M_CN5"@S*!*'Q\;`HPFT:3)6\Q>UF'4M"$VKQ>2Z2])I=6E<W]SBUK\4NV%2[
MK5,IH\Z?BW.FLTS>SD$YR>R@V4E=-59AMFZ%O]T?)4&%.4?Z-UE$$R[+&%OJ
M/SIYQ-?R78TQ&K.<&11B?0WH&C6MOQFV6<X&SFDU!!5);;+,KIBY"0GA]V%W
MP@/9EO5U8_!8R-6A6LF0OK.*VXMN$6ML14!4ZXM'O>-W:G4?U;PTCY?M;_SY
M;\':O;&#!WI1ZTE-JT,&\JY_[4"]I%>%A$FG*B4[V$D+[^(8?+C5\%K=;$'V
MT$4V]W(%/5,7JY"/Q_`T3P`=\#4CN-\R[S&#+TTK_H0KK1TU].$T;_Q&N4&Q
MOS4#EZ7X#%\L$_:F%?-XK9J\;>9Y>+Y)/T]2>EWRR$;=6EJC*>A\$W-HAMU_
M-5]VOGGZVK-/.^PTKM_VR.C@M'>3:-I4L'@SMZBOAQ2(LV9X!6?>;NI*EI:.
MUNF282U1/*,XD>+>I$DG;F^`1UOL!24MV<?NZ4X'7+MKI_RG\22F,H-R4M@.
MJK.1K.((L4_4K<ZU+>\Y[,-W6-=V5)]Z$X_7JDOX?]_LWLP#Y6>*=XWM,0>]
MP#&/_.33_/@N?[3EP2U\@W?FN;Q^>>\;*KZCR[YXZ`9IP'B-^)2JVL2*I^\S
M=E_8U%_=T+P/<%4G3%FY_O>SL\-/OMJ5C__\VW_YF;\\-R&L7*EV94`"7C-D
M-@Y702/4-$,45>`W*%Z%*7,`>U<5@5WS)>.3)]/'$JBF+0GX=]GW9]=63LTU
M.`*A?R?(?"C84Y)W?/>W(^LB%%A&:G>"1G5'.NK'8EWD5HN7+;*S@2)$1A/$
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MN'+P1(O;R(WZMQ/^]V]QAWTZASS8EH`^!8T(XB8`5B>K=H#.(H2^Y4<=PWC/
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M7?F-!\=\(!:$*!EH:2:"^\@A70240&>6`&EQ&!@]:>@>K:-4?K>$7-:,]'1L
M'WE]7T2!Y%(N/LESW@>6-/=,&[.87JF8-:>9-S)7<H>4B_,[^":-E51L&;1Q
MU@8R9W9D'&4G579>+Q1O;<.1#+6(RCEE@D!EUTD\Q+EHZ<>07>:2]L6"@2@-
MA`>.MZF%N0F+.%>9!?>4_DY'C&]2&C%%BI:9E^LD?<ZX6WRE,!VX'Y;HB_N%
M<M+I/>O5=;]48;9#F/$(@SM&),1!GN@YBPM&F_UV.]DEF;H(1YQXF<'HE!%)
M74L76>0WC?")>WP'2%^TG*VU=6A%>Y]S8:<SD>]7FN&D6X'4.2EXF'W9/VLD
MH86(<_<G6AL(DZ0$9-FYG=#'<AAYAU/W5O=9BJ(XERKYI&+)DCGYHM9)B<")
MA%"*HO=5GA^$H[[);^S)I4>JHS^:GBWH<D-:F8BT:2Y:9^#T7@P4<N,'0#D6
MI?TYG'\9@`88GPFJ5Q#RI?A)DLA`>)O(H(7Y>]43)Z88;!8V5]-F)RDG>=>%
M_H)+`Q+",E!+@WSJ.9[%=S+T,W09RE7.]W4V%F6C*1E$&&M>ZE@5)Y59FFH\
M29H,]7_#^)Y$M:*V"H?%R8Y3"52:!W"C)W5A*8N::G1BD0Z>ZHUCIW9?`BO<
M!*F*YT&M-TELN9FUAGK6.%5S@Y-]&IQ1=G[^V7%>&GM".3!/%Z#J)*XQ2C`#
MZ4+T,ZIA6*2ZV93(:J^QVJG8A6^CUJ_/2HL>6*N*&JD7%GEJ!6>_^3KU"6*?
M0CD-"(5SJHIH*I)[*9FFAK$4>#3P93$QPD)MZ9BBY((0&XXCNYY?N35I]*]\
M`;#XEV!;.:BDYGWZV)/`&D'#!FRLHZ)3.D]WX8#+_N`JK#D>XPB$C&A^KI>D
MU`IOZ8JF:?A>9K6LTVHYDR>(_0BJG@<^*^NOA>:R0OJI69BT[>>7=.@K]N9<
M!SJC([JSCB.@;\BNZ@JCA+2P$CN&@7J?R!27WMI#@_890+L+\=)\/A6V.!JV
MH6I:7"LY2/2RS:J"Q'J%&ONMF/BJ9ZM<X;E9G4FTR+FHH^B`PK5B34MRQ]E;
M9/NY<TBF:E:@>(N72@H40T9P]RJS)V:"LVF3FL:RSNJL1-&XA[NF<9JK!\N+
M$\1NIC*=0J.V!6NN*QEXN/<W,KB4]BEG<1:5RBMO?9<H@W>5=6ILEK9PMF.Z
MHBHNB(NRD`NJRMJL3J*X_FH:DV68<RPJ7B.XCDMFM!"1M[#3I3PI4Q'+JBUZ
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M*R\T6:&+F[OJJR_,RLI6&\4B/$`%EJT^2\N)6,4';&NZO+J4'&M/J8\/J"J(
M&*7W6+71^Z!RF\)@O!4\_!7BT:.("7416JVA<R5FNI!)O+O7C,?9_,;.$Z![
MQ\G[RVTI;,B:*<.!2<]5&7$W)\RAC+UM",R1K,DJZ1^CN<P:EK"QIU=".[$^
M]Y7UZ<\I.\$(/9,%<EW5F:IH*ZB1"L4AV8CE-<[P_NR=;CD0_5'1>GNN#[B+
M?@6=R*O.19;)61PX2_JA*69GL6MZ:<I:K@2^G(JX30S3VUB#D$Q64+V7-7&J
MJ@=HMR55!FR/3MA@Q2Q?'YVQD\:WL.S.?X"'RZ*#?RO/+P.5%_LF;@IT2I2X
M%=S5:GJ@_QG/>O1*(QEA!<RA(.>J/RNG:KW7P^6N7[JE-2S7\P9J,&R/1;E^
MCCK(Y/9R=F>A#5>X=Y8WI7#2A9W-R8O9AX.-3#C5D&VJORFT_BF!CQ''=)RH
M\)3#S-AQ4Z6<6BIP->@^G'>41ZF65M=<0&R8ZS"JD^J@7>P+6!.BO\@4M^O:
MBQET[&HQC$N_BXR6O@>I_D2;EO"(I9XHA.A-SN%:UK!K*R.\2`$)Q;5=N?3F
MDU(KIA+W?0IM:D8LT#,KTMMLBUS=W81(4/+GIU08>=JVU'\JO0S>>S<3@7;H
M?/H=UW+*OU(<8A1LVL2'PD:ZR?[(R3DZ<!!1>659BXZIT;JT98\JF@B>X+Y+
MTU[LS<ILVQ)MJ`Y=RY2]W?CHTS#'6SE\PJ"&V#>W5PW\>J&840T-M'QBG9=J
MU1Q\BTZ#(?0M;9]<XPKNXEKF5)FEDY3YD3>,H:BXV[C,M`E3-0\)A@C3=S0L
MM\P(O%=];:ULJ4V]*>A"Q1,7G\8*0(-;$0:)Y^2TP,U9O6S"JEU.Q%MCX`M'
M_M>L)\AQ+JV_;+%WO88VG'CJ:++]I8G!3+%I;'84[%`J"YJ%%WW?1J@@2;YU
M+K8WJKF:"UK&U^6Y.7J<P74'0M(E;>>W+96^^E*:+25C.>OQ*KTO:<Z<I.?]
M3*%GRE6AZIR_?;.3B#@X/+*3:N4_1YX4NMJN1LAJ3>B,WG\D6WIWF$\$J2>8
MX\O92V?"Z)Q&6<`W7EBC*W1\B*2+NN+,-L/YENASN>,F[H<G2MRV.WFT7N4%
M_V44I\7(UNLV)^Y6*Y?9;1_KRH82SAI;EXHAB?%U&=(97Y4-5,@!&91FV]Y5
M7HEXP.^(_%?T%N9.$O`I]J!>W=K0+-!9/(RJ>ANU_@>D3LRE2E0XM?600F[#
M!!B:S%VHT4F&TVO4A%K97-:&L<AIL@O81P4X:?(A=$[CJ;U\*=^FYD;?34J$
M]A*YX?Z[9I?LI7SJ]POD6F[MQ%7DICW2?HI#VJ*K1?V)98[GM_=I_3?`6^H[
M?$3:MLS5--[LQ%?HN4[O6,VZ.ORX`'.0>,)"HV%,AP[OO"F2%CG1LR+,$XXB
M/PW('.ZTI5[1JX3:(?)#<WRR,5F'A(RYW8*Z!#ZP!Z_-X!BM5AZ:^R;[ID[V
M.[]VCVCBZ+ZB@OL[.GN,M!;O/%TM&_V_G+WYK]_"9%YVZ=[JGC_W[YBM@"_X
MU5?8):N0;`:&H3;R[MWJ_GE/\#)Y:&&$LX8XXIP$J.S.2NA\S-D9\Z:?E".N
M^'!OY\M([SO*IN0;5^-*`('Q5",;(633T5,QT)MW_\'0$L6D,S>#5,G30M5X
MF2]:;O&[H?$^K#2L("?S8$AVR<EPF%D`ER;@E`F5P4;7Y[;8K"Y?S2Z%*N5F
MH^"M[2M,O]=.M/K'M+MS:6?WVK\8'P)KK.(*Z7P0$Q'Q>AA!'!^#^%*^SJ`4
M/VYF($LP*1\Q0@?+SL),8[1TT/;"QB;-J+Q<96F]:E/A8E7U+&]ES5I-/511
M%#D;@\E67P!G7T^%USPQ@1>#47?LB.HZDTE+L:;O/F$_.U\CM(9;DR(&H<%P
M_JM)OXE[6>W566W+YV8MR]6CI<^6(5\L$"Z[YV(3CTP,Q5%ZAH[=$4%*GL&3
M$S'BL8<CR$FTYB,@PX0&JTT[J4U:R)8N-!7;%@KC)$-8=#TI68A@R7#X^('4
M&118JHEOYO'*U4N8A$J_KAUY&4<=1V-1[]'\8Y$>4E_^8(*#L\X<68<KF(I1
M!DE3-Y$.3LKS*JYM0HQ8U_(:HQ;0J'<^XP6V%[02+J5%YR+.B;.P4F]Z0?;[
M=I.RV*26H_$\:]4:4*_HX$I5#`UQ93:>W*S<'&GQVT-A$Q$<)VV?QQ:E#4=>
MV%6FWW9_$Q-M3$@VDH:CD[V#;)=PQJ.Q@,>ES:9X_IN!A+'*O20][3;.'YU=
MY_JG6=2<3%$)32\IKTR!K)&]INJ.VVWX-1H'%HK:.^S<2@ZKB)'?D##NO,%J
M>^P]@>38Q3KB\K-IP>7$`TR[.99)\+1_BC'LDN^ZN=!#T:)+)SP1X6FNJK8B
MP0ZBD91K:*C5GJ(1-AD9!/$S!7=,L)\4TB%Q+]PB!*L4Y8#*9C2G-,2/0]T.
M'.<\]!X<+B0?*R0M.>]6LDU'UW@,R$0#S6ONNB$+J@Z/7=ATJ8X/S4G/"&Z\
M_$@WS#:BAJS4\H/LN(%8)#`OS5QKTZ'PI#SS3RHSQ-#/G7C3\DE(K<.0.R(=
M:=.]`.7[4K,EUQ+TN<=(_FU43D<?BO)%NN(<*X\ZI_NO2LY^PE/&H>[:9Y@"
M<[4RILKN4D,N8!4=\5;)`A1"0N$F%`O'[-:1PK.>M+G0I&<];9'*894DL$#@
MU-LMBV'3%)=/"NMCL;Y#M\JVU7.S/(V_:XTTZJ!2@;S34#5)S0A;!'LL,T=J
M?R444R.+K50Z`/7[=;)SA'6S8'>5U2-)=PPD,[0*)RV+.5W-,JNT55F*S5UD
M/G85P-[TG,VN@X^"]B(L1_Z4)X`)%ECA<N,%>%Q%G4W*YX;Q6J7@6J?KST'5
M3EY79U'DQ'C:/W/>%EWHV"JHY`'[(ZGD>6$5*5$M0>0Z:&;,A<IL%*'>:N2.
M_JD^N\85J4-2N$?O`)7MN']L;=&JG$45K:1M;#I:C=AI1F.R(XU[M8D+SR-R
MPRFW,^07*V8U+,#Y73RT(BC]=R%EELO1UH`U17UL9!L?4>AG3ZR2=3/KYH1/
MNNTS/&41,?ZK+\#N'9W<*ZNUW*W+*T_>\LP)*9Y6YX.U,'$!Q;:9"ZRY'.MU
M:@UFMSL-5[;YR5B%MW(NN3D_\A_[X%3>+>E!]ZU7FN\FLM.3PW9?__WY4ZWM
MS%%2OGQ1)GY).IVUD-4COQFP)0XJ$Z,2N+?"I&X[!PQ<68C7/OXE['-"XM4#
MC;4PH.5/1R3<X`E/"*]\-!`<N^,9XC#SE5K]"';B_GGAI<#BNHKP+((0Q`YC
M6O<N?=V0![:[7PK3YJT@1>^'`4R._93',A1.D8J>4I>=%E878G6/,7@;X<[4
M-ZK@$'!G*PR."WNX*>R%KBN+"M&6JE@H0(WB<P.SV@I;8T+PY,Z*<?0C_L"D
M+BW*3H[BZUD,T;6C[Q'RD%&B8)%"J!#NI2QA`=M0A*28JB)2$7YHDYI>@$>W
M<'QQ<C":R1]1F<JR:9)\O8%B&7V(/D-2J$--1%.D'-84EUF-C+63V.:NE<NI
ML*^4R0.B)V<6'5TB35K,TAM:Z+$Q54Z3FBC<",,>*1M.,0N&/*0#<L`I,^L)
M1H`,K!H4#;@3EV@0E,6D_MQSX/(MBA"R>7DD%/*Z%@4]KK*:_>3DK8H4(S/5
M8T)HM&$,*0D\T^2P>K,)UU,F@\N'#HU)-<KG$?=W,?)X2YF.K!>XEI:],Y((
MCE7<IS]1VK(N>D8J/A3A)0,G/5G6T''A!*&3?M@Y/T6LE=VAW6"PJ+6,GI)Z
M="P1WL9G3P;6=*##W.!)4QK5SF"0.;Y,FCX&R42$'LM6HFBA2"EEQ'V=K3I<
M5%*EL/71W`P.JJPZJT]X]4D(V?1ZC+NJ2[G*4R0B[7T.A:94J9FU4VTJB9RR
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M"H`F;8^@DXNB>V:OHNI=3ZD;.F-`[Y=DF#79?<[B0$MSY';3Y98BT3O2/BO;
MQ^U+]C>OQM"YGEFQA4W6HE-;.1'+KZ.F6K7/PKG4*[($S.Y4B9#<&6/_WB=0
M;JIT9ADMW3+;$+*T_NG4:,G""J:EWBR#7)4-_=Y]4UM[X/;FS]@CXW@#<L0<
M190N80H1\"WE;;U>I0DG_C)9A>N8C]-<Z_B"?>YR8:^V93W$,S,,S&4U&]LZ
M6+ECR-1+QNJV?B7-VA3Y\$&BJ3G2L90H=(J9$NYV>7.+`RR8M3LOV(JN%MA^
MDQM?:IKM?:;?&%8?M,F-;+&9_%PMKC?Q+*A4_M[INTDG=F<[5,#H^MKK6D^?
MTA=N/.YN]G]^YKC9A^KG2587@W2"^9S-EVJ.27)&AJ4ZP5M58)J#4<VS+?36
MQ^OM%D]ZW10[4\Q9RDX#JTV'<$V\Q..^&:%[3>VDA/NP^\H=>FG3[IAS(^&/
M"^?-U_G!HD0K^9C=Y"XBCM=@(EJ8Q"EY7%>3(NL;25$R;ON0R]WB?_YKQLF.
M_O>6H7+<T0KIAJ<J\]M?OWG*13?)_;=FQ/>RFS`E\LCS?6R4<[KY?F3C-?;"
MZ+T-.D]P@M=>^3(JO._SI-+'=(M8+[PD9W8,8HBX+Y;`JNSZJZJTC`'%:^_X
MJ@`/QLG>[G5&9Z?\2?^:KOV(8-MJPK9>I8^.CVIB!L>>9_E.KX2@;(^,!W=R
M1\L"K\>@"Y8.JWO(SHFZ9*LFCY=^#I+NI;RXZ7P"T-S^RP&Q9.AN053H3V5^
M3]WZKN/^JCWJ*D\23'*L4`1-D,YL1/584)L>2>J:<*$TC86J9^\8)0SY3-3&
MJ]68*=^`SZ&Z;^,\3OBHD/F@K^&^ST7\KO(&1T]P_J+6IHSH1.[D.J+1GK`+
M_<[E0M`'O5#\^.7PQNKOD&S1;,]0*&Z9FJZ9;&*(PG#^`JCZX@C4Y*40"R57
M+"0E0,P$5ROT@@GM-I`4<X`*&0:)B.ZYG(T/)8VF\JJY3([I[*P1>:L`QRX2
M(82IVNP1\6O)*,V+6,__^*GMU.G<EG`:R_!RG+%_YLCH?N/L(*:X:A&0NDS8
M^"[7M(48[^P3*;&L%N_-$LC\8D04^>T4<$@`MPJ&ID`=U]#>$(S`GK'$\C#G
M7(P57RSA@DSS7"^#:DS`#'(%I7$4(4^`5N_/WHL,O<L!HZO=T)$"&2^@E"_.
M4JX$5:ZV+"@>ZS"5-FX'_I]'[>8GN6A,((N0+]*/"!]-S+[L&[]DK33I[22P
M)=WLRA[2!;4O]CH,@,8JX`+JA322=!:L[F(NR;I*?&I0&(T+\$K+#^Z0O#J%
MRRZM#S40N\IQG2:/G<01"@O1-N9Q(CN(S!#/H]Q,G03NS4@2(@]-UHX0%0ER
M-X+(VBS%#2.1(5TM)QVR(35P)`4,T,XA$(WCH-XH%Y'N%DM2)HDIO@+I1L[I
M!<$K`<<P\HB+'2./Q<(,IXSEP&00[(8+[9A2"+WO_%2LRMSOU0*A=Y*)A'+N
M-,ULX+BIVJ;*+&%2/7"R#SULX>3P"K]C(2]P*2-G(@D.'KD,!H.,_%Z.Z>82
M_@'S\8X\B-M6DKUTZ"G;P-"L*9`*:!.YTU=,DRIIQ"*)JMCZJ"OU`]@@;9,T
MR""O<?,8DS*%#P!_<"/E!>E$I^L2KR_7!0BSJOM^21%_J73:0>PJD1/;3A<%
M)13M:V:THE?.,R;?X_>BCQGZ`FU(C\;$R#FRC?E,RV2(<P!Q<=;*8/26QZ_L
MLJ"^*?Q"#>@^\N!L\)+";1EGKL2N4[DZ[S"F)))@T:W(X$$YZ^%H#C&%"Z`\
M;<)\J^?N[A\_JCRI:Q!+%#+5LD3?4J8(L>1@DC\+%+MJ,Y]\=!?%4SL7U/'B
M$+DD=)X^JQ,-L*5P;B8^D,K^9]^P;`G/\-\NK]MX_M+I3BO:@%+2;NY'\V?_
M<+$="3-00XKV[`I)M0?W[&^6`O'O&,G4>*F0Z.Y`BVW*5+)1IA/VL+&MH$:>
M=&[,A.VXWC,@-4V"'@\+7;'X'N>=?@TEN7$$[PP4:V]158@B_^^\'O`2C7!U
M[,T"'77-U$A^>L=C0B4[OO""MLD/I[0;C=4?62TAU;,O-]-7EN40.<Y)"^M:
M835657!R=DRA?!,C@>Q*.Q7BON(H:U`+]='$V)61@I3$9K$5-56M$M(IWTIS
M2B@V(U45@[5HR+(%26<(M?7B!L]?@K$U;55*%Q,6"'`%R^V[UK/B&&K9X-#=
M4@19KZY\L`PU[>5!UZ98_A9HIFHRP$1T.$E68`^SD:#4*4?*^$!,!"7EIG)0
M3/$OZ6864.M3-UM1#*$K2<FP2VGK!HO,(H'2$H.1N#!5T5)62$U-*#,Q/IT5
M<CY5]C:U9E3*/<_P8,$Q`=$3.JGT[+!I*\>QZBBU82]35M@,-Z&.JOIS`X>2
M$"O3!J7VQ.9U1$]49M:Q6!'N39DU.,/,54M592LTTT3.2]Y/\.#RGZ022*^H
MU6C+&]FJ<3]/F":T8W4O$_GN)"-FX&8GLB[(70611".4]\"K*6E5/KT,1^_P
M830G4^B1`Z/T+_GT6Q_7<(\4('?O3<9L0!%RM`ILO:H1=55-,`CPPLZU0"&/
M_N7")W8?Q$@ATE6GCVK!YA\[]#/!-5_=S7J=]4=O<D.M%DBA-';8;U=&<:68
MMZ'4UV[]2S\7J1VYL$S#[G@9:R`#[1T9%0\Q:F)037"Q=:-$U2+\,4=5-VR<
M\/-N%_54L$[*S?]"576>*Q9?<TYV4/6T<GB+,K>,L=T:L#/;]RV=BZ2*=V?Y
M*1MQQ=B*-ON";MW\=U7J"#8=SCK7CD1!=/FHUGLST"^WMO%JU6LEX7<43V[A
MELE&>-*TB$O]0'BC[B'KD4Z#EUS,+E/-HXTXCTG!U#^.5+YR$!OT#P_K[@;[
MZ@GOSR49V(R?=7/[4>QTIM?&9&ZW1B'R*C3E`7/;_E!7T:^#/15YJT"G4!56
MKW*.5UB#0PZ-FBDKX`]J"UB>I#!\`NSK?NV,)9D;2_/KIH0/7Y.`G?A#",P,
M+\O@-#-C\56)M3AH:315_\]L0V6__E6H`+A-:^V*E5`)W2:3:Z*^?@<V$ZO2
M?C=$QW:2<VQ9]=*!*YA4Y[,:)^MLE33\=&TSP2\?E]>2EMA4T[4*52Y^B!>*
MHQA.,92&!]@4"5A4Z$AJ3/$[.959`PN84VIBZ>67]Q>VN!0A*VHZ2:W:KN^'
M-==:\!-IE52,M:V1U3!XV)<%@Y1P6[4Z9_A>8>PB?"/3(!D`(#JB)7JB(5J'
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M_J]GZK1WVY>$6'`[R2I_CE>3BFR$;);K:Y&E&J6WVHB:^[O!.[S%FPL)&SU7
ME*)3&Z?*.Z?'*+3]9J_W$J;C4@`7;T=Y&[U)*E`UV[3C]#&+6[/56@?/VG/H
MP[43^F41F+FI&K]-6[P=_,$AO+:YFXKOJ>H$&:SMAM)DI4CW&ZC:M:X'L[XC
M.[1S.RV]\L:>)BLW6Z9N=$?GU.'`658SVH$=F\0C_,9Q/,=#6G8;'+,[S.TV
M>R<OL)Y'?,7;>FJ\Z^KN-W=+/*T34VU1>[8;&F5__,CS&Z/'-Q^@6JF_\V91
M$,MK?,9U?,S)/,=#+;)O&O>.F`U/.SL;'+Z3&[B5_IL9K?Q4%%R?ZC.\^1&D
M97B0Q3Q[.1',JUBH`UN<%URT[T^_RWS1&3W,Q5S0V[RGV-O(C5S#W#NF9LVS
M?DS3F<J*2V_WQ%&'F9G/!]RH>B][!?32,UO%EGIOZR_2'7V_&WW6:3W"0U==
MX^+8]"W*>2IJ@YR:*[!B?[''PV6RX=L,-[S6_SR64['2_7JP95W0%:.UPQE<
M`G-B%;>CH5S9N;W;M7W27\+3T=S9D[0WA]TNTWK<W?*4Z=Q:^9O<X:O#;9S4
M%UN10;W.05QNF'S2"4:)"!R+[URK;]O;"=[659.3`5Q5X%SC^!NQTITO$:88
MSV\2(;`@:_J8_'N\V]C*_FV69:,=OX&]@)V4B;!]WG<<P!]]?`M^Y1O=W87)
M8LU5S2$9V2?0PN#<B#E5:(&EXN^4X\M8S^71I;+V\>+OOW4UK_M;3SF:G27<
MY%G^Z0G^`,W1TH%N@[-3:+-*WCMQYE'=LR<NR(^>W+_9G16[?6M6_4[:Z-<;
M'S=KY'W;J:K2Z:%^[KU=ZC%1WN5;P\>]G&Y^X2F=BJ]KFGV>TED]="W,P,F>
MJ]57REP1ZW[59^VHJ7G7GUF:NU<=TND^\VG=BB5;O7'+$L]2YOL:;@2_N7K=
M%U.XW'$0[[_/EC=1Q_V-U^DGPP5)]%:?0@&Z7K.=Z;^\R.4^\34_^+^];TH'
M_F0-#^5'T]@;U:J>5.*ED/8EF/!W[,CCJCG'G"C?'=.%+O0M/^*E/*_]F5$I
M[Z-!5?C-_[NE%O0W=O3W\A+;$K6/Z>_3_7`5WHL@=?[Q'9=5^^&OGW`&G\<(
M(#BFGMF"8U#.VN;-&>H=]A,Z$4*&%+J,B<F>+QS+,UW;-Y[''B9=E@\(7'UZ
MPE5).$PJ*\L(DD?Y47M5D)79($X9(*@VR-MRMD5DUMC2L6E@EY/K5/S@:Q<W
M*LYJ,)[Z'5U8%U.;3:!AHN(B8V,.X)&1I%37VU6EW=+3'L=>59Q:F&52WF:0
MQ1CGYQ?FF:L5Y1RBX^'+'1HH3N!HKESIF1]?<!V<_LKIR6RB23)ML_,SM$B:
M;R@QJ_#DG##U:BB*-6%OM1IUL>9U-^'G9E^JWF5D9K0.R:UNBO&T.O:KN[=>
M(4%RI,E@5JA(N'D*%S(T1`D<0$EI1)WBQNY;N%+;,,7+Q?&<OG<@]8W[4\;/
MAU3C).;3U#"@-C9@DJ'[5[$D'W\Q=Z0P2._!P)="AQ)%9@J8*I=$<*VKR30I
MR961-+(B4R+=S(M>5G8;!<P54BE!ZX'ZA:_H#)\$C=I<=]'?0YCF?*I]U/'N
M3K1Z][KAQS$B-D]^;1X=Y#5;5L-XVL:S6%4J64CMR'S]:@HGT&$3^9JK03?D
M,2I8S,+M9*]O9T&J'SVU_I6Z)>?81$6*!:U-<DN`3<65EG6D-U:H*JE.]3'0
M'>5^(,F.Y`V+I>Q[=MOJ+DX:IT'FR]B2DJFXS1N/T<<W2U>8*WJ+^\)[*];U
MIDKX@B^A&2XN*NC)PY1'#GU?("Q8D$>+3J-A)%YM!2;T$W>*"/C:6K`-.&%Y
MUC6GQ'O"D00/?5MI1-A!'"+8RDW+<?(;1929EE(G$W78XH'S6<8<A=.M4=-@
MC\WW5EYR$7.0:8M)&"%%OF5&9(U).A+?8]?\LYM6^9%8F%.-K2=?=1]&Y&2'
M^LU8&GOMX:-@4$I.)R4DSFT$W%DT'7D;D#WR)">$8\IE)IZ>H7=E)H<)YF)&
M_M_YR66@]CEVHHA58GC@&&:485]94,74:&UUXCD+E,4%%A";BT9X(Y`T,A++
M64;VE">J#.*FI5MBU;=HFKS0=@QB&UF8C3PM$K?KE)6MJ"*4&;[:RZP;7I:J
MG`)6ZE(<7:XY*70[N95/73"T``Z=R&IKUZH8X=9>K&KZQXM[W7U['&2()8@H
ME7?1!NRC.5YIEI4Z2;HM,M,.4F)!.VX*("XCJE9MFWT.B1J^"1,4UVXZ=ENO
MIK=6:N"FP@;J(:#H1OJ627V4B..U=NX8RX\S647P;.4"!NF/^]A*:K;2!-S0
MJQ1;^A+*"L_9+3R%%AEN=Z8.6UT3AZJW944U8Z9T_D[).7T2T5:B:6Q8%NJ+
MKZBKB=?OE%(9T]IV1;4\],$ZFQWTG[8=%[6"_)83G)C7\3@8*IX>IMTV7C9'
M--*1?F&>2/"UG.K@0O;\9F*&SAFS7B&KN-F2!K^8\]D`/ZMIHG!*[!S@N"[6
M9-Q!NPKCY%;G'6]*I((*M-'!T$TNW%B7.E?1_;(GHM!<<W8W=#/7,CC9GE;N
M798?2=U;$[Z!_='?A/&=;IR&A^IR3E"/,.W#TT><N9B<?ZSS@];>F9NW/U>H
M=337Q7?F4D$R5CW,PW_>J[S!!;_T]QT5#_%V@2,?+/^>DSH654U6YCJ5Y+"T
M&=9Q:G:H\AVUI(2D>AS-_D$WB]S7HG0U\?EO3U6"H/P."+K$X`IO?!*>4PR(
MN;0Q"6UJHA>)O*0X$+K):^GYEV*(P[@!A2DU6>.@D&SHC!ZFCT_84M6?BM7"
M$+JF>!W<7Q1:L[D(EL^`+0Q>Z71XGH[]BH!56PVV<!2B5D3-1-C;88WJ4L$W
MO6\L-_CA!8>(,8204"T!8QKOU,9$HSQQCG^!50;OP[OV^>QY$M%AN/JF++OM
MIV,O"N3LU@@F6F70641,TO66,<`!>F&3=$02&(.X"!!"@UX?VAKZ-.27+F5J
MCU74G@G])HOW3*Q<@K2D4O07PP!NC(P!^M7&^@.J7I*KDK8J$J/^HZW4T<&3
M_EYT)D+T!$/PU()FN7)A'!M!.5=>+E-O.V"N8#<2]8#(>8P4V#?71:D5!>ED
M)D*E$WWT+!JI,VW+?-0M6,0"?>JN=VSTSK[$YK8>%0Z#>>3FXF3ID?T9R6*Y
ME-Y3K"B/K'RR;J3S62#!U`[YF&I@M&+HUYS4T=A)RX$\9"90HIG)?GZJ5MM4
MDCUHB%!,(M.;['I0V%XF.C$P+($415Q"#-G3RCB*F>ZTV!$39[S^70Y<LESB
MI<`B@HJ>Q*.@%-BHQ(>S@@V3E#,=3[$`J;G,B$9XS'+7-]8UTJ0HT654^8.O
M5*I0&#HJ=+6CX"J3!2"SHC$Z4E4!2CM)53U)KZ\-_CJL7TWZ59HB,)G*6V'M
MG"K"?>&QC5,<UB'15I6X)D>G5--0V,9F+D4Q;5Z]A*FNHHF*:SE3JV43Y2A1
M^\_7+E:@$169/P7IPD3:R92765Z<[A=%!:)D,D<=YVE=$[$=;+1,,;K7-:.*
MDI1:H[5PY(EH:ZL,Q6JWB$OU3S@-EMGY3;%\D,TM]_A5PC7QQU[`;==WDH<'
MRTA6N:]\:>.@H-JKL!81:D1L=Q&6W0`+Y79B[1S;CO58=6A,BFUM[&?A-]UG
MMA.0N"MI1AW"SE;13Y[<)0\T^ZN%_>JUL6DB<#5/1<?X,99"2J5=0\\C7TDM
M<I>/#(]NE&K3)^@-7N5`_B#>BGG))GK,N>-3<71A"DW`[I>?!`(PBIN(%U3N
M[E+)0U=8SWG,TF%&F845%V9QAYQG%G6+#PV9S#Z<YE>@$)*=&::9FDQB)W?2
MFE'>V9'6%^<]>VZA2&Y,:*,54&*:;I=SC6P,R\S%1?8QBX!:4%HV/&,#,_5$
M<6:*G$6<RO_>>;L^;BIL^8)?.6;XCP73Y<Q`M[T8F[=DE&SK+Y[6#YP^]GK4
MB]8W[_'I0?N0MDJF;C,U3>I1N_)Y]1S?D!5"[//5.+*/U.TI#7P\4Y_8=96.
MKT8U4T!<SK"LD-*PGL4+K67+C]SD+G8EVMMG@-EZQIV&R7N->.7OT=*<$%LN
M_H\4E;?.SLBMW90@RQQ"X3+F&9+G?C?"=>V)<"^,U^]V-;6]K#(@"RJXK2:K
MZ7+*P%D34-O0+J2UZWE*:MHZ?`4_[,'MO)"4HQ@Y%2888!I'TV)*S5_Q[/(9
MQTHH5@O7C!WH>"T-4Y^`R\VK:>EWM;MZY(0SW<Z*UA%J6!Y"-->1HY3%MLAB
M56]Z]A;D.S6NQQG]QU6PJ>@D_W0!/<PUJ3<=X?SVMF';#FXJ0F1^XD3PN-Y9
MV&K;DM#5:V>G',UM,FUW"/SN,RF3+??%`W2>@F:\-L%YQ^0F<-R!23`)%^3;
MP+'7>D@W]0I)8[^X&Q-8/D;[K:\*^=7S,>Q68;VR_B'\8J8BK8]K[>!I:>WG
MW&F[N?*:VPRQ`\Y(?Z['96\\[),/;^&37OE1/_.?U\+UL>=/A6U&]637R?%'
M:ZG#.N4RM^;9XXI3V?GF+_TQS_^,,%$,$$3/'W@':DLI=CV)`5ITWFOO>/J6
MW.'/I[VD?1Y_0,O%J!_C39*1&6!LE1:RO<;*$->%F!!#"1YV@-U0,<9/L</H
MQ=R@55!SN=P5$98",ITDJ=D(`A0`YA7W89-8T1M>G,;RY1LP`9V"A9?PM0[E
ML06'D<*N(>#^\=4)WIG2!2%#X-B4>=3T34^TI1):B5)_Y%#O[<>_]*"]M<T3
M*I8PC1=<-,KIN-?2$6'+_CD6&)82]*7?$S:8UZD:&]5=9LW*K$%-5"`%;J6(
M4ZG5X]F8<<A@C06?#Q84[+'=&)I?D'64!T5<C*0:'C90ZP%:(PG@QX5$.MF<
M\=@.\-G?!JK/WBR8E2FA8Z$,(&YB(*:,Q4'@Y$E??045)=X7M('%")U7KDT<
M]NV@E+7.\5E.'QK>_GUB^)D@)1(<PC1?*+J8I<E1!F8>*G)4SMF&"_J7#H[,
M#+K/`QZ.%IH6:?5B]FD%R(C?#R+2%X+5UPG0-,Z6.`;CV?3<6/F:]NP4I%D6
MU_50=OB4'L*AZ4U-$+$A$Y94T*5BJ1BC$,6C#[K/$7H7^="<*0ZBOZV=(K9>
M_NP8'3EJV"@&TS:*(8?]U+41H.4=D9]=US>:WL\%("?BCY2)UXWAF9@IE-7Y
MGAMFW.7QHG2DF")*&]PP)%!A816R2T.2FDWRW,7IEM51&0!.9%X`#^VL$<=,
MF$=.(03.(4&QU1VR(/HURS`ZXP\68E,67E7&%D_BEQ_.XOM0TDUFE42:V7IU
MXE"^)'25W[Q!'.)1(_P\3AEM7@.ZXQI:T`;-)3ZJ`NHQ)7X,6S<"HU79(!`1
M#]`YDAG`U55^Y5RZDTOYFR-BF%>.I=(XCDFA6<5AT2])55YB&2KZH5JVF<F1
M%66VX,EAW0UNSK=$'J)M%68M(D\1'RZB7?O0%PXA_B825J;CU0HN9HRX*1,`
MK1FAJ5`6JIMPZN9N@1Z3#=;*0<Z0)*#..:-:B1;;<=X\,,-G0!C=2>';S2!A
MIA]M8F,!@B#&T`WOB>3P94MH6A70G%,';-A&2:48D4R%R1><Q5U%]F6=1&9>
M?1`A6I"EZ>)2-B,,4F=K<E8`/IW'^:4!UM+QW:(LFF3T;.0">4\#\4ULXI_N
MU1_\$5G'C6/A-8Q>>2(2*HY\[N?<:='Y*)>`"A&#YN(S+DMW5LQ6?%]I<J'?
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MJG&@GTH3<3'HZ:EIKT&98U9:SX"I@[$GX&'I0.$><[*8D6*K:`K$-A59^9$J
M6"[H#9E9ANS>F:RK93IELS:<1"'@=K8-C$5/3%$E6K7J"!U>8RHH:.VH9T6J
M_HSU'YXJ'%WAFTQ:(T3ZHR2.GAC^3G&B9_7-JXU(XHR&W9:]FF8ID-+U7%*-
MU'I**3K5YG\PH#>.J+=PIK]$FKTD+/+!HJ-)WH_>IL2AA7^&FO+QJ0"-G\D^
M#F`^E]8L*R$NK.@UDHP>+(V-5ZGM+/7<%G+69K`6ZUX%&FI>ZX+)H7YRZHTH
MIE6:I>*M7S:1X#4&+3@Z4L=*;*WEH,6VG_F\86>%3IB5YZ`0JD\.!2)>!4LR
M:YJ=4)Z&;:T68[J`J021*YJBXR96K=P9;9,@G85"3BG6U+2>&!H>V,]:CPKJ
M:=2:#TM-+C4E%'K![*92;%S$H)*JDK?636S"H]!._L'<RJSLC""@HBWJ&>V$
M.FTLH2CO=A[AE=;R9"G%%23]B6"3(FA@NF2V)J1#AE=)_EL`@>N%8>RV]*'/
M?DG,&N']W*-=FET%MJBN\LJMQ>DN(M:Y,2?%&E:[`EBY0J'JYEL><6Y([:KL
M4J^HR8@V#N?)N%P'>ABGC2?5=I%'NE%"3NX9IB-"%JTF^FWYJAR:EDG#3A!N
MOA-2T<_(S2_C*J[]%A%LSJ.]-DT<W@OES*=O29C<)FD97IPXE2U_#FHU0>W?
M7C`+_^)OF>FW'<I#.ND&5V_:=J&:QA7'UMTNY"R)&B)[R="\*:7#Y*N?</"Q
MJJ9`&2DC4>0RDF))8$I4_NZPE=''[0JP^N`?QMF1:UX,V5'IYI)7*VGF7L;>
M&ALLIDJQQ6;L9'TCIZ*P2$UJ!&MQ8GVP[YGP&2OG;,(@^OQ8JA8FQW;/ZMP)
MZ*(O6)XB%",OI2*K"+9CZ"FCJ.JQ$`9QM&)FY-+H:&;=;&T6D'V)MN:=B?$8
MR@+O\38O1<EA<LXP*&I,NS0:?!D3)A<;JK;G]?;QR$GG<UUA(O:PK)E3*5[8
M]&FOFS6R5&[5U,4?K]"R^-KR+<^46\JC'P.L[RXE%F/MN!2SYA8F#4Z;)N[G
ML!+?ISHKK7UF*,*9-PO5QTYSI_DJ>*HMH&[J:0S8^&;E@/IPN[YBMKJ)JD(R
M_GF!9@:?8$6*7/3",#Q[8Q<#L99>,[$^7O;\)OZ2F34;*_9EM+$6-,D!)$,J
MM/W.YT*CVSQOJ^U>\ZSNU77N'@!U\&VZL[1-5$BJGNA&B6^.M(`MINJ!-$ZG
MZP`WM/5J1IBN])_5WC#SGY9=&V4^6U%SKW0LL;-B91%;Z3V?ZQOW]/W2<Q!O
MXZ)-K_QE'M9V]:*&\$>AL0.6V&&"ZI$FK@8;KR23HR`#<#/N(\JM,E:?;13^
M+NL^!XPDLP['*#_+[:\^%1W^+;/`ITJ3[IZ2'D<G)EZ33Q!6]0&#VI)"\%O?
M-6%6:4E[\%X[$+[6+2H7%;P\L1':]%U)<V/;*/GV_D7*22`@WTR7KEX&WDK?
MN7`D"30F#\=1F_2_2B&QIBB;4I^4NJB#KBJO9=E!QDRHIC5-"^LH[NU+\32(
M&3;YE36/LL352#<8YL$F_W`V=PK&K605*RTGR:+6ONHVK]5Z>:BQ9;$NU&6F
M7K`Z=R9N#P_AKF_SI?9=$]GI;+5AGC#R'"9,9M\'0@]XZ<NE&JY=F=4*FR;Q
M-"])6N35#:1=5\Y2,[@^R^]^$Z,)WRX?Y^5F_O%><W*$F5=`67:7IK%7:J;P
MOFQ+UC==8I=]:7>5S61PL]1Y739FHV3P#7`(<W,+KO`7&[(K'XY#/>#'5A;*
MVF)^"O6#6]-\>_99TWB-_BOPUAZX7]O7AK]17I]JAZ>6/9V:YPX7.,?G.,<V
M\Q9DJ%':*1.VFN=Q>%,Y@UBYV4YK-LD4C.^WAWMW@<_C8KN9,6O@HO8;'0NU
M_!+<'8OYQ(&?]Y*N=C/CX@2HCA/.(#?@BN-96V\Y5YXTY+J>=\ZVT]J=&<LF
MG5Y2ULS>=TEY$W/GD;KLID.J6_?N*R]6\=+)J7\R+&NZHV>N.J$D2)958NMI
M=].@+&/Y$L<K%-THI+<I&>N1-:ZVX,ZZ;>$MA-OUD,&1`>LZN'$Z/YOT'SO7
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MNDQ\X)*1N"O/^8MGO;077$]Q%YJ+<9R/?>0XS.\.(!].`S(/>Y_RW=&CL"[E
M<'%M4MRT%Q5JGF?\G-5WOM.[9D$1?HV_(S%S8C5'_N*Q?.;I&CXS,U`Y-<^A
MOHN$T;;E2'GGBO.-@W-@U9IP(OA5\Y'N6[[G0SV)U72:^Y_,Y73,W6UJ*F[*
MRWENU^D>YB%4<P\WRJJT$J3)U=O3P[UD4EHZ$[C(A1CC]"@^5?WY6ST0+0L_
MCFTDOVND/R+U<RN9PJZS,SGK/U";]\W'C/K;6RL!(,"T/+U^J#$*Y9H9!]ZM
MNS#Q^1;)ZTQE!3<#]=X4GFF1Q2-<+2MSV@6%PR"0&!KQ5!?.*/*!,EFZY8J*
M/&:U6V[7^P6'Q>.L!F0TDUS-9[)5?;_;%"D=JXM6V\8CFIYN>:(!M!,<E!E$
M0414Y//!FH)<<MRB_#(K_@J9^XED8[Q1JV'#VS-44KLA4UUE;75]A=VQM./D
M#-U+\LO55#JM2^V=Y*VSZ(&#R^/3/6P:*GUA;*R)EHZ9)0[<];GJB[5T+!Z>
M(_$,=5I+?:9*_HUU?X>/[Y:OS/F#1L6E')>]L_JOA:V0O5I7=*E2]F\30%!K
M8,A89,-:(WR/CDF*(P<CO8L*?VA8Z''BKD3E((ZBN,%<1XXM7;XD$@X/L(WT
M])&T-4PDK3.T2B1L&#`@R(Q:KA55.8.@/I0E1U8CES(.D'U!>1F#R;)G.%_%
M)HZJ@/*<.ERYRF9%FU8M36'`CL9$:H4HN;%"YW:ZJO&GQ64,!Q(58^SMV8PR
M_D]6P^=4F@N>F.P6Y7J4JBNLV:`UK$KWEL.HGE0FMI;3Y%K2I3D:%EK3&P.E
M)D-6Q<M3H[T>@#U^E")8IVF=)9,^G`;V:\5VSH3,-/WVGK_(23_)E*@NFANQ
MGGE?QTZFV4U3_(Q#4G[/-;_)!GN1#V;535L]XO.&[^?2<&?@3:EI#BY;*[)(
M?N'"@@^GC@R)ZB-!(O*JE-`0/"D[!Q_D@KO<T@.OC$I<*P@)K(`BJ+^VN,GK
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M-E]]PX5Q)@ZWRM-&>`7U;\UN82N//W>^&=>)7-')-<%E]TQ+V!.[:3*?J;CE
M44"O?!5XI7U')AF>-<T#_E$U0`@-:M4257TQ4!35C3"ZPWH$F>"X3!:HW6]K
M/<7$?FXU5$3+:"XYZ5(-_@]F/VJCCB]CBQWH:"LS]*7:EBS.X2NF'%9P8HIY
MEE$[:[%^^>)7+<M,&Z.Y5CKN2@?FLVRZC61/8<>:RSD*:66>&?`:O69P,?PH
MK#@;N)^4[,:4B2S;'X`%S/!QN2_?-U@H3X6:Q*Z6H[8W#PEI^5<A%UN2K'2M
M0SQQ8;C^6))#G[QZRQ>56QQSW;&#KZ\B?:>RS$<H+5H_EN>-LD+3[13S0#<G
M%9GI=<W.<V@C_Z9-1K['8'=W[TFC%3;K14\42IIM\TG<W]U;WV^.Y[;!K!RE
M_LLM=^Y'O_^FY/VEG=\-T[[;]P1HJM<QB3/S`0KI,$(Z>M$.1-1:F?D@.#;X
MM:9!SL,06)!V.>_XCFK7"-_:6&&_`98P1AN+SY\T)BO(82-T(A3>;=A7&6FQ
M0V"D:HJ/\`.5]:#F=,":G#;P%:MXD`E])D2B?!H3M6<`#%X?Q%_RTG:[*4&-
M>+6KG.R6!S[HH4LS#G&<`#?UP'<)#D"_Z-X6D[C&53P1:Z3H6[;21RBZ/4XW
MNZE>U1HX1L^-2B)>/,QX0L;&8<U0C4K<("$5::GA<8M_V]N-]")XK/,$+VH$
M*YZ4$MDPM0@'CCE<71A)."17G8@0H[3)(E5)O03>_BN,4TN?VY:X-ELU4G24
M!(FVS.C'!=''DZ`ACGI6F:9A%M.8F<BC_MBSK1LM4'(%.Y)N)JFGUIV&D;/S
M)2`A>4SQ5?.8WTPB%$]EOBQ&DX5(>DTSW2C%TO&/@A`"$GT"R2)W6@Z<\;IG
M/K]7-/VY$U.F!%T0Y;BW#KE,0K5#)8J4THE'7?)?^H1H1,$903\Y:5O8.ED,
M\P88OMVP2VC$(P[1E2P$M>EZ6I-H2E6Z1O>U$X\*/!ZLY&A+2[Z1-<@49K[H
ME#U[?F>E/P6J&&'9SUO^$VTTG2G[DEI.Y*TS<QK<21K_D]"@5M6J:/D9`HU:
MMW/RJ7R,:FD]M2A#JC;J_I!IDNI5U;I6WC%)0@;[*"TUF3>C(72.QL);'^=V
MF;+NC*U_!6PG%?>Y)I)S'HH:GW<&2UBDT;%_*>UK8"4[V1G%;&(-U,LY!Y8P
MQ!:P<S%M:2RY2EG2EM:TX2+J(Y4:(.!EKYF:Y"B@^+C-T];6MJ<5)]O,8KM6
M/9.Q>.V<'F%9M9VE];;'1>Y*PQHPRG&.DPR+Y00W9U%O56\^R<5N=M7:2A52
M#J?6S:Q8R[=`9BI,2P0]JW;5NUZY[;&B%=UM#>/RPL4R\[K,E=K+;A@S]O;7
MOT+]''4/FAJ,6JV*ZAKO'?]40.7E-[+_A7"$UP*=@]GTO@D#:5<K&9N!MD^8
M_IO]D.>,*V$2EQB>^+4A29/Q/[7E5ZF]%2Z1SI*Q3(S8Q#?&L5EG5SI1VM2P
MZC.OY<"ZI`Y[$V\I[E:.E;QD1.K7E?#%)D/(6%?.!EA*/PL:3=:YEP`RV<M?
M/N-R':M:EKT6IPS#<I&#RS@M^M.\,`1SG.5,S-FNSX"A3>PRJ>A$-;TV913U
MZ3@C-V="%]J9<67N03_:.$M*E\%E)".+^4Q#1QK:TI<^<`==>&<_Q^:S(M9L
M5(],X`.GL(?CPW2JE^PRII+/@&?J;(7QJCRJ]?%IMZ$*9F>39E7WFL2QDF\6
M%4NON^TWH#+%,IZON.59<UFT>O5UM-7;RD2[4I9#_IS<0Z'XJEN'MJ<P`X^C
M66UC:9>;LE@*MCI7R]AE%]2<LHUQ+9$G7/K2&'$/-G>^5<E`#U?[U!E`6;/5
MK>>+'O79((;O7*478F,Z3]\/[X)3$^Q2ZG9ZO_76$UQUMCV#^L7;+93E/14+
M<9+7.,/V[9BBS?QQ74H:2Z'6<UVGFUG^7DO8;`13,$L.\5J+]]I,]+$X"^[J
MF#KMV6SNL>0&U>=!LQ1D0MMYM)E]RK&V?--\+>>H,UX(3UEXJ#5%>7G+K/1)
MAU.;_(WZI8==:K]MI]5(;F37#U1Q:5K;J5%,YYK16YRE;Q)S.QIYVJ6-\@T[
M&\I'C?)C&`[<GG7TU&VN_N2:&8]A62,QE%`7?*$/'WFO^WS1#-ZQE1/URTFI
MQXT)]R!=(<-AW7KO80OY=N9OK/<H1;K'<I>B^YI#U*-]/H-E-'W<>\:Q&0.-
MG9:_X,]E+^>OPEB(5^<CD35T874Z=IZ2XM5H=.G;MF%+RDOE\SX]"?OT+C^Y
MW9VDXT_N4-R<(,J'4O#T+]B:6[PWR6)57\#1"=O"[&XX;N\R\XLPRJ,F_&N^
M:ILFQWLKF,LF72&<%=HSM-D[+"*_&(.\OW,XV,,\`3R_JS,Z#&LB,@,@3M.T
MS<$L'5&62)F5K^L\X],_IANNO&NO^ANYV.-`Y**VF?(Y<#L\'Z(ZH$L]WW!`
M_C'1LO?A,>*;I0R;M9#:I<2!&T'SKAO$K1%LM5<20=X3,-S0F.*CGP6D/PM:
MP=^K.`TS)YO;B&^QMW<Z(S3YFBK#-RE4I+:Q0&"[/Z;K.I>:%^T3,`H#I>=X
M$\0K*E9+E:O1M0V<.#5<0Y0*#%+S(3B4+$130O8KP3J[+DW+%$"S1&#ZHB',
MQ%'#'@(LP0:CLO[CK<#)'4%K1$<$K.:CO$.\PIO;OBR<D^<CO[`IJ5WYO1U+
M-W*B-#LSL*S#L\!I.G#ACX]Y0U7<)PEDO$9#,=`)'?LC05AK/^?8H=_P-^D:
MLP93E+';NG<#L0%J*'XJ/V1<)83#)'4#0??`ID?2_L7?P4+H$94O'"DZC+EU
MDY<D_,8->ZGI>0>-LS)R!*K8"JBA:T;V>SXK!$*Z@SXP(3TPM"4ZM")\$L2B
M6SRF.48O0*5J++B+!$B2^<$W:T'=*\-K?+5,%$EB&#\PNCP)JD.]ZD00BB*-
MRC:_RQPP4DB.[,BEB3=TE#7[4T!)Y#1:?#7,\!HP)`S#,L>L41M(7+"7(S?7
M"Y1TS,E\HCYER"B+^C2/<C*K4SGUNRF'B92ZN!*OFZ(##,H@^S"Z(@R<[*05
M1+6I_*;B&3<4VKWM&SI,'$%*/(<[>!0BS*V@^S[)"S0C$Y<C\BNXS$EGHSG.
M4ZT]>ZLK]$)?N;TKVT3I_J@U'MRZ(:-"\3$VLL,+!4),<DS`G^LY@\3#A#S(
MU`(^ZDN'_-C!0AS$FUL]LJR2IH0VEF#+T,PQ@IJX('RRJB2.5XQ,)&O$/5))
M75.\"QRO<Q1,\/(L900<Z-+-J(NKP,M+U'PRCP$ZB(%%!'REFRD]K^PVW=I%
MK;-!F2DO0CS,Z2RY[F+,(DPQUAPPX>3.>;,ZJ=F,L#//BZ`O=^NF\<PJ7GP;
M_)F@W&3/<UN4ZE)+H5S+:-S*U*P+)RO,]@,X[IPY(4.Z`9/%%S.>L;JD_1G,
MG1C'`[VM[C.D[*2XIHI&^C3)G$G(B]JIC;PR@6.T2WD,UA$:C).KYKI-"350
M_A)=I.K\RMWS1EM8KI+,FO?S-_[+S).Z3XH$/G6LL+4#.YY2S_B4C;Y#*D0$
MTM*"KL;,0I%\QJ"<NS*=3`_32L.;18($J2/]S%_Y1D1!MZC<#_%<TS,9T/[L
MTD?,-,RD1]AD4*'<RUR<1>TLT$`4OGF#P9`#+_WK19D$4>ULO-;C.U)+CCU-
M1B,+O1XL2)^<3'_QU+\$QCYSN$B2(0Y=QBQMCYE432WEJ*X<U1:4U%/=FNQ<
M0$RUIL#\MTVS4\]#TE#=SFV+K30-U%^=R3P:R/[I3&A"IGRDL8\T3<S4'D!I
M(XRT4B[D4ERU'N\S41&\R>IZS$#U5(?B2E*5S:ML_C=]%,?Y<K4I.E,B[4Z@
M-%1*C46WRU93J\0U%5:*:T(L"DTYG"Y1+<Y)!<K<"L/ZK+V$!4Z[NM-.Y$E?
M)%84*B1`W"CH"]8V5;-WXSXX(T:0,]?&_+A;$M6.3$5[@L9PA5#=Z\(5;<8[
MQ$MC?:%;4\+_@3O;.[V#K%@63+_3O,X`RR1(?`5[TTL(U4<ZHU0!G#K0`TPU
M/4GG<DLBS:#A[,YM>[N`K32R:RU9?4B))9Z8U<%*RY@K2J:6Q3IJRA]_?4_<
MP[^IE1^Q],7VK,<3'=?(K!.3#%<Q1,AXG41)O;NZA=@D2[I0+,UA);B_;54I
M[4:[`ME=N]<S$U'?L]"D_KJ4N1Q3DG/5GK18^70;%HTC6.59D@S)@GVL9%NL
M_7O8"57.O$(?X"0/4+5)X</*#V4D9'7;=U38VONBI^.Q4R1,[?+!8X/(<X79
M"L366_753PI=-XO8)$U.;BL[]"O2=`0TGM7+X%5=LL1&LSU;-WQ0YV*X.&59
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MO?W$+UQ;U9LUS;TM5^.%SH2"VC8>P[O\82SDEXJ%U\T[H6$RWPZUVJ5%7]`E
MU+$DHD6639ZTW@WN/52MLNV,6YUAH3)K1Y5#34.^3M[;0)]QJPSVON0=RAYM
M&-ZD2QA3X^.#P:>,EK$E2N&]V\`MR4KFVQ(QY0R<Y,K[3@=S7J6T0-\"WC$,
MM2DN2UD<Y`E..C*\XO!U6">-+R]$3HJY7YI#8L#M_L4I6RI=7ICF#3;%'#@_
M)EMBTU?JW5T4_6-;[3<KEJ_E?+QT1<.--6/,)60#S+I&Q5D]O29M3LL"H]OB
MR^:(M#,QB])4C-04GLVR8A=_(M;^!=;%!63.+65(B]WU-;A+EF1:9E+5LYV^
M$^C\#=.5BV9H%J\Y/<$Q-KE;U<;]U:^.+L6:!ESGS=K0'>5;AH(R?=KSE#%[
M?F`9/>1)UL,VK,\&EF)P_4#&:#N6+M;5C6B,U<_A&^!PCL@XMDM@ON5YEM!T
M#E]W;1K+W-LQIKJUU6`(WEGBW.<415L]YK!-'M<Z/%BASN)?YF!YY>3!;5+,
M'=,*7+^!%=]5%=&9W4]._D;</^VMQ%NQ9C;K4JI68O;?LW7I:J$M=.55MF7=
ML5AH%_V1>^[&^[7DSVYIRVS;32U;ZI7K4JWF=G)#UW;!@0Y@;TU4_!VLT0Z_
M-;:^Z!-N>3A)FK92%R7`R_;`]#W43([J++XSCG9.2`IK$*W<=UUM$@S#+@1K
M"8KMARYD0Z+/#DN1W*4I@C3'C-KH+6[-0S7L+:P^N*XICRP[5*T'3HW@NGM%
M@O;F"*U@(%8Q-I[B.A-P2F9?!![FSU;2B_WNH>#KSOL;##I"9L-/.[2^43Y=
M]SU?]^UJSRQ:I8G?)4R2CW3GW_7@J/YK4T;833SPD_6N\>[K%2YP=C3FL);N
M_G\>;XX38TYMZ_SL%2:660\V0@+'2Y<5-1PG8;X&;B;THY?69[12[`+\5@K%
M;+K^Z^AN$!Y]Y\R>K1MN94!^:NV>X2W_:.P67D"$Z,!C16N4;7(&:8';U9N-
MXR7]P?NZZDY3/!P&EZ\FV`#DSYB#5UB62U?VW__N;W(%[$@^TH45TJ:MX+V.
M\1:]6,#\9THW$5)`P><A7WYK9ZH>Z3B'/(,EZY6-1=6V<]QQ)EFNZX!A<2B=
M$6Q]O.?L8_>+]!;?RAHOU&81<V-.V5->\=JU=<^MY^+]U"B^[32>YZ-464TO
MO98<S>3T5NYE]#Y'2`!D[SD%Y35&\V.?5I&(6(,V_MJ.&^KO-'(G1FX5;BK6
M7N^5,'0V9G`&_>AVE_="?^%V$W9E9%ID_O+NB#Z-!:W-I+=4WEHW5?`0EG6G
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MPV%WL%U--`7^F;;IOVQ'Z);1XZ6GONGANHSZ+@;3/>'?N9;,L79=6"4]E53^
M&<_IO1]MU?=^0VUZC/])DQ==JL?]=;;8Z&7S'!JILUO&!DU0.1ZJ#:=_ZT;H
MTE=*C)=7@V>*$)S0N24`)):XVLX0I28GI`]8??OV76@L(%:*THE]9JN@V=&J
ML!C/;)1[;L5L'!;.$;R1#C)DDO1B+D<C6["2J0I]N>)ERMUZNT,M%_@5;\6X
M_J<S3`:C0+Q5NXH-_^YCO#N__]+2.H&!:48427T:$U`IB'^.A(]PD),\?X6,
M?G,K6)AH64<OBTBA2D=+AXN),EEF'YF-H3V3;9B/5WN)J9%KF["?AJ)0)EZO
M>B6*>)UZ6LO)E+K/-7`UP(=KRKW64\Z1T8#0VFHTW8S>.C<6<2G.J594IJ:Z
MUTX1@YGE9YUTO^C/5K>]6+'#IHZ2I4I$[LD+%K!,'7RTS*'1)I'0I1DG)!W;
M*%&?L5L(.68<9I#AN%\<+Q)$I)((,DV-1I4J)0\>O"@A03:4PXW/QVPD^?7,
M*5!5R7!#R@$5)$H-*7,(C;;KR%/6RF/56IXB.?)D_C>AL>9AS!I2!55OX")J
MG*6P;;JPM`3)5(*1ILPH9'?F*P+0JA"??CWZM>A6V`\PP:S9$KS/WM-5`Y<"
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MIAAA9\G]J-*")+)WT8-%<8A2/#,M1^!AAEF8U!PU`K&3EE;:TR)H768)(7TI
MS?BFDP%*AMYT@+WD$!_"%6C>A#2.>$<Q(KZ958^"=C4EEY0!^I$Q!?F9"Q67
MXC0F:/54)E^3-C;3#QV.$KD6J#@R^1B6EDXSYJ#[!2D)I)[)VJ.AC+Y8*V?>
MG2GG-R0ZXF%%.$9UYG^DE;E/<(1>:,1Y`/9AY:TZ+:H0:Q]2$Z*?XV2T74\`
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0]L;ZY[6@LL*75&U^40``.^KE
`
end


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54381
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <1r1887INNcsd@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:

> In article <1r0v4c$i1j@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)  
> writes:
> > In <1r0poqINNc4k@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:
> > 
> >   According to KIKK radio in Houston, all nine survivors are either in hos-
> > pitals or in jails.  Including the two who allegedly helped start the 
> >fires.
> 
> In the FBI briefing, no mention was made of having the fire starters in  
> custody.

  Which one?  The one yesterday, or has there been another?  If it was yester-
day, catch up.

  IMO, 90% of all "conspiracy" charges are easily explained by the simple
fact that in these days of instantaneous news transmission, all kinds of
stuff gets said when people really just don't know what the hell's going on.
Then the story changes once the facts are in and suddenly cries of "its all a 
whitewash!" start.  Naturally, everybody wants to cover his/her ass.

> > > Why the total isolation?
> > 
> >   Well, it wasn't TOTAL, 100% isolation.  After the lawyer snuck in the 
> > first time, they (the FBI, etc) let him go back inside several times, in-
> >cluding, I think, the day before the final assualt.
>
> Why not his mother?  Why not the media?

  Damnfino.  I just tend to take issue with absolute statements that are ob-
viously wrong on their face and tend to inflame, not inform.  The isolation
was significant, but not total.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54382
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: FBI Murders (was Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN )

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:

>I have believed all along that they could not let them live, the 
>embarrassment  to the BATF and the FBI would've been too severe.

>Remember, this was a suspicion of tax-evasion warrant.  There were no  
>witnesses, except the FBI.  All information filtered through the FBI.  All 
>they had to do was allow one remote controlled pool camera be installed 
>near the  building, and the press could've done their job, and would've 
>been able to back the FBI's story with close up video, while incurring no 
>risk to the press.  Unless they did not want the public to see something.  
>The complete lack of any  other source of information other than the 
>FBI really causes me concern. 

>Sick to my stomach, and getting sicker from all the Government apologists

Well put, Jim.  I am as concerned about the media's complicity in this
growing coverup.  Can you imagine the media outrage, the lawsuits, the
investigations that would emit if the government kept the media away from
any other story?  Particularly if a Republican administration had been
behind it.  What's going on here?

Let's look beyond the initial blunder and examine what happened next.
I'm a student of human phychology, particularly in the area of psy-ops
because I've found some of the techniques to be useful in business
negotiations.  That puts me firmly in the amateur ranks.  This AMATEUR
knows that the first thing to do when sizing up the opponent is to do a
psychological profile on him.  You can bet your ass the FBI had
professionally done profiles on Koresh.  Koresh's behavior was
emminently predictable.  It is typical of people who move away from
civilization to be willing to fight to the death to preserve their
isolation.  It would also be typical, given Koresh's religious
orientation, for such an individual to interpret a government assault as
the apocalypse.  Suicide is as an acceptable alternative to being
consumed in the apocalypse.

IMHO, the FBI knew all this and decided after 50 days of concentrated
psy-ops to initiate that apocalypse.  I believe they chose a course of
action designed specifically to push Koresh over the edge while publicly
appearing to be acting reasonably.  They KNEW that Koresh considered the
tanks to be the Chariots of Fire mentioned in the Book of Revelations.
They KNEW that sending tanks, oops, combat engineering vehicles,
obstensibly to perform "gas insertions" (love that NewSpeak) WOULD push
him over the edge.

Look at some supporting evidence.  Koresh's attorney mentioned on TV
earlier today (4/20) that one of Koresh's major concern was the biblical
role of the tanks stationed around the compound.  The FBI (through Reno
on Larry King last night and at the news conference this morning)
claimed to have listening devices in the compound.  If that was true
they KNEW their actions were driving him to the brink.  They KNEW they
were pushing the Davidians toward mass suicide.  Any rational and
reasonable agency NOT interested in killing those people would, at
the first sign of preparations for suicide, have pulled completely back and
would have gotten rid of all the armor.  Instead they continued with the
"gas insertion" right up to the point where flames appeared.  The image
that will remain etched in my mind is that of the tank strutting back
and forth in front of the burning compound, gloating over the kill.

Let's step back and assess how this thing could have been ended without
bloodshed.  This technique would have required a law enforcement agency
interested in constitutionally enforcing the law and in the preservation
of life instead of achieving a military victory and of vengence.

The way to have nabbed Koresh was simply to have announced a pull back,
abandoned the assault, torn down the concertina wire and removed the
armor, maintained covert surveillance of the compound and then exploited
his ego to flush him out.  Exploiting his ego would have been simple.  A
simple invite or two from the tabloid talk shows to come on TV and tell
how he whipped the US government would have been something he could not
have resisted.  He could have then been nabbed when he left the
compound.  Simple, clean and safe but because it would have required the
FBI to execute a tactical retreat and would have deprived them of the
revenge they sought, it was totally out of the question.  Not without
all that testesterone floating around.  After all Jannet Reno had to
show the world how big her balls are.

Yesterday was a sad, sad day for the American system.  I am sick to my 
very soul.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Lee Harvey Oswald: Where are ya when we need ya?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54383
From: auerbach@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
> In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>>but here goes:
>>
> In short Mr. Gorman (I am assuming Mr. as a title because I don't think a 
>woman would be stupid enough to make this post) I don't know what episode of CNN you
 ^^^^^

What an incrediblt sexist remark! Come now, Mike, what ever possessed you to
make such a un-PC remark?  I hope all women out there reading this are as
incensed as I am. Remember, WOMAN ARE JUST AS GOOD AS MEN!!!! 

Women stand up for your right to be just as stupid as men. In fact, insist on
every oppurtunity to be even more stupid than men! You've got the right, use
it!

Hey, it's a slow afternoon and I really don't want to get back to that
report...;)

BTW: mega-smileys for the humor impaired...

Karl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54384
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
>> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
>> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear gassed.
>> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
>> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
>> 
>
>Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  

Unworthy of comment.

>Humans died  
>yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
>actions  
>they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  

Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
That is undeniable truth.  My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion 
to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.

>You seem to say  
>they got what they deserved.

I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
wanted and put into motion themselves.

I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair 
from the start.

>Jim
>--
>jmd@handheld.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
>that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
>"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
>in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
>WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54385
From: mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r0mtoINNa59@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Gordon Storga writes:
>
>>Gentleman, are we also forgetting the near genocide of the Native American
>>for the barbaric act of being "heathen" (i.e. a non-Christian) by a
>>predominantly Christian government.  That's a little over 200 years as I
>>recall.  I'd say that for the most part it was religious persecution
>>(their religion dictated their lifestyle).
>
>This is a stretch.  In fact, a great many of the persecuted Indians were
>Christian, a great many.  It would be simpler to state the obvious, that
>white people wanted land the Indians dominated or threatened.  I really
>don't think the government cared a hill of beans about the Indians' religion.

My Native American Girlfriend asks: "If the government really doesn't
'care a hill of beans' about our religion, how come they're still
busting us for it in Oregon, Washington, and a few other places?
You'd be a Christian, too, if the U.S. Army marched you into church
at gunpoint."
-- 
=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=
Michael McClary						mcclary@netcom.com
For faster response, address electronic mail to:	michael@node.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54386
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In <donbC5sL24.Ewu@netcom.com> donb@netcom.com writes:

> Anyway, here's how I see the Waco affair; I'd be interested in other peoples'
> interpretations...
> 
> 1. Koresh and his people were basically minding their own business.
> 2. Some weapons violations may have been committed and I wouldn't have
>    disapproved of prosecuting him for those violations.  However, I think
>    the BATF was criminal for starting negotiations with a military style
>    assault and for firing into a house where there were children and other
>    noncombatants.
> 3. I don't see they couldn't just leave a token guard on the place and wait
>    the BDs out; I don't approve of the tear gas approach and, if it caused
>    the fire to be started, I think the FBI agent responsible should spend
>    10-20 years in jail.

  I think the legal term would be "negligent homicide"

> 4. However, if Koresh's response to the tear gas was to kill everyone there,
>    I hold him largely responsible for their deaths.


  Well, it's nice to see someone with a brain, a general lack of paranoia, and
a willingness to put his thoughts in public.  I tend to agree with all you have
said.

  "Never assume foul motives when stupidity will do." -- Jim's Corrolary to 
						          Occam's Razor

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54387
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Letter To David Skaggs

Here is a letter I sent to David Skaggs, (Dem, CO).  Before anybody says
something, yes the letter is a bit "sharp" in tone.  I have been writting
reasonable and polite letters to him for years, and all I get in return
in the HCI party line.  Since he already is NRA F rated, I don't think that
upsetting him will harm the cause.  Sorry if you disagree, but recent events
in Texas REALLY have me pissed.

-------------------
							April  20, 1993
Representative Skaggs,

Recently I wrote to you regarding my outrage over the tactics used by the
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, (BATF), in Texas.  In your response
you stated that "Events in Texas underscore the need for stricter gun control
legislation to keep guns out of the hand of groups such as the Branch Davidians.
My question to you is, "what grounds would you use to deny them access to 
firearms?"  Best I can tell this statement underscores your apparent total
ignorance of the subject, and highlights your personal bias against firearms.
I say this because there are only two possible paths of "gun control" which you
could have been referencing.

Either:
1) You were talking about their access to semi-automatics firearms.  In this
case I should point out that semi-automatic firearms are legal in most areas of
this Country, including Texas and Colorado.  In addition the members of the
"cult" have never been convicted of any crimes which would deny them the ability
to purchase these weapons.  So under what grounds would you deny them these
guns?  Their religion?  The fact they they live in a large group alone by
themselves?  Because you consider them to be a cult?  Maybe I consider your
Church to be a cult!

This line of reasoning by you borders on the concept of "thought crimes."  You
and Pat Robertson should really get along.

2) You were referring to the ALLEGED FULLY automatic weapons possessed by the
"cult."  Under current US law, FULLY automatic weapons have been covered by
some of the strictest gun control laws in this Nation.  So if David Koresh
illegally possessed them, he would have had to circumvent some of the strictest
laws we have.  How will more laws help?  By the way, it has been reported that
David Koresh possessed a Federal Firearms License which would have permitted 
him to possess FULLY automatic weapons.  If true, the 85 people who perished
Monday in the fire, died so that the Federal government could collect a couple
hundred dollars in taxes on guns David Koresh didn't declare.

I have heard claims that they were "stockpiling weapons."  Yet considering the
number of people in the complex, even 200+ weapons would not have been out of
line with gun ownership statistics for all of Texas.  What's next?  A siege of
Dallas/Ft Worth for alleged "stockpiling?"

Face it David Skaggs, You have voted for virtually EVERY gun control law that
has passed through Congress, yet you claim that you are only for "reasonable"
restrictions.  Bull****!   Handgun Control Inc. is struggling to maintain
250,000 PAID members, while the NRA has just exceeded 3,000,000 members.  They
are still growing at a rate of 2,000 new members per day.  Driving around YOUR
district I see NRA stickers every day.  In eight plus years of living here I
have only seen ONE HCI bumper sticker.  When you vote for your "reasonable"
gun control laws, are you really representing your district, or are you
representing Sarah Bradys'?


					Thank You,




					William J. Vojak





							April  20, 1993
Representative Skaggs,

Recently I wrote to you regarding my outrage over the tactics used by the
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, (BATF), in Texas.  In your response
you stated that "Events in Texas underscore the need for stricter gun control
legislation to keep guns out of the hand of groups such as the Branch Davidians.
My question to you is, "what grounds would you use to deny them access to 
firearms?"  Best I can tell this statement underscores your apparent total
ignorance of the subject, and highlights your personal bias against firearms.
I say this because there are only two possible paths of "gun control" which you
could have been referencing.

Either:
1) You were talking about their access to semi-automatics firearms.  In this
case I should point out that semi-automatic firearms are legal in most areas of
this Country, including Texas and Colorado.  In addition the members of the
"cult" have never been convicted of any crimes which would deny them the ability
to purchase these weapons.  So under what grounds would you deny them these
guns?  Their religion?  The fact they they live in a large group alone by
themselves?  Because you consider them to be a cult?  Maybe I consider your
Church to be a cult!

This line of reasoning by you borders on the concept of "thought crimes."  You
and Pat Robertson should really get along.

2) You were referring to the ALLEGED FULLY automatic weapons possessed by the
"cult."  Under current US law, FULLY automatic weapons have been covered by
some of the strictest gun control laws in this Nation.  So if David Koresh
illegally possessed them, he would have had to circumvent some of the strictest
laws we have.  How will more laws help?  By the way, it has been reported that
David Koresh possessed a Federal Firearms License which would have permitted 
him to possess FULLY automatic weapons.  If true, the 85 people who perished
Monday in the fire, died so that the Federal government could collect a couple
hundred dollars in taxes on guns David Koresh didn't declare.

I have heard claims that they were "stockpiling weapons."  Yet considering the
number of people in the complex, even 200+ weapons would not have been out of
line with gun ownership statistics for all of Texas.  What's next?  A siege of
Dallas/Ft Worth for alleged "stockpiling?"

Face it David Skaggs, You have voted for virtually EVERY gun control law that
has passed through Congress, yet you claim that you are only for "reasonable"
restrictions.  Bull****!   Handgun Control Inc. is struggling to maintain
250,000 PAID members, while the NRA has just exceeded 3,000,000 members.  They
are still growing at a rate of 2,000 new members per day.  Driving around YOUR
district I see NRA stickers every day.  In eight plus years of living here I
have only seen ONE HCI bumper sticker.  When you vote for your "reasonable"
gun control laws, are you really representing your district, or are you
representing Sarah Bradys'?


					Thank You,
					William J. Vojak

---------------------------

                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54388
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 5.

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 5.

Monday, April 19, 1993 was the fifth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Government informant Kenneth Fadeley testified that
Randy Weaver sold him two shotguns in violation of the National
Firearms Act of 1934.  U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge
asks jurors not to hear accounts of the Waco fire because
of possible influences on the Weaver/Harris case.

The testimony of FBI Special Agent Greg Rampton apparently
ended without further incident, as it was mentioned neither
by KTVB nor the _Idaho Statesman_.

The day was highlighted by the testimony of Kenneth Fadeley,
who had been posing as an outlaw biker and illegal guns person
named Gus Magiosono.  Fadeley testified that he was acting as
an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
in his dealings with Randy Weaver.

Fadeley began by stating that he had met Weaver in 1987 at an
Aryan Nations summer conference in Hayden Lake, Idaho.  The two
then met again October 11, 1989 (note the huge separation in
time) at a restaurant in Sandpoint, Idaho, to begin a weapons
transaction.  He stated that Weaver had said, "He felt like he
(Weaver) was being prepared to do something dangerous for the
White cause."

The two later met October 24, 1989 behind the restaurant and
later went to a city park to make the sale.  During this second
meeting, Fadeley was wearing a small recording device to
tape the conversation.  Weaver allegedly showed him an H&R 12-
gauge shotgun with a 13-inch barrel and an overall length of
19.25 inches.  He additionally showed a Remington 12-gauge
shotgun with a 12.75-inch barrel and an overall length of
24.5 inches (NFA requires minimums of 18 inches for barrel
length and an overall length of 26 inches).  On tape, Weaver
is reported to have said that he could perform better work once
his machine shop is set up.  The two then discuss the possibility
of future sales.  Fadeley then counts out three hundred dollars
for the two guns and promises the balance of one-hundred fifty
dollars when they next meet.  (Note that the ATF could have
simply arrested him here.  Why did they wait until January 1991 -
over a year later - to arrest him?  This is not explained).

The next meeting took place on Nov 30, 1989.  Fadeley stated that
his "source" had only come up with one hundred dollars instead
of the one-hundred fifty he'd promised.  At this point, Weaver
suspected he was dealing with an informant, "I had a guy in
Spokane tell me you were bad."  Fadeley managed to convince
Weaver otherwise.

The _Idaho Statesman_ states explicitly that three tapes were
made of conversations with Randy Weaver.  Thus, each of these
meetings must have been recorded.  However, the _Statesman_ also
reported that a tape of a telephone conversation involving Vicki
Weaver (Randy Weaver's wife) was played to the court.  There must
have also been phone taps.

These tapes were played to the court via both headphones and
loudspeakers under the objections of Gerry Spence, Weaver's
attorney.  Spence said to a KTVB reporter that he wanted to
make sure that the government proved its case, "...if it has a
case at all..." according to the rules.

Randy Weaver tore off his headphones and wept when he heard his
wife's voice on the tape.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge asked jurors not to hear
accounts of the Waco fire because of possible influences on the
Weaver/Harris case.  Exactly how such information could affect
this trial is not explained.

Other notes: Sunday evening there was a report on KTVB concerning
Kevin Harris.  Unnamed agents within the FBI admit that they are
surprised that Kevin Harris is still alive.  First, they were
surprised that he survived the initial gunshot wound(s) sustained
in the initial firefight at the Y-junction.  Later, when Randy
Weaver was struck by sniper fire the sniper had reported that
Harris had been struck (not Weaver).  Finally, there was a report
that the FBI agent who killed Vicki Weaver believed he was aiming
at Kevin Harris instead.  (This is what was reported).  Critics
are charging that the FBI was blatantly trying to eliminate the
only non-government witness to the deaths of Samuel Weaver and
Deputy Marshal William Degan.  Some local people believe that
Harris's survival is simply due to divine intervention.

Tuesday, April 20, 1993 will be the sixth day of the trial. 
Kenneth Fadeley's testimony is scheduled to continue. 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54390
From: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Subject: Clipper Chip

I thought that the Clipper Chip that was posted to t.p.g (sorry, I lost
the original post) was a joke.  I really did.  I didn't believe it for
a second.  But on the way to work this morning, I heard about it on NPR.

This scares me almost as much as the doublespeak emanating from the
FBI and BATF in Waco.


 ***   Paul Eric Stoufflet
 ***   Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center
 ***   internet: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
 ***   All opinions are my own

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54391
From: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Subject: Re: Die Koresh Die!

In article <1r04h8$q5a@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> tim@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) writes:
>	I was hoping that --however the situation was resolved-- the
>property would remain intact, so the gov't could sell it to help pay for the
>hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses incurred having to babysit
>Krazy Koresh & his flock of sheep.
>

In some South American countries, after political undesirables disappeared,
the family would get a notice of death and a bill for the disposal
of the body.  You apparently think that would be a good idea.

The Federal Government initiated this action against Koresh and his
followers, surrounded them for 51 days, engaged in psychological
warfare, used heavy military equipment against US citizens on
US soil; and now that the compound caught fire while they were
pumping in CS gas after knocking holes in the building; disavows
all responsibility.  Big Brother is NOT always right.


 ***   Paul Eric Stoufflet
 ***   Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center
 ***   internet: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
 ***   All opinions are my own

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54394
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

In article <donbC5sL69.F7I@netcom.com>, donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

> It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from
> the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search
> warrant AND an arrest warrant.

Check again.  You may find that the arrest warrant was issued AFTER the
first firefight.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54395
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>
>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
>
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.
>
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.
>


	I HOPE THAT YOU ARE IN THE WAY OF THE NOBLE FEDERAL ENFORCERS and
are blown away accidently by the governments goons.

You would cheer the death to 25 childern?

This is the sort of person who served as a death camp guard.
--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54397
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <KEVIN.93Apr20085431@axon.usa>, kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn) writes:
> In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> >
> > Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
> > by cult members.
> 
> Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire
> was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away,
> we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's
> claims in this matter.

Moreover, the BATF has admitted having agents in the compound, and as
far as I have been able to ascertain, those agents were still in the
compound when the first shots were fired.  For all we know, these two
people may BE the agents, who would certainly be unlikely to stay around
and "cook" with the faithful...

Assuming the two people in question were even in the compound at all.

Maybe I sound paranoid, but I watched Janet Reno last night harping on
how much David Koresh was a big, bad child abuser, and I kept wondering 
why she -- much less BATF -- wanted us to infer that she had any 
jurisdiction over such accusations in the first place.

I'm POSITIVE that the "sealed warrant" is not for child abuse.  What was
it for?  Peobably weapons violations.  Janet Reno didn't say WORD ONE
last night about weapons violations.  Why?  Because she knows that such
a case is no longer believable?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54398
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:

> > THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!

> Is this guy serious????

> If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media
>    for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts 
>    are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe). 

>    Besides, a majority of 
>    these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
>    this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp). 

Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.

You sick bastard.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54399
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:

> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
> in Texas. 

Do YOU eat all your food cold?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54400
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Incompetent law enforcement can kill


Ever since the siege at Waco started the FBI spokesman has been
stressing how unstable and paranoid David Koresh was.  He stressed how
likely it was the the Branch Davidians would commit mass suicide.  He
was concerned with the safety of the children.
 
What did the FBI do to defuse the situation,  Did they try to reassure
Koresh?  DId the FBI offer medical assistance to the BD?  Did the FBI
offer them a supply of water when the BD pump stoped working?  Did the
permit Koresh to communicate with anyone outside the compound?
 
What the FBI did was harass the Branch Davidians as much as possible.
They kept powerful lights shining on the compound, shut off their
electrical power, put their pump out of action, assaulted their ears
with loud noise, cut off their communication with the outside and kept
limiting their permitter.  The stated goal was to put pressure on
David Koresh.
 
Was the FBI attempting to get Koresh to surrender or were they hoping
to get Koresh so mad that he and some of his followers would attack
the the tanks.
 
It appears that the tactics employed by the FBI did drive Koresh over
the edge.  The blame for the deaths should be shared by both the
federal experts whose tactics drove Koresh over the edge and the fools
at the ATF who planed the raid.
 
Stupidity and incompetence of the BATF and the FBI leadership have
resulted in the needless death of 90 innocent people.
 
If every thing had gone as planned 90 people would be alive today.
Instead the ATF screwed up and caused the death of 90+.  Incompetent
law enforcement can kill you!
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54401
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <mvpC5rp8n.3ts@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <16BB5124A0.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David
 Veal) writes:
>>       Be cute if Koresh hit the trail.
>>
>>       Maybe he was bodily assumed into heaven.  Wouldn't that just
>>make AG Reno's day?
>
>*snort*  I sorta doubt it...
>
>However... No bodies?  By the time this message gets out
>they'll doubtless have found bunches, but wouldn't it be
>interesting if they had a tunnel and  are long gone?


If they hadn't killed the ATF people in the original raid, I think I would 
laugh my ass off.  (Actually, to be honest, I still might.)

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54402
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
[ ... ]
>It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>was not a proper militia weapon. Therefore, US vs. Miller supports
>limited government regulation of firearms.

Then it also supports basing such regulations on ignorance.

Miller had disappeared, and nobody bothered to present _his_
side to the Supreme Court -- in particular, that sawed-off
shotguns were used in the World War I trenches, and in other
tight spots ever since guns had been invented.  Would _you_
turn one down if you had to "clean" an alley in E. St. Louis?
--------
Vegetarians kill, too

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54404
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:

> The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
> transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
> more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
> do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
> must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

The BATF is there to collect taxes, not to protect your sorry ass or mine.

> With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
> more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
> the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. 

All flame-bait, of course.  If you really want to be flame bait, send me
your address and I'll tell the BATF about those automatic weapons you
have stockpiled.  You'll be warm in no time.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54405
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Will CS burn or explode

The FBI released large amounts of CS tear gas into the compound in
Waco.  CS tear gas is a fine power.  Is CS inflammable.  Grain dust
suspended in air can form an explosive mixture, will CS suspended in air
form an explosive mix? Could large quantities of CS have fueled the
rapid spread of fire in the compound?
 
Please note I am directing all followups to talk.politics.guns

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54406
From: cntrspy@netcom.com (Executive Protection Assoc)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

///////   And we thought the unfortunate people in the Branch Dividians were
          Brainwashed ??  They don't hold a candle to this guy......


D:d
:wq


B
///////////////////////////////////
Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote:
: What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
: had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
: compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
: 
: The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
: transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
: more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
: do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
: must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
: 
: With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
: more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
: the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
: at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
: of ours.
: 
: With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
: mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
: women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
: to death 51 days later.
: 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54407
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

In the interests of completeness, I thought readers of these 
newsgroups would want to see FBI Director William Sessions'
statement, as released by the FBI press office.

 FBI Director's Statement On Waco Standoff
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Press Office,
          202-324-3691

   WASHINGTON, April 19 -- The following is a statement by 
FBI Director William S. Sessions regarding the Branch Davidian 
incident in Waco, Texas:

   "I had hoped to be making a very different statement this evening.
After very careful planning and extensive preparation we all thought
that today's efforts by the FBI to bring the Branch Davidians out of
their compound would result in the peaceful resolution of the
stand-off or at least meaningful negotiation.
   "Instead, we are faced with devastation and death.  However, I
have no question that our plan was correct and was conducted with
extreme professionalism and care.  I applaud the restraint shown by
agents in the face of life-threatening gunfire, and I thank them for
risking their lives to try to end this peacefully.  I have only the
greatest admiration for the courage and professionalism of all
involved."
 -30-

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54408
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:
>
>Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
>
>                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
>
>CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
>the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
>lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
>gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
>ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
>the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
>napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.

Actually if 'a few minutes' translates into 6 hours, you have it
right.  BUT you (and I guess your single-source news agency CNN)
failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it in plain
view.

>THIS IS MURDER!

Well, small-scale Jim Jones type suicide with fire instead of kool-aid.

>
>ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!

Sorry, guy, you got it wrong.  ATF was pumping tear gas into the compound.
The Branch Davidians (going along with their apocolyptic faith) set their
own compound on fire killing all but 9 or so.  No children survived.

>THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!

Self-slaughter, anyway.  I pity the children who were to young to be able
to make a conscious choice.

>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.

You are wrong.  Thank goodness.  I would suggest, however, that you take
a deep breath, and wait 30 minutes or so before posting.  Also make sure
your facts are correct before making your allegations(sp.).

>I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!

You repeated wrong.  There were 9.

>God help us all.

God help the Branch Davidians.

>PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!

NO DON'T!!!!  THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH OF THIS CRAP BEING CROSSPOSTED ALL OVER
CREATION AS IT IS!!!!!!

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54410
From: random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope)
Subject: Riddle me something else.

> On the other hand, I wonder if,
> with a face full of "massive amounts of CS," *I* would be able to escape
> a burning tinder-box like that ranch house assuming my best efforts.

What ever happened to the 'Adobe Fortress' I kept hearing about? I
thought this was a 'Cult Stronghold'! If the kgbatf knew it was a
tinderbox, why didn't they just have all the talking heads line up
and start huffin' and puffin?

	Random
	

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54411
From: chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>Does a "not harmful" gassing mean that you can, with a little willpower,
>stay inside indefinitely without suffering any serious health problems?
>
>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam?
>
>What IS the difference, anyway?

CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that
your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but
you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies.

Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
chuck@eng.umd.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54414
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Die Koresh Die!

The explanations of Federal law enforcement officials about what
happened in Waco is just another example of the survivors writing the
history books to put themselves in the best of a bad light.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54415
From: glover@tafs2.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: The Cold War: Who REALLY Won?

If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented 
and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >> 
(and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism << 
absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite 
(which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?

Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply!

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------

UNMUTUAL

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54416
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.195636.17742@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>>Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
>>>really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
>>>a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
>>
>>Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
>>come out with their hands up several weeks ago.

No answer.

>You didn't answer the question.  The FBI took people out of
>camera range.  It is thus possible that they were engaging in
>questionable activities.

I do not feel like the cameras were out of range.  Cameras watched the first 
confrontation.  Cameras watched the banners.  Cmaeras watched the final 
confrontation with tanks.  Cameras watched the fire.  When weren't cameras 
able to watch?  When would cameras be unable to watch people coming out with 
their hands up?

>As to your question, please tell me what you think would have happened
>had the ATF goon squad knocked and asked politely several weeks
>ago (as opposed to playing Rambo with a t.v. crew in tow).

Well, that is what BATF should have done.  Either, Koresh would have gone 
peaceably as he has done in the past, or perhaps it was already too close 
to the apocalypse in his own mind.  It is hard to predict the actions of 
a leader who would not release the children when most rational people would.

Now will you answer my question up top?

>
>Drew
>--
>betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
>*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
>*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
>*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
>    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54417
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Statement to everyone on t.p.g

In article <1993Apr19.201300.27080@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>Clue - Kratz' position isn't a defense against inaccuracy.
>
>I oppose gun control because it doesn't work.  If it did, I'd support
>it.  In fact, I supported gun control before I did my homework.
>
>There's no demand for pro-gun people who don't know what they're
>talking about.  In fact, they'd be much better off if they didn't say
>anything.
>
And why is this Freeman?  Even if a pro-gun person doesn't know what they are
talking about there is always the possibility that they will learn a thing or
two.  I am and will continue to post even if people get angry with what I have
to say.  I have several good sources of material now that I know where to look
so calm down.

>There's lots of information flowing on tpg for those interested in
>learning.  One can participate in those discussions without ranting
>inaccurately.  Failure to do so has consequences.
>
Ah, Freeman seems to forget from my statement that I am learning.  I have also
asked several of the not-so-hostile folks on this group for sources of
information to read.  Do you think, Freeman, that maybe this means I am
interested in learning?  I think it does because as you said people who don't
know anything won't be good for the pro-gun cause.

>Another good habit to get into is to go read-only for a while, to take
>the time to figure out how things work.
>
Another good habit to get into is to realize that not everyone is you Freeman
and accept mistakes.  Sure, maybe it could have been some type of
misinformation being slung by some anti-gun nut but it wasn't.  I made my
statement to inform everyone of this and everyone who replied said don't worry
about it but also to learn as much as you can.  They accepted my mistake and
gave me sources of information and told me to read as much as possible.  I have
read several posts of yours and have found them informative.  Why don't you
give me the same chance?

>-andy

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54418
From: lsacks@angelo.amd.com (Larry Sacks)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>You are loosing.

[stuff deleted]

>Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

Really?  How do you avoid situations which encourage criminals?  I'd
really like to know.  Would you, say, prohibit female college
students from riding their bicycles near the university during the
daytime?  

Sounds a bit drastic, doesn't it?  Especially when the university is
locatd in a nice residential area.  A friend of mine was attacked and
nearly raped in just this situation.  The police didn't feel she was
in a situation which 'encouraged criminals'.

What do you think?  Should we just tell her, that it was her fault
for daring to ride a bicycle in the middle of the day?  That she
didn't avoid a situation that encouraged criminals?  If that's the
case, then we'd all better put bars on our doors and windows and
pray for a police state to keep us all safe.  Crime happens in all
situations - there are no defined areas that criminals avoid.  

Larry Sacks
Advanced Micro Devices
lsacks@angelo.amd.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54419
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>>
>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
>>> in Texas.
>>
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
 
Brent, the Feds turned off the BD's electricity a couple of weeks ago... 
 
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the radio, TV, or newspapers, 
though. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54420
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

  [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the 
   "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on 
   the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.]
>
>> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
>> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
>> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
>> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
>> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
>> to the way Jim Jones has been described.
>
>Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance?
>Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15.

I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form.
The comments above and below were meant to address who might be unstable 
enough to keep children in a building with tear gas or start a fire.

>> FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background 
>> checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their 
>> decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill 
>> Koresh's own prophecy?
>
>And nevertheless, they hit all their marks and read all the scripted lines.  
>Well, it sure beats the hell out of me.  Maybe Thoreau had a clue when he
>said, "It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so
>ingenious."

I agree that the BATF handled the affair badly.  

>> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>> >:by cult members.
>> >
>> >Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far,
>> >no one else has been able to talk to them.
>> 
>> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details, 
>> will you believe them?
>
>Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else
>who doesn't know them personally.

Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?

At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors.
Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no 
good if you believe in eternal darkness.

>-- 
>
>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...
>


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54421
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <lt8keoINN31v@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>In article <C5sIAJ.Ks7@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?
>
>It would have been inconsistent behavior for them to have done so.
>
>Some people believe that there is more to life than the physical requirements.
>
>These folks believed that the generally-held standards of the surrounding
>community (heck, most of the world) were morally wrong, and letting the
>children be abandoned to this (godless/unbelieving) culture would be condeming
>them to eternal loss and separation from God.
>
>By their standards, letting the children go would be abandoning them to a fate
>literally worse than death.
>
>The FBI (and BATF and media) people working on the issue, I suspect,
>just couldn't get their heads into a similar-enough (to say nothing of
>identical) mode of thinking to realize what they were doing.
>
>Physically, there was no reason why the BD's shouldn't have given up and come
>out a long time ago.
>
>From the point of view of the BD's, they were up against the wall and had nowhere
>to go at all.
>
>They apparently really did love their kids too much to abandon them to a godless
>bunch of outsiders...although the end result was horribly twisted.
>
>I didn't say the BD's were right, I just said that that's the way they perceived
>it.
>
>Koresh was a nutcase, and a bunch of other people paid for that.
>
>And the FBI and BATF miscalculated and misunderstood what was going on from the
>word go.

Very likely possible.  Reminds me of the movie "The Rapture".

>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------
>| Some things are too important not to give away      |
>| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
>|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54422
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

It's truly unfortunate that we don't have the Japanese tradition of
Hari-Kari for public officials to salvage some tatters of honor after
they commit offenses against humanity like were perpetrated in Waco,
Texas today.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54423
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) writes:
> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
> >
> >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use 
> >> on a warm day  in Texas. 
> >
> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?

> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

oh, i see. electricity is a natural right & our wonderful government
would -never- cut off the power to the people they were besieging.
are you really this dumb, or just acting like it for the sake of
argument?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "True love is better than anything, except cough drops."            `,`
`,`                     - The Princess Bride (book), by William Goldman `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54424
From: chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:

: failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it in
: plain view.

  Brent, I'm still waiting to see if there are any evidence of how the fire
got started, so I'm not going to tell you who did it...  As far as you keep
talking about the Davidians pouring kerosene all over, stop and *think*
for a second if it is possible the stove or lamp was knocked over and
started a fire, and the Davidians were pouring water on it (wrong solution
but I doubt I can do much better in their states of mind...) to try to
put it out?   

  By the way, just how far where you standing from the Davidians when you
saw them setting the place on fire?   Oh, in case you are new in town,
microwave ovens doesn't work very well when there's no electricty. :-0

  Get some *facts* before you post next time!

--F. Chiu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54425
From: strait@cheetah.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

> >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
> >> in Texas. 
> >
> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
> 

Microwaves don't work very well with no electricity Mr Engineer.

> -- 
> <><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> <>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
> <><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

-- 
| Jeff Strait                       | strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu        |
| University of Illinois            | PHONE: (217) 333-6444            |
| "If you ladies leave this island, if you survive basic recruit       |
| training, you will be a weapon, a minister of death praying for war" |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54426
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
>>next?  The Mormons or Jews?
>
>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)
>...

Let's see if I have this straight.  A law is created that says "you can not
have a automatic weapon" and therefore it's ok for the government to use
any level of force to enforce that law.  Doesn't matter if the entire 
population of the planet is destroyed as long as that law is obeyed.

Do I read you correctly?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54427
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
> >> in Texas. 

> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?

> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

And they work especially well when the Feds have cut off your utilities.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54428
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent  
Irvine) writes:
> In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.  
Tavares) writes:
> >In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael  
Frederick Rhein) writes:
> >
> >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm  
day  
> >> in Texas. 
> >
> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

Brent shows his ignorance once again.  Power had been cut for weeks.  And he's  
never lived in a rural area if he thinks electric stoves have favor there.   
They stop working when the power fails, and power restoration come MUCH slower  
in the country, than the city.  LP gas stoves and ovens are very much prefered.  
> 
> -- 
> <><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> <>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
> <><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54429
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu  
(Andrew Betz) writes:
> >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
> >>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
> >>
> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
> >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
> >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
> 
> Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
> come out with their hands up several weeks ago.
> 
It didn't happen.

> >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
> >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
> >>scenarios.
> >
> >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
> >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
> >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.
> 
> More than someone who would not release children from the compound.
> 
Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper.

> I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
> I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
> 1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.
> 

Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show you  
to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed. You should at least view the whole  
documentary before you claim it as a source.


> I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
> bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
> responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.
> 

Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?  
I saw one place.

> >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
> >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
> >>ludicrous.
> >
> >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
> >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
> >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
> >

Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all, it  
is the root cause of all the other suspicion.

> >Drew 
> >--
> >betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
> >*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
> >*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
> >*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
> >    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
> 
> 
> -- 
> 

Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54430
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1qk3jm$9sh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.221646.2332@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
[ ... ]
>> 	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
>> 	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
>> 	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
>> 	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
>> 	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
>> 	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
>> 	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
>> 	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
>> 	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 
>
>Sometimes this works.  Sometimes it just lands your good neighbors 
>on the dance card for the next wave of drive-bys.  Someone here once
>told a story about LA gangs moving into Phoenix.  I've misplaced the

Here'a a copy, cdt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,ou.politics
>Path: dg-rtp!psinntp!uunet!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!mvp
>From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
>Subject: The difference an armed civilian population makes
>Message-ID: <y52n_tc.mvp@netcom.com>
>Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 23:42:42 GMT
>Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
>References: <swood.716099748@vela>
>Lines: 84
>
>Along the lines of "The Armed Citizen", here's a story that
>some of you may find amusing.  It's a story about Arizona
>house-hunting, from Leslie Fish, musician and author...
>
>----
>     ... One of the reasons I'm planning to move to Arizona is that --
>despite its lousy economy, 4-way race problems, simmering religious
>problems and hopelessly bad government -- Arizona has one of the lowest
>violent- crime rates in the country. Is it just coincidence that
>Arizona is also one of the few remaining no-gun- control states in the
>country?
>
>    Well, consider this funny story. Last time I was in Phoenix,
>staying with Liz Burnham, I did some checking on the local real-estate
>market (that's when I discovered that, with my income -- as provable by
>my tax returns -- I can qualify for every low-income housing loan in
>the book, with the exception of VA), and I came across an astonishing
>ad in the local market-paper. It offered a three-bedroom house in the
>Phoenix area for -- are you ready for this -- all of $10,000. No money
>down. $100 per month total payments. Christ on a Harley-Davidson! I
>called up the real-estate office making this offer, made it clear that
>I was only checking the local market, and asked about that house. Were
>the walls, roof and foundation structurally sound? Yes. Were the
>plumbing and electrical systems functional and up to code? Yes. Did the
>air-conditioning system (an absolute necessity in Phoenix) work?  Yes,
>again.  Okay, so what was wrong with the house?  Well, it needed lots
>of plastering, painting, yard work, and some patching of the roof --
>and yes, low-interest repair loans were available.  Okay, sez I. If
>that's all that's wrong with it, just why are you selling a 3-bedroom
>house for all of $10,000? Well, squirms the agent, it's in kind of a
>bad neighborhood. How bad? sez I, remembering some of the neighborhoods
>I've seen in Chicago and Oakland.  Worst in the city, the agent sighs,
>and then he told me this amazing story.
>
>    Every few years, it seems, the big vice-gangs in Los Angeles notice
>that there's no gang presence in Phoenix -- which is just a quick
>5-hour drive from LA -- and get the idea of setting up a subsidiary
>there. Well, a couple years ago, the colonizing force came to this
>neighborhood -- it being poor and Spanish, they figured they could move
>right in and take over -- bought this house and started operations.
>Unfortunately for them, the neighbors not only didn't like this -- they
>didn't care for whores trotting up and down their streets all night,
>pimps soliciting their kids, dope- deals on the corners in broad
>daylight, and so on -- they weren't afraid to do something about it.
>The neighbors called the cops (for some reason, the Phoenix police are
>remarkably honest, capable, polite and prompt), and the cops promptly
>came and swept up all the whores, pimps and pushers off the street and
>away to jail. The remaining gang members decided to retaliate in the
>fashion they usually use in LA; they got the complainant's name and
>address off the court records, and did a drive-by shooting at his
>house.  Well, this wasn't Los Angeles. The moment the neighbors heard
>the first gunshots fired, they all ran out their front doors with their
>own guns -- rifles, shotguns, pistols, everything -- and shot back.
>
>    The car didn't make it to the end of the block. It coasted to a
>stop, riddled with more holes than the famous Bonnie and Clyde getaway
>car (which I've seen; it's on display in a casino in a casino in Las
>Vegas).  The gas tank and fuel lines had been ruptured, so the car
>caught fire. The neighbors waited a good 15 minutes -- making sure
>nobody got out of that car -- before they called the fire department to
>come put out the fire and tow the wreck away. By that time, the asphalt
>under the car had melted and caught fire too, which subsequently left a
>large and nasty pot-hole in the street. The city is slow about
>repairing small streets, so the hole stayed there providing a traffic
>hazard for several months. All this was two years ago, the agent
>concluded, and there's been no trouble since, but the house and the
>neighborhood still have a bad reputation -- and that's why the house
>was so cheap.
>
>    Hearing this story, I nearly laughed my ass off. I told the agent
>that if I had the money at the moment, I'd by-god buy the house; this
>was _nothing_ compared to bad neighborhoods I'd seen here in
>California, where drive-by shootings go unchecked by the well-armed
>cops, let alone by the unarmed neighbors. If that's the absolute worst
>you'll find in Phoenix, then that's the city for me.
>
>    That's the difference that an armed civilian population makes.
>Think about it.
>
>
>-- 
>Mike Van Pelt                                When guns are outlawed,
>mvp@netcom.com                               only Carl Rowan will have guns.
>mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54431
From: strait@cheetah.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r24bv$dif@apple.com>, earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace) writes:

> >The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
> >propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
> >concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)
> >...

It is silly to make this statement.  Fifteen minutes after the fire
started, the "official word" out of FBI  headquaters in DC was
that the DV's committed suicide.  It would seem logical that the
lantern story has more credibility.  You can't even to pretend to
know for sure what happened... although Clinton is doing just that.

-- 
| Jeff Strait                       | strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu        |
| University of Illinois            | PHONE: (217) 333-6444            |
| Impeach Klinton                                                      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54432
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

>What does this <censored> from NORWAY think he's doing telling us
>how to run the place?  I wanna know... somebody please 'splain.
>
>Guess how NORWAY survived the Third Reich?  Give you a hint,
>it wasn't by passive resistance the way the Danes did it....

I believe it had something to do with a politician whose name isn't
exactly the most complimentary word nowadays...one Vidkun Quisling.
We all know what a quisling is, right?  I'm sure everyone can come up
with a few examples right about now :->.
	-Steve

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54434
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

In article <1993Apr15.165952.25970@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1qibs0$flk@vela.acs.oakland.edu> awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley) writes:
[ ... ]
>>Actually, there was only one confirmed sniper to >die< in Detroit,
>>according to Sauter & Hines, _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion & It's
>
>What sources did Sauter and Hines use?  In Congressional hearings
>later, the newspaper folk admitted that their reports were completely
>wrong.  (Some of their excuses are understandable, while others amount
>to gross negligence.  Then there's their "we lied".)  As far as I
>know, they never did the followup.

This, BTW, is normal behavior for newsie's.  The followup isn't "news" ...
--------
"I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle Association
and extend to your organization every good wish for continued success."
                -- President John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54435
From: jdw@unislc.slc.unisys.com (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Reasonable (for criminals?) Civie Arms Limits

> In article <1993Apr19.223925.2342@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>A poster claims he 'always asks [anti-gunners] what they think would
>be reasonable personal firepower restrictions'. OK then ...
>
>Caliber : Not greater than 32
>Muzzle  : Not greater than 300 ft/lbs with any combo of bullet wt/vel
>Action  : Single shot rifles and single action revolvers 
>          Revolvers bearing no more than six rounds and incorporating
>          an 'anti-fanning' mechanism to discourage Roy Rogers wannabes.
>Bullets : Any non-explosive variety, HPs just fine.
>
>Now - these specs leave the 32 H&R magnum as about the most powerful
>allowable civie cartridge for handgun or rifle use. It would be
>reasonably effective against home intruders, muggers, rabid wolves
>and other such nasties, even with the firearm-type limitations. At the
>same time, this caliber/power limit would reduce the ultimate lethality
>of hits.

I suspect that you think that this is less lethal than the typical
"assault weapon".  You are wrong.  Compared to what most criminals use, a
9mm with military ammo (FMJs), or a military rifle (use is extremely
rare), .223 or 7.62mm with military ammo (FMJs), the .32 H&R magnum with
"civie" bullets is more lethal.  Most of the arms which criminals (and
the military) use are among the least lethal arms in existance.

What if we just punish the criminal and leave the law abiding citizen
alone?  It hasn't been tried in recient times, but it might work.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54436
From: barker@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (James Barker)
Subject: NRA address?

Could someone email me a USNail address for the NRA? I'd like to write them
a letter encouraging them to see to it VERY EMPHATICALLY that the 2nd
amendment is restored to the form that the founding fathers intended.

People like Howard Metzenbaum seem very intent on diluting the 2nd amendment
to the point where it is no effort for the governmentski to do what they
did in Waco.

After all, from what I know of the Federalist papers, it is this kind of
tyranny the 2nd amendment was supposed to be designed to protect against.

Honestly! M-60 tanks against the civilian population! Attack helicopters!

We need the right to keep and bear anti-tank weapons. Actually, if they
intend to mass armour against the (weakly-armed, at that) civilian population,
we need the right to field tactical nukes. Government tyranny! Who would
have ever thought it would happen here!

I wonder who'se house they'll run tanks through next, because the gov.
SUSPECTS child abuse. Maybe yours! Maybe mine!
And what is an Illegal Weapon (which they have yet to show us), if the
2nd amendment is designed to do what I believe it is, and the gov. uses
tanks against you? Government self-serving? Naaaah. Not here.

Time was when the U.S. used armour/attack helicopters against small countries.
Now, we're down to using them against to what amounts to a busload and a
half of civilians.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did not stop them, because I was
not a Jew: Then they came for the catholics, but I did not stop them
because I was not a catholic! Then they came for the lutherans, but
there was now no one left to stop them!" Rev. Martin Niemoller.
(probably didn't get it verbatim, but you get the idea).

If the NRA reads this, then never mind about the address.
God save us!

--James S. Barker
  Portland State University
  barker@cs.pdx.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54437
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5t38G.IL@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> 
>   [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the 
>    "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on 
>    the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.]

Was THAT your argument.  Well, you didn't make it very well.  You started 
from the questionable premise that the fire was necessarily an act of
insanity, rather than an act of negligence or an accident.  Recall, one
survivor claims that the fire started when a tank knocked over a kerosene 
lamp.  Kind of makes arguments regarding relative sanity somewhat moot, no?

> >> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
> >> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
> >> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
> >> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
> >> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
> >> to the way Jim Jones has been described.
> >
> >Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance?
> >Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15.
> 
> I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form.

"Nice evasive maneuver, Mr. Chekov, but they're still on our tail."

Let me ask it more plainly.  Which of the above complaints about David 
Koresh's religious or sexual proclivities justified an armed raid by the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?

> >> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
> >> >:by cult members.

> >> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details, 
> >> will you believe them?

> >Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else
> >who doesn't know them personally.

> Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?

It's not entirely far-fetched.  Nobody outside the compound would know 
EVERYBODY inside the compound.  Don't forget, the BATF admits having 
agents inside the compound, in any case.

> At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors.
> Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no 
> good if you believe in eternal darkness.

I'm simply being the devil's advocate.  There's reasonable doubt by the
boatload standing in the way of anybody totally swallowing the official 
government story on Waco.
-- 

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...

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54438
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
:mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
:
:According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
:began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
:had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
:These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
:his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
:to the way Jim Jones has been described.

I don't know how accurate the documentary was; however, Koresh was never
convicted of any crimes against children, nor was the BATF after him for
child abuse.  Their purview (in this case) is strictly in firearms violations,
so this information is irrelevant to the discussion.

:FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background 
:checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their 
:decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill 
:Koresh's own prophecy?

Those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain *something*, but whether
their answers even remotely resembles the truth we may never know.  And who
is left alive to care whether the prophecy is fulfilled?  It only holds
meaning for the nine who survived.

:>Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far,
:>no one else has been able to talk to them.
:
:So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same 
:details, will you believe them?

*IF* they confirm the story, I probably will.  Definitely not until then, 
however.


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54439
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

From article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> You are loosing.
> 
> There is no question about it. 
> 
> Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
> how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

Only irrational fools such as yourself are set against RKBA.  There are
*plenty* of people who support it.

> This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
> RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

The government will be overthrown *long* before that happens.  A *huge* 
millitia composed of all available men and women who care about their
country will defeat the forces of the evil Klintonistas.  The people
*will* prevail!

Oh, so you think armed citizens alone can't overthrow the government?
Consider this:  do you think *all* law enforcement officials and members
of the Armed Forces will turn against the people that they are entrusted
to serve?  Not hardly.  You can count on a lot of people in the Army,
Marines, Air Force, Navy, National Guard, police officers, and so on
joining in the cause to defend the liberties and freedoms of American
citizens.  COUNT ON IT!  THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DISARM
EVERYONE WITHOUT STARTING A CIVIL WAR!

> You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
> cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
> can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 
> 
> The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
> you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
> 
> Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect

Wrong again.  People will just hide their guns so these "officers"
(more like jack-booted stormtroopers) will not be able to find them.

> them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
> Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
> immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

They will unless they are idiots.  They will realize that if they don't
then they will be *next* including you.  Believe me if what you describe
happens they will be coming for *more* than guns.  Disarming citizens
would require that everyone's cherished freedoms and liberties be
suspended temporarily.  More likely, they'd never be restored unless the
*people* do something about it.

> Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
> are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
> be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54440
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

From article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
> 'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
> there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

It certainly is provable.  Around a million Americans every year defend
themselves with firearms.  In many of these cases the defender doesn't even
have to fire a shot!  The mere presence of a gun is oftentimes all the
deterrent that is needed.

I don't like violence anymore than anyone else does.  But, taking away the
right of Americans to keep and bear arms is not the solution to the violent
crime problem in this country.  If honest, law-abiding citizens are unable
to get firearms then they will be preyed on even more by criminals who will
be able to acquire guns through illegal channels.  Expect to start seeing
the crime syndicates who smuggle drugs into this country start smuggling
guns.  Believe me this will happen.  There is *plenty* of economic
incentive for gangsters to illegaly import guns into this country if guns
should be banned by the Klintonistas.

> The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
> opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
> would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
> take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

Statistics, por favor?

> Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
> In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
> No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
> than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 

See my previous post.  That ought to set you straight.

> The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

People have the right to keep and bear arms no matter what the
Constitution says.  That means that even if the 2nd Amendment is
repealed the *people* (that's all American citizens FYI) will *still*
have the right to keep and bear arms.


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54442
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5spov.LrE@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
Arras) writes:
> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
> >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
> >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear  
gassed.
> >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
> >> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
> >> 
> >
> >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  
> 
> Unworthy of comment.

But apparently true.  My opinion, only, of course.

> 
> >Humans died  
> >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
> >actions  
> >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  
> 
> Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
> That is undeniable truth.  

No, it is not.  It is possible the FBI planned for this to happen, and the  
gunfire heard was the FBI keeping the folks inside.  I'm not proposing this as  
the way it went down, but just to point out that it's not "undeniable" that if  
they walked out yesterday, they would be alive today.

> My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
> the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
> to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion 
> to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
> and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.
> 

My heart "bleeds" for no one.  You are the "bleeding heart".  And I'm sure  
beyond any possible doubt that you do not feel for those people as I do.  You  
can not say the heartless things you have said if you did.

> >You seem to say  
> >they got what they deserved.
> 
> I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
> more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
> wanted and put into motion themselves.

"they got what they wanted".  What kind of creature are you that you can  
believe this?
> 
> I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
> by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair 
> from the start.
> 

We agree on this.  Now lets have your God, the FBI, investigated, too.

> >Jim
> >--
> >jmd@handheld.com
>  
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-
> >"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't  
rethought  
> >that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
> >"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was  
landed  
> >in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
> >WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777
> 
> 
> -- 
> 

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54443
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:

>>Ron Miller wrote:
>>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>>"no, it's total amnesty".
> (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)

> I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is 
>no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing. 
> 
>  
>	Myron Petro
>	NRA, USPSA
>        DVC y'all
>	**************************************************************************
>	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
>	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
>	 Second Amendment.  

An interesting idea consider:   
   At any locality where a buy-back program is being instituted, get a list
of guns they received and compare serial numbers with a list of stolen guns
and sue the people responsible for the program if those guns were destroyed.
Criminal charges can also be made.( Receiving stolen property, destruction of
private property etc.)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54444
Subject: Is it really apples to apples?  (Lawful vs. unlawful use of guns)
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

I have been convinced of the right of AMericans to an effective 
self-defense, but something strikes me as odd among the
pro-RKBA arguments presented here.

The numbers comparing hundreds of thousands (indeed, even a
million) of instances of law abiding citizens deterring
criminal activity, seem valid to me.  Likewise the number
of gun-caused homicides each year (about 11,000/year?).  However,
it is surprising that the "Evil AntiGun Empire " (Darth Vader
breathing sound effect here) never tries to compare
"All legitimate gun defenses" vs. "All gun crimes."  Instead, 
it's always "All legitimate gun defenses,"  which includes
cases in which the criminals are shot but not killed, and
cases in which the criminal is not here, vs. just 
criminal gun homicides, which only includes case sin which
the victim died.

Why is this?  Of course, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say
that in each crime already measured (involving guns), the
consequnces are already known and it is safe to assume that
a gun-based bank robbery last week will not suddenly turn
into a gun-basd robbery+homicide.  Whereas in the legitimate
gun defenses, one may assume that all those criminals who
were deterred would have committed more crime or more
serious crimes had they not been deterred.

-Case Kim

kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54446
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: My Gun is like my Ame


Mark Wilson responding to C.D. Tavares:


MW>|So the laws exist, and the penalties are as you say, but nobody is ever
MW>|prosecuted under these laws.  They are "traded away" for easy pleas.

MW>Having such gun laws on the books is still better than nothing.
MW>What would the DA have traded away in order to get the guilty plea if the
MW>gun law had not been in effect.

Our liberty?

Right...don't even think about enforcing the law and imposing the prescribed
penalty....let's hose the citizens instead.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Madness takes its toll - please have exact change
                            
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54447
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93105.215548U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz  
<U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
> >
> >>I have been at a shooting range where
> >>gang members were "practicing" shooting.
> >
> >How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
> >or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
> >
> "We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on
> the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.  There
> are many, many bad things going on in that area.  Also, I have several  
friends
> that live very close to that area who have had problems with some of these
> folks.  By the way, where did I say that they were minorities?  

That was what I got from your phrasing, too.  Well, then, were they (the ones  
you saw) black?  You don't deny seem to deny it, either.

> Do you think
> that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned
> it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.  I
> don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship  
by
> taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.

That is the recommended way to practice with a CCW, too.  Aim alone is no good  
for defense, if you can't get the gun rapidly.

>  If
> you would have been there Andy it would've been obvious to you too.  

What, outside of prejudice, would have made it obvious?

> Of course
> it might not have been.  Who knows.  All I do know is that I was there, I  
live
> here and I know that they were gang bangers.  When you live here long enough  
it
> becomes pretty easy to spot them via gang colors, gang signs, etc.  

Yes, prejudice is more subtle in the north, isn't it?

> One last
> thing.  My sister is a social worker.  She makes it her point to find these
> things out (gang signs, colors, etc) because it is in her best interest to do
> so.  She is nice enough to let me know these things so I can watch out for
> myself as I live right on the border of the west side of the city. Enough  
said.
> 

More than enough.  I understand you completely.

> Jason

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54448
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Luser!

Awesley wrote:
  That was the entire point to *you*.  What exactly did I claim?
     --------------------------------------------------
    "I've heard eye-witness descriptions of tanks using their main guns
  to respond to sniper fire.  Quite effectively."
     --------------------------------------------------
  
    I wasn't wrong . . . I've heard those descriptions.  If you're
  paying attention, I've mentioned that I saw the tanks with my own
  eyes, but the main gun firing was an account I heard.  That helps
  people judge whether or not to kick in the, to use your words,
  "bullshit filters".  Stating that I *claimed* this is a falsehood.
  
Later in the same post:
     Another part of my memories was that while most damaged building
  were burnt, some were in rubble.  Based on what I remember, I was and
  am inclined to believe an old sarge or two.

Fine, *now* you are stating that you believe their claims (or that you are
"inclined" to.  See below for a stronger statement of your beliefs).  Those
claims are still ludicrous, however.

Previously Awesley had written:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

Prompting me to write:
  To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
  grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
  perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
  it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

To which Awesley replied:
  John, again, strawman techniques.  Do you feel you're losing it so you
  have to stretch what I said and knock that down?  What I read said
  nothing about what they fired.  And so I put nothing in there.  If you
  need some help, let me know and I'l take your side of this for a
  while.  You're not scoring here, you're boring here.

But why did you mention grenade launchers at all?  Because it supports the
notion that the tanks shelled buildings.  And it supports that notion
because it conjures images of troops launching fragmentary grenades.  But
that too is ludicrous.

I wrote:
  If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
  screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
  it. 

Awesley relied:
     Glad to know you're such an expert.  Nice to hear some an
  authority.  I especially appreciate your basis of knowledge -- if it
  had happened, you would have know it.  Since you are such an
  authority, you probably know that people did scream about an alleged
  massive cover-up in the number of people killed in the Detroit riot.
  Some claimed 100+ dead, others said 300.  The offical number is 43 but
  the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says it was "several".  I've also
  heard some things about that but I won't dare repeat them.  You'd
  assert that I claimed they were truth.

Yes, if it happened I would have heard about it.  Everybody would have. 
Army tanks don't fire their cannons in American cities in the 1960's
without it becoming common knowledge, without minority leaders seizing on
it and condemning it over and over again, without civil libertarians saying
"this has gone far enough."  So, yes, my never hearing of it was the basis
for my disbelieving the claim.  Now I have more reasons to disbelieve it. 
Not one poster has written to say, yes, I lived in Detroit at that time and
everybody knew that the tanks had fired shells.  This is the UseNet.  If it
had happened, somebody here would remember it.  Furthermore, your own
research failed to come up with any support for the claim.  The claim is
extraordinary and it has no supporting evidence, extraordinary or not. 
Unless you count the brags of a couple of guardsmen shooting the shit.  I
do not.

I wrote:
  Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 

Awesley wrote:
     Taking the tour after the riots, it was pretty easy to tell the 
  difference between Army and Guard troops.  Or so I recall from 26 
  years ago.  And I seem to recall it was the Army running the tanks.
  So it would have been an Army cover-up.

Quibble.  Fine, it was an Army cover-up.  Six years in the Reserves has
taught me the difference also.  But do you think that in two and half
decades not one guilt-ridden participant has come forward and said "yes, I
shelled Americans," or "I gave the orders to fire the cannons," or "I
helped cover it up"?

I wrote:
  If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I
prefer
  to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
  those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.

Awesley replied:
    Given the level in destruction in Detroit, I'm quite willing to believe
  that they did fire their guns.

Good.  Then we can drop the junk about you not claiming that they did. 
Your belief fails a basic reality check: why isn't it known?

Awesley concludes:
     Now then, we've bored the shit out of anyone whose bothered to read
  this far and all you've managed to say is that you don't believe the
  account I cited.

Actually, now we have established that I don't believe what you believe, as
well as why I don't believe it.  And if it's boring, then I yield the last
word to you, if you want it.  You may say anything you like with
impunity--I am dropping the subject.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54449
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Apology (was: Luser!)

I was shocked to see that the subject of my last rely to awesley was
"Luser!"  That was certainly not my intention.  I meant to leave the
subject line unchanged.  I believe that the NNTP server I use at columbia
must have put in that subject line in protest over problems with my header.
 That was rather rude of them, but beggars can't be choosers, I suppose.

In any case, I didn't do it and I apologize to awesley for the apparent
insult.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54450
From: rubinoff+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
>Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
>he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his
>chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
>Duke.

I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US";
the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still,
it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.

  Robert




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54451
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Is it really apples to apples?  (Lawful vs. unlawful use of guns)


In article <1993Apr16.092618.22936@husc3.harvard.edu>,
kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:
|> I have been convinced of the right of AMericans to an effective 
|> self-defense, but something strikes me as odd among the
|> pro-RKBA arguments presented here.
|> 
|> The numbers comparing hundreds of thousands (indeed, even a
|> million) of instances of law abiding citizens deterring
|> criminal activity, seem valid to me.  Likewise the number
|> of gun-caused homicides each year (about 11,000/year?).  However,
|> it is surprising that the "Evil AntiGun Empire " (Darth Vader
|> breathing sound effect here) never tries to compare
|> "All legitimate gun defenses" vs. "All gun crimes."  Instead, 
|> it's always "All legitimate gun defenses,"  which includes
|> cases in which the criminals are shot but not killed, and
|> cases in which the criminal is not here, vs. just 
|> criminal gun homicides, which only includes case sin which
|> the victim died.
|> 
|> Why is this?  Of course, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say
|> that in each crime already measured (involving guns), the
|> consequnces are already known and it is safe to assume that
|> a gun-based bank robbery last week will not suddenly turn
|> into a gun-basd robbery+homicide.  Whereas in the legitimate
|> gun defenses, one may assume that all those criminals who
|> were deterred would have committed more crime or more
|> serious crimes had they not been deterred.

I think its an attempt to show lives_saved v lives_lost; all other
 gun related crimes don't result in lives_lost.  On the other hand,
 its impossible to know how many of the successful self defenses 
 prevented lives from being lost.  In other words, the lives_lost
 is pretty clear [its the homicide and non negligent manslaughter
 number], while the lives saved is some percentage of the successful 
 self defenses.  Clearly that percentage doesn't have to be real 
 high to show that lives_saved > lives_lost.

As a semi-related point, check out Kleck's "Point Blank".  I believe
 it goes into some related areas; it also is well written and informative. 

|> 
|> -Case Kim
|> 
|> kim39@husc.harvard.edu
|> 

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54452
From: crrob@sony1.sdrc.com (Rob Davis)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!


  fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary @ University of Colorado, Boulder):

>I don't know about animal attacks, but there are 23,500 murders
>each year and under 500 die in the manner you suggest. If only
>2.1% of the murders were killings by "wacko"s, you would be
>wrong. Worse, there are also 102,500 rapes and 1,055,000 aggravated
>assaults each year. These numbers make violent attacks, and
>preventing them, thousands of times more significant than the
>accidents you are worried about.
 
 These stats are invalid; we're talking BACKCOUNTRY. These stats for
 rapes/assaults/deaths do not represent the backcountry singularly; the
 great majority represent urban incidents. You should have pointed this out.

  -Rob

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54453
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
-> > This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
-> > to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined 
-> > structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.
-> 
-> Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!

Perhaps you should, reread Federal 29 which deals exclusively with the
"well regulated malitia."  Here is what is says about its character:

	 To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes
	 of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through
	 military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
	 acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
	 character of a well-regulated militia, 

It also talks about the "well regulated militia" having a nationally
uniform in structure and disipline.  

I will note you did quote the end of this particular paragraph which states:

    	Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
	respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
	and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
	will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
	a year.

But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it 
requires a continually standing committee of organizers.  

Since a well regulate militia is nationally uniform in structure and
disipline, and meet once or twice a year to train, how can you claim
a "well regulated militia" is not well organized.  But I will concide 
a "well organized militia" is not necessarily a "well regulated militia." 

Several people have stated that the "well organized militia" is
what is defined under 10 USC 311, which states

	The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied 
	males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in 
	section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, 
	or who have made a declaration of intention to become, 
	citizens of the United States and of female citizents of 
	the United States who are commissioned officers of the 
	National Guard.

This deos define the militia, but were is the adjective "well regulated."
10 USC 311 does not define a "well regualed militia" in any way, shape, 
or form.  It only defines who can become part of a well regulated militia
The Federalist Papers CLEARLY define the "well regualed militia" as a
proper SUBSET of the militia.  In the same paragraph quoted above, it
talk above "disciplining all the militia of the United States" so they
fit the "character of a well-regulated militia."  This is what the
paragraph states about the associated costs:

	It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor 
	of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the 
	present numbers of the people, would not fall far short 
	of the whole expense of the civil  establishments of all 
	the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the 
	mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent,
	would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not 
	succeed, because it would not long be endured.


Another quote provide by Charles Scripter is:
James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General Welfare" clause): 
	"Nothing is more natural nor common than first
	to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
	recital of particulars."

So the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
not be infringed" must either qualify or explain the phrase "a well 
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."  
The definition of "explain" as stated in "The American Hertitage
Dictionary of the Enlish Language" The New College Edition, 1982 is:
	1) To make plain or comprehensible; remove obscruity from;
	   elucidate: "It was the economists who undertook to explain 
	   this puzzle"
	2) To define; explicate; expound: He explained his plan.
	3) To offer reasons for or a cause of; an answer for' justify:
	   explain an error
The second phrase clearly does not "explain" the first, therefore
the second phrase must "qualify" the first.  The definition given
for "qualify" is:
	1) To describe by enumerating the characteristics or qualities
	   of; characterize.
	2) To make competent or suitable for office, position, or 
	   task.
	3) To give legal power to; make legally capable.
	4) To modify, limit, or restrict, as giving exceptions.
	5) To make less harsh or severe; moderate
	6) Grammar: To modify the meaning of (a word or phrase)
Since "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" does not describe, modify or make less harsh anything and
it has nothing to do with grammar or some sort of position or task.
By process of elimination it must fall into definition #3.  And since
#3 deals with legal power, the same thing the Constitution does, it
must be the correct definition in this case.  Therefore, "the right 
of the people to keep and bear Arms" gives legal power to the "well 
regualated militia" and this legal power "shall not be infringed".  

I thank you very much Mr Scripter, you have provided me with more 
evidence that the Second Amendment only concerns itseft with the 
people's right to form well regulate militia, and says very little 
about the right of an untrained person to "keep and bear" a .50 caliber
machine gun.  And since I, totally untrained in the use of any firearm
(something I personly have meant to correct by going to a NRA gun
safety course and joining a gun club), cannot legally buy such a machine
gun, I conclude the courts and democraticly elected congress agree with
me.

-> So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
-> our Liberties and Rights.

I mean "to destory our Liberties and Rights."  Is that why a participate
in the discussion of exactly what "our Libertues and Rights" are?  I 
force my version of "our Liberties and Rights" by begining statements
of what "our Liberties and Rights" with "All that the Second Amendment 
clearly states to me."   Using expressions, such as "states to me," 
clearly mean I intend to force my views on others?  I don't think so.

So in effort not to force my views and not "to destory our Liberties and
Rights,"  I state that nothing I have written, or will write, in
the matter of "Liberties and Rights" is the final word.  For I am only
one person among many and the final word on "Liberties and Rights" cleary
and irrevocably belongs to the many.
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54454
From: ernie@ferris (Ernest Smith)
Subject: Re: Handgun Restrictions

>To: bbs.billand@tsoft.net
>Subject: Re: Handgun Restrictions
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>In-Reply-To: <ow522B2w165w@tsoft.net>
>Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
>Cc: 
>Bcc: 
>
In article <ow522B2w165w@tsoft.net> you write:
>I would like to know what restrictions there are on purchasing handguns 
>(ie waiting periods, background check etc..) in the states of Nevada and 
>Oregon. Thanks.
>                                                -Bill
>
>--
>Bill Anderson (bbs.billand@tsoft.net)


In Oregon your must get a background check (ie fingerprints, full slap), 15
day waiting period. That is unless you have a CCW then all requirments
have been meet.

		Ernie Smith
		ernie@oregon.cray.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54455
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: Armed Citizen - April '93

In article <1993Apr13.162304.16721@lds.loral.com>, kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr5.164728.10847@dazixco.ingr.com> crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com writes:
|> >
|> >THE ARMED CITIZEN
|> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|> >Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
|> >crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
|> >Armed Citizen.  
|> 
|> Perhaps so, but note that of the accounts cited, there was only
|> one in which no shot was fired. Of the other twelve, five
|> described cases in which the assailant was wounded by a shot,
|> and six described cases in which the assailant was killed by a
|> shot.

And, had not these citizens accepted the moral responsibility to
protect their own lives, there could well have been at least
13 innocent victims lying dead and several criminals still out 
walking the streets perpetrating their crimes on others.



-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54456
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1qicep$obf@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>> In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> >As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already
>> >ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v.
>> >Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what 
>> >the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back
>> >as the Dred Scott case, in 1857.
>> 
>> It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>> of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>> was not a proper militia weapon. 
>
>No, they noted that no one had CLAIMED that it was a proper militia
>weapon (despite having been used in at least two wars).  This was true,
>since neither Miller nor his lawyer appeared before the Court.

Did they or did they not sustain Miller's conviction? I don't have the
text of the case handy. 

Yes, shotguns had been used in WWI, the Spanish-American War, and the
US Civil War. That was not in question. The possession of a sawed-off
shotgun was, i.e., a weapon altered to improve concealibility.

>> Therefore, US vs. Miller supports limited government regulation of 
>> firearms.
>
>Don't go arguing down this road unless you are willing to abide by 
>the consequences that you find at the end of it -- mainly, that the
>law-abiding common man has a right to own any weapon that has a militia 
>purpose, from handguns to sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons.
>That, in fact, is what this decision says.

You are free to produce evidence that I'm not willing to abide with
all the implications of this. 

Just because I don't whole-heartedly endorse the NRA position does not
mean that I oppose the RKBA. This attitude is what makes the NRA
unpopular.

-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54457
From: fjk6478@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Fred)
Subject: Re: Luser!

>
>Actually, now we have established that I don't believe what you believe, as
>well as why I don't believe it.  And if it's boring, then I yield the last
>word to you, if you want it.  You may say anything you like with
>impunity--I am dropping the subject.
>
>--John L. Scott



How very kind of you!




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54458
From: bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks


>In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:

>|> 
>|> Does anybody reading this group have an actual, honest-to-God
>|> experience with violent crime in the backcountry to tell about?
>|> 

It was around 1969 in the Shenandoah Valley near Woodstock, Virginia.  Me,
my wife, a friend, his wife, and his 2 kids were hiking in a totally
desolate mountain area.  All of a sudden, large rocks began raining down
on us.  Looking up, we saw at least 3 punks gleefully letting loose rocks
from what was an obvious stash.  They were a couple hundred feet above us.
Meanwhile, the women and kids were screaming and running for cover and the
punks were shrieking with laughter.  Me and my friend yelled for them to
knock it off.  They responded that we should "Get f***ed!".  Me and my
friend drew our pistols and fired a couple of times into the trees above
their heads.  They ran.  With no more 3-5 pound rocks coming at our heads,
we proceeded on our journey.

Sorry, but me and my friend saw no need to let it evolve to a more
"violent" level than we were already experiencing.  I guess we should
have tried harder to understand and cope with the anger that society
had instilled in them and was driving them to do such things.  Guess
that's a cross I'll have to bear.

Brad

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54460
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Gun Talk -- Legislative Update for States

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>>IOWA:  All firearm related bills are dead.  Senate File 303
>>dealing with off-duty police officers carrying concealed remains
>>viable.

>	The *POWER* of the word processor and a stamp at work.
>The fact that around here the state rep generally lives no more than
>nine miles from any constituent doesn't hurt, either.

>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
><     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
><                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Does anyone know the particulars on the Senate File 303?
Does this bill allow or deny off-duty police from carrying concealed?

From what information that I have, Iowa has a discretionary permit policy
on CCW.  If S 303 allows police(off-duty) to carry concealed then I would
be inclined to oppose it.  I don't believe off-duty police officers should
have any more rights than civilians.  If law or policy prevents law-abiding
citizens from being armed for self defense then why should off-duty police
officer be treated any differently.  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54462
From: clay@rsd.dl.nec.com (Clay Finley)
Subject: Re: Carrying Arms

|> In article <1993Apr5.220457.6800@spdc.ti.com> dwhite@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Dan White) writes:
|> 
|> >However, haven't we already lost our right to bear arms?
|> 
|> >	It seems that in most states, like Texas, a citizen may own a
|> >gun and carry while at his home or business.  But a citizen is severely
|> >restricted from bearing outside these areas.  Here in Texas you cannot
|> >carry in your car except when "traveling" which is usually defined as
|> >"traveling across a county line."  How did this come about?  Are there
|> >any court rulings on the legality of restricting the carrying of a
|> >weapon outside the home?  
|> 

In Texas, it is legal to carry handguns while "traveling", and also to and from
sporting activities.           ^^^^^^^^

Chapter 46 of the Texas State Penal Code does NOT restrict long guns.
Therefore, it is legal to carry and transport long guns any place in Texas.

Regards,
Clay


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54463
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
:An 'edu'er not towing the "party" line, thank you!
:
:Jim

You're welcome!  ;)  Actually, I'm probably something of an outcast, because
I've committed the ultimate college-student heresy:  I'm not a liberal.
(This is NOT liberal-bashing.)


Mike
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54464
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
>>to defend the burning of the children.
>
>    Actually all the liberals I've seen have deplored the burning of 
>children. I would far preferred that the Davidians had not set the 
>fire that burned themselves and their children to death, but I don't 
>believe that the responsibility for the fire (or the almost complete 
>absense of attempts to escape the blaze) can be placed at the door of 
>the Federal authorities.
>
So far, there is NO credible evidence that the BD's set the fires
themselves. We only have the ATF/FBI's sayso. Law enforcements type
would *never* lie to cover their ass, right?

>>Probably drooled all over themselves while watching the TV coverage.
>
>    Not so. My wife got me a convenient plastic "drip pan" for Christmas...
>
>>Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
>
>    Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis.

No, not love, just share a surprising similarity of beliefs and
method.

>>Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
>>a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
>
>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...

Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
themselves to death.


>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54466
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
while watching the TV coverage.

Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.

Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54467
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

As a minor point of interest, earlier news reports claim to have
been quoting the Governor of Texas when Her Holiness referred to
the Dividians as _Mormons_ and called for their expulsion
from TX. Any Texans have details?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54468
From: blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:
>From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
>Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1
>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:06:42 GMT
>In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>>shoot-to-kill directives.
>
>You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.
>
>
>-- 
>                            REMEMBER WACO!
>     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
>[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Well, it seems we don't learn the lessons of history do we?

I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.

Apparently not.

Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.

---
Rawlin Blake    blake@nevada.edu

No .sig is a good .sig

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54469
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes:


>> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

>oh, i see. electricity is a natural right & our wonderful government
>would -never- cut off the power to the people they were besieging.
>are you really this dumb, or just acting like it for the sake of
>argument?

>jason

No, they didn't have electrical power, but no, I don't find the idea of
Davidians calmly cooking lunch with gas masks on as the FBI knocks the
buildings down very credible,either.

It's not like this whole discussion is relevant.  It started when some-
one made the wholly unsubstantiated allegation that the wood stove ig-
nited NAPALM the FBI shot into the buildings.

I'm not a groveling apoligist for the feds, far from it.  But wild ac-
cusations like this are ridiculous and obfuscate legitimate criticism of
their conduct in this whole affair.

Tom Gift
tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54470
From: dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

NUT CASE PANICS!!!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF
THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE
MERCY ON HIM!!!!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54471
From: diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

 
>A few comments on the ATF's botched handling of this case:
 
>Dan S.

  And another one:

Hasn't enyone heard of a leader's recon?  This is when the leader of the
assult goes and looks at the objective to see if anything has changed that
would affect the mission.  Even the Freshman cadets here in ROTCland
know about them.  Mostly because they know it as the part where they 
lie on the cold ground for an hour or so, but they've heard about it.
Maybe the ATF should have hired out to the local ROTC guys!


-- 
Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu

These opinions are only mine on alternate Tuesdays.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54472
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Impeach Clinton, Reno


Fact:  Both Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have admitted responsibility,
       even grief, over the deaths in Waco.

Fact:  Regardless of who started the fire, there are more than enough
       things on tape to make a civil rights case against these two.
       Cruel and unusual punishment (dying tortured rabbits on tape?)
       come to mind.  

Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of
       law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty
       of life in prison.

Fact:  Impeachment is allowable for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
       Anything that's a federal felony should qualify.

Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to 
             impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
wearer of asbestos underoos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54473
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
:mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
:
:> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
:> in Texas. 
:
:Do YOU eat all your food cold?

Thank you for pointing out the obvious to people who so clearly missed it.
I can't stand it when people's first reaction is to defend the aggressor.

Mr. Tavares, you have a unique and thoughtful way of getting to the heart
of the matter, and I thank you for putting it to good use.

Mike Ruff


-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54474
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
:glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes:
:>Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys,
:>it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming
:>houses and violating civil rights under color of law. 
:>
:>Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution?
:
:Its also about crazy fatigue clad survivalist types blasting the 
:snot out of people who accidentally stray onto his land in the
:name of 'self defense.'

Well, the count is now at least 86 dead by government action.  How many
have been killed in the last year in the manner you described?  What, no
facts?  Oh, how silly of me; I forgot, you don't like guns, so you don't
need no stinkin' facts.


:Don't get too self-righteous, Mr. gun-toter.

Don't get too smug, Mr. gun-hater.


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54475
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <93110.11265034AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> As a minor point of interest, earlier news reports claim to have
> been quoting the Governor of Texas when Her Holiness referred to
> the Dividians as _Mormons_ and called for their expulsion
> from TX. Any Texans have details?

The Davidians are a 60-year-old splinter from the Seventh Day Adventists,
if that's the information you were looking for.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54476
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tBwr.5xI@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift) writes:

> No, they didn't have electrical power, but no, I don't find the idea of
> Davidians calmly cooking lunch with gas masks on as the FBI knocks the
> buildings down very credible,either.

I don't know how quickly YOU can get a woodstove to heat up from a cold
start, but mine takes about three hours.

> It's not like this whole discussion is relevant.  It started when some-
> one made the wholly unsubstantiated allegation that the wood stove ig-
> nited NAPALM the FBI shot into the buildings.

Mox nix.  The BD's were prepared to provide their own heat and light,
and were doing so for weeks while the power was out.  That means the
compound contained containers of flammable liquids or gases (that could
be busted by a tank intrusion), plus ignition sources, which no one can 
tell for sure were all off at the time.

> I'm not a groveling apoligist for the feds, far from it.  But wild ac-
> cusations like this are ridiculous and obfuscate legitimate criticism of
> their conduct in this whole affair.

On the contrary.  We are proposing alternate scenarios.  The people who
are coming to wild conclusions are the feds, who are absolutely positive
how the fire started, even though none of them were in a position to 
see it, either (and the stories they "hear" from their prisoners changes
hourly).
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54477
From: syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu (Steven B Syck)
Subject: WI and IL firearms law Questions



A couple of questions for you firearms law experts out there:  

Question #1

According to the NRA/ILA state firearms lawbook, in Wisconsin it is
'unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go armed* with a 
"concealed and dangerous weapon."  There is no statutory provision for
obtaining a lixense or permit to carry a concealed weapon.'

*  Jury instructions indicate that 'to go armed' one must have a firearm
on one's person or within his immediate control and available for use.



Does this mean that open carry is allowed?  If so, just how 'open' does it
have to be?  Would an in the pants holster be considered concealing?  What
if one had their jacket on and it partially covered the weapon?  Also,
is there any way to be allowed to carry concealed, or is it just not allowed,
period? 

Question #2

As I understand it, in Evanston, IL, they have a ordinance banning handguns.
Is there any way to get around this provision?  What would the penalty if
you were found out be?  What if you used said handgun in a defensive shooting
in your apartment there?  How would the city law apply to your impending 
trial for the shooting?
Also, what is IL state law concerning short barreled weapons?  Short barreled
shotgun is what I would be interested in if a handgun were not available, 
either that or a shortened 9mm carbine (ie Colt, Marlin).  
One more thing, what is the chance of getting a CCW permit in IL without being
rich or famous or related to the mayor?

Please send replies via E-Mail, as things seem to be piling up around t.p.g
a little faster than I can handle.  Thanks again 
-------   Steve Syck        syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu        --------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54478
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
:cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
:>mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
:>>
:>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm 
:>> day in Texas. 
:>
:>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
:
:Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
:Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

Hey, Einstein, ever tried to use an electric stove or microwave WITHOUT
ELECTRICITY?  It's been shut off for weeks now, courtesy of your local FBI
assault squad.

Now, are you going to put your foot in your mouth or shall I get a crowbar
and assist you?


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54479
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
:jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:> Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
:> them. Resistance is useless. 
:
:Don't tell me -- you're the "Borg Warner," right?

HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Hee, hee.  <chuckle>

This was absolutely fabulous.  I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.
Wonderful!  Mr. Tavares, my hat is off to you again!


Mike Ruff

-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54480
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5t2IC.DC@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

> >>Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
> >>come out with their hands up several weeks ago.

> Now will you answer my question up top?

A suggestion: cameras panning over planted automatic weapons, followed by
a show trial and medals all around for the valiant forces of Lawn Order?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54481
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr20.124518.886@batman.bmd.trw.com> auerbach@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Women stand up for your right to be just as stupid as men.

Our new Attorney General seems determined to do so. In the past
few days she has said:

	She hopes the King beating will not reduce public confidince
	in law enforcement.

	The tactics of using tear gas and driving tanks through
	walls in Waco were intended to further a "peacefull solution"
	to the crisis.

	Those same tactics were intended to prevent a mass suicide,
	but she never expected the sect to react by killing themselves.

It's comforting to know, at least, that she wasn't Clinton's first
choice...

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54482
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

In article <1r1chu$h22@pandora.sdsu.edu> chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:

>    Initial assault on the "compound" ( more like a wooden farm house if
>  it burned to the ground like it did ) for WHAT?  Regardless of who
>  started/caused the fire, NONE of this would have happened if the
>  ATF can HONESTLY justify their initial assault and handled it 
>  properly!  

I just got through listening to the 10 o'clock news on Channel 4 here in
Dallas. They trotted out a list of justifications produced by the ATF after
"months of investigation" for their raid. 

I couldn't believe the junk on this list! For example, the BDs were accused
of stockpiling a bunch of "9mm and .223 ammunition that can be used in M15
and M16 assault rifles". Imagine that--they had ammunition!  They also had
aluminum dust! (Yeah, it's a component of thermite, but so far I haven't
heard that it's illegal to take a grinder to the aluminum lawn
furniture...) The only thing on the list that could conceivably have been
illegal was an M-79 grenade launcher. (Anybody know about this?)

Months of investigation! For this 80+ people died!

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54483
From: yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <93110.11320334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
> to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
> while watching the TV coverage.
> 
> Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
> 
> Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
> a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
> 
> 
> 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54486
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?

And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.

One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54487
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

First, I would like to say how much I appreciate having so literate and
erudite an individual as Mr. Rutledge with whom to discuss this topic.
Frankly, most anti-RKBA posters refuse even to approach the topic of
the original understanding of the Bill of Rights as detailed in the
writings of the era. This  is most refreshing.

Second, I must apologize for leaving the discussion for several days.
My brigade's quarterly drill was this weekend and I needed to attend
to several matters pertaining to the State Militia.

Some people seem to feel that the concept of the Militia is an anachro-
nism that is out of place in the 20th century. I'm not sure the Swiss
would agree and I think perhaps a discussion of how the Militia, both
organized and unorganized, fits into the defense plans of my State,
Mississippi. Please do not assume that this describes something peculiar
to one southern state. For instance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has a well organized Militia which, members report, maintains stocks
of both riot guns and machine guns. The laws of other States will vary
but are probably similar.

Title 35  of Mississippi Code defines our Militia as "all able-bodied
citizens of the state between the ages of seventeen (17) and sixty-
two (62) years...". The Militia is divided into 3 classes: The National
Guard, the Mississippi State Guard and the unorganized Militia.  The
National Guard is a strange sort of fish from a Constitutional perspective.
It tries to be both State Militia and Federal Reserve. The discussion
of this "para-constitutional" arrangement is quite interesting in itself
but somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it that, at this
date, the National Guard has ceased to have any Constitutional standing
as anything but a Federal reserve force.

Mississippi, and most other States, maintains a purely State organized
Militia. In Mississippi this is called The State Guard. In other 
States it may be called something else. The State Guard exists as
a cadre or training corps made up of mostly experienced officers and
senior NCOs who serve as volunteers without compensation. We drill
on a monthly basis at the company and battalion level, brigade once
a quarter and have an annual drill of the whole organization. Our
State-authorized cadre strength is 694. This is a skeleton of an
organization without any flesh. The muscle and sinew when needed will
come from the unorganized Militia.

In time of invasion, insurrection or calamity the Governor can order
the activation of the State Guard. When this takes place a call will
first be made  for volunteers to fill the organization out to either
its contingency strength of 2194 or full strength of 4910. In the
event that a sufficient number of people fail to volunteer, the law
provides detailed instructions for the conducting of a draft of the
unorganized Militia. The size of the State Guard is not specified by
law, but rather by executive order. At one time, the organized Militia
of Mississippi consisted of 68 regiments. Needless to say, the State
does not have armories brimming with weapons with which to equip such
a force. The historical precedent for arming such a force is by use
of mostly the private arms of the Militiamen. 

It is my hope that demonstrates that State Militias are far from being
the long dead anachronisms that some may wish to claim.

>No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
>organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
>meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
>state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
>to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
>by Hamilton. 

Regarding Hamilton: If you take Hamilton's opinion as being the sole
representative of the opinions of the Founding Fathers, you will have
chosen a highly skewed sample set. Hamilton was on the extreme Federalist
end of the political spectrum. Others, such as Coxe and Henry, can
be chosen to represent the other end. Many contemporaries felt that
the idea of having a standing Army of any sort or even a select Militia
or "train bands" were contrary to the egalitarian nature of the govern-
ment they were striving to perfect. The compromise reached was to
provide for a small Army, which had to be refinanced every two years,
and iron-clad protection for the Militia, which was to remain ever,
"terrible and irresistible".

These protections included: State control, not Federal; limitation
of Federal utilization of the Militia (i.e. execute Laws, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions), and the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms to prevent what the British had tried to do at Lexington.
These limitations eventually proved so onerous to the Federal Govern-
ment that they were skirted by the creation of the National Guard.

The National Guard was created for one very simple reason: the 
Constitutional Militia was had proved too unreliable for fighting
wars of imperial expansion. (e.g. Spanish-American War). The
Constitution provided that the Militia could only be employed by
the Federal government in very limited purposes. As far back as the
War of 1812, Militia units had refused to leave United States
territory to attack the enemy. Further, there was no Constitutional
authorization for any conscription of anyone into the Federal
Military and Militiamen were particularly protected. In all wars until
WW-I every American who left the country under arms was a volunteer.
When the National Guard acts of 1903-1916 required that each new
member also enlist as a reservest in the Army, existing soldiers were
"grandfathered". At least one of these "grandfathered" individuals
refused to go to France in 1918 and his refusal was upheld by the
Federal Courts.

Mr. Rutledge has stated that the Second Amendment applies only to
members of a "well organized" militia. However, the pre-Constitutional
history of the American Militia shows relatively few periods when
The Militia came close to meeting either Messrs. Rutledge or Hamilton's
definition of "well organized". In the period of peace between the
French & Indian War and The Revolution many companies simply stopped
drilling and had to be reconstituted just prior to The Revolution.
Perhaps Mr. Rutledge would care to argue that those of my ancestors
who answered the Lexington alarm had forfeited their rights because
their units didn't drill for a few years in the 1760s. I would not
be so bold.

Again, I wish to repeat. The National Guard, for all its merits, is
not the Militia described by the Constitution  nor by Mr. Hamilton
nor by Mr. Henry nor by Mr. Coxe. The fact that the Federal Government
and many States are delinquent in their attentions to and organizing
of their Constitutional Militias  diminishes neither their
responsibilities nor the rights of the Militia as detailed in the
Constitution.
 
Misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Militia is but one
error that has crept into modern readings of the Constitution. The
Constitution prohibits States from keeping "Troops or Ships of War
in time of Peace". I have heard some insist this prevents States from
maintaining a Militia, but this comes about because people today do not
understand the meanings of the words in their 18th century usage.
Today we call any large vessel a "ship" but in the 18th century the word
described a particular kind of vessel.  A "ship" is a large vessel with
three or more masts each carrying square rigged sails. A "brig" has two
masts. In the contemporary usage the States were prohibited only from keeping
the largest warships of the day, those capable of global operations. Today's
equivalent might be a prohibition on the States' keeping nuclear missiles.
"Troops" at this time meant a full-time professional military organization.
Any study of contemporaneous writings will bear this out. 

In at least one respect, I am in agreement with Mr. Rutledge; being
personally involved in the maintenance and advancement of The Militia
as a viable means of defense for a modern society, I am frequently
both bemused and saddened when friends and associates wax poetic on
their place in the unorganized Militia and become strangely silent or
scarce when invited to attend a  drill of their State's Militia.
-- 
Donald R. Newcomb              * University of Southern Mississippi
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu      * This is the way we tax and spend, tax 
dnewcomb@falcon.st.usm.edu     * and spend. We're Democrats in office.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54488
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>That the gas was "not harmful", as the sensitive, caring Janet Reno described 
>it?

Is it? As far as I know, tear gas, especially in large concentrations,
is very dangerous (even toxic) for small children. This makes the
FBI's supposedconcern for the safety of the children seem rather 
hypocritical.

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54489
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r21g2INNeah@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu  
>(Andrew Betz) writes:
>> >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>> >>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>> >>
>> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
>> >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
>> >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
>> 
>> Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
>> come out with their hands up several weeks ago.
>> 
>It didn't happen.

And who is responsible for it not happening?
Certainly not the children.  Koresh was calling the shots.  He was 
talking with his lawyer and the FBI.  Since others were released safely, 
there is no sane reason for keeping the children inside the compound.

>> >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>> >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>> >>scenarios.
>> >
>> >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
>> >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
>> >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.
>> 
>> More than someone who would not release children from the compound.
>> 
>Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper.

Not at all.  Are you a Koresh worshiper?

>> I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
>> I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
>> 1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.
>
>Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show you  
>to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed. 

Thanks for my laugh of the day!  Definitely a very silly supposition.

>You should at least view the whole  
>documentary before you claim it as a source.

I would if I could.  The news show that showed the lengthy excerpts also 
had interviews with the filmmaker who made the documentary who basically 
confirmed what was shown in the excerpts from the time he spent at the 
compound in 1992.

>> I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
>> bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
>> responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.
>
>Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?  
>I saw one place.

I believe that this was reported by local radio reporters on site.
A fire started in a three story tower at the same time as the two 
story window shown on the tv coverage.

>> >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>> >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>> >>ludicrous.
>> >
>> >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
>> >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
>> >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
>
>Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all, it  
>is the root cause of all the other suspicion.

I thought about mentioning how Reagan and the military treated the press 
in Grenada and how that set the precedent, but decided it wasn't worthy 
of discussion.  If the news reporter got shot, you can bet his family 
would sue the government for letting him into the danger area.

The root cause of suspicion in my mind is why 100 people wouldn't flee 
a building that had numerous exits during the 30 minutes time it took 
to burn down.  Or why didn't they flee hours earlier when the tear gas was 
first introduced?  I can find no rational explanation for their behavior.

-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54490
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: The Cold War: Who REALLY Won?

In article <1993Apr20.220335.9235@linus.mitre.org> glover@tafs2.mitre.org  
(Graham K. Glover) writes:
> If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented 
> and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >> 
> (and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism << 
> absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite 
> (which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?

Of course not.  The USA's only hope is for Yelsen (how ever you spell it) to  
fail the referendum, and have the hard-liners take over again.

> 
> Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply!
> 
> ----------------
> Graham K. Glover
> ----------------
> 
> UNMUTUAL

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54491
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1r1lp1INN752@mojo.eng.umd.edu> chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV) writes:
>>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam?

>CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that
>your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but
>you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies.

I think the is BZ gas, not CS or CN. BZ gas exposure results in projectile
vomiting, loss of essentially all muscle control, inability to concentrate
or think rationally and fatal reactions in a significant fraction of
the population. For that reason its use is limited to military
applications.

                                                          Frank Crary
                                                          CU Boulder
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54495
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r21vqINNeb8@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <C5spov.LrE@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
>Arras) writes:
>> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>> >writes:
>> >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
>> >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
>> >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear  
>gassed.
>> >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
>> >> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  
>> 
>> Unworthy of comment.
>
>But apparently true.  My opinion, only, of course.

So, your opinion is truth.  I see...  :-)

>> >Humans died  
>> >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
>> >actions  
>> >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  
>> 
>> Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
>> That is undeniable truth.  
>
>No, it is not.  It is possible the FBI planned for this to happen, and the  
>gunfire heard was the FBI keeping the folks inside.  I'm not proposing this as  
>the way it went down, but just to point out that it's not "undeniable" that if  
>they walked out yesterday, they would be alive today.

You can believe that if you wish.  It is undeniable, however, that people 
have left the compound unharmed and alive earier in the standoff.

And since their leader was preaching that they would have an apocalypse, you 
can not say undeniably that there wouldn't have been a mass suicide if the 
FBI had simply stayed outside and waited another 51 days.

>> My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
>> the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
>> to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion 
>> to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
>> and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.
>
>My heart "bleeds" for no one.  You are the "bleeding heart".  And I'm sure  
>beyond any possible doubt that you do not feel for those people as I do.  You  
>can not say the heartless things you have said if you did.

I am the heartless bleeding heart?  You are not making sense.
You seem to have no concern that someone would keep children inside this 
compound when they had 51 days to let them out.  That sounds pretty heartless 
to me.

I just heard on the news that some of the survivors regret they hadn't 
stayed in the inferno to prove their loyalty to Koresh.  This makes me 
sad and sick.

>> >You seem to say  
>> >they got what they deserved.
>> 
>> I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
>> more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
>> wanted and put into motion themselves.
>
>"they got what they wanted".  What kind of creature are you that you can  
>believe this?

Have you ever heard of Jonestown?
The sad thing is the people inside the compound were the authority 
worshipers and their only authority was Koresh/Howell.   If these 
people were able to think for themselves, there would likely be a lot 
more survivors today.  Koresh preached a fiery apocalypse as early as 
last year.

>> I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
>> by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair 
>> from the start.
>
>We agree on this.  Now lets have your God, the FBI, investigated, too.

By all means, the FBI should be investigated, too.  
BTW, I thought the second ammendment was God.  :-)

>> >Jim
>> >--
>> >jmd@handheld.com
>>  


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54496
From: fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
>there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
>been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
>rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

Consider this: The BDs had more than one lamp; The tanks made more than
one hole in the building. Did anyone else notice on the video that it
appeared that wherever there was smoke coming out of the building, there
was a tank nearby?

The fact that it appears that fires started in several places does not
rule out anything.

Also, where are these several witnesses? The way I heard it (from the FBI
spokesman on CNN) the "witnesses" were all people driving the tanks.

>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have
done their job well.

Dwayne Jacques Fontenot

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54498
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution. 

This is REALLY STUPID nitpicking.  Capitalization rules in the late 18th
century were quite different from today, and what was posted matches current
capitalization rules.

We also don't make 's' look like 'f' and other such things done in the late
seventeen hundreds.

In the original Constitution, "militia", "arms", etc. were capitalized simply
because they were nouns.  This is also done currently in German.  There is
no special significance to these words simply because they are capitalized.
The capitalization denotes no special emphasis.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

	ARIES (Mar 21 - Apr 19)
You are the pioneer type and hold most people in contempt.  You are
quick tempered, impatient, and scornful of advice.  You are not very
nice.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54499
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>hands up while national tv cameras watch.

	Would *you* have come out if you knew the only national TV
cameras were well over a mile away, and yet the agents with the guns
were only a few yards away?  They had contact with a lawyer, so I
am inclined to believe they had an idea of what their situation
actually was.  This also leads to the conspiracy theory that the
lawyer had the BATF pinned on rights violations if the BD's
acted as witnesses, hence the arson.  I doubt that one too, but
it is still quite clear that leaving a safe place to surrender is
a rather stupid thing to do until that place is no longer safe.

>Do you disbelieve everything the FBI says?

	As a matter of course, given how they've allowed no other
views to be heard.  I'll reserve judgement until the trial, but so
far as the FBI is concerned their statements carry the same amount
of weight as photons at rest.

>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>ludicrous.

	Ludicrous, yes.  Possible, yes.  Plausible?  Get the jury.

>If the fire were set by accident or by people outside the compound, I would 
>have expected far more cult members to flee the compound.  Or at least come 
>out shooting.

	That's what gets me too.  It is likely the cult members were
holed up in an enforced place inside the building.  With a decent arson
attempt I suspect many of them could have been trapped.  In addition,
the introduction of CS gas for several hours would have rendered many
of them immobile if not unconscious when their masks quit.  All the props
are there, but proving what scene was played is difficult.  The only
certainty is that the FBI and BATF have few witnesses against them.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54500
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun cont
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

In article <C5JGz5.34J@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>I'd like to point out that I was in error - "Terminator" began posting only 
>six months before he purchased his first firearm, according to private email
>from him.
>I can't produce an archived posting of his earlier than January 1992,
>and he purchased his first firearm in March 1992.
>I guess it only seemed like years.
>Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.

I first read and consulted rec.guns in the summer of 1991.  I
just purchased my first firearm in early March of this year.

 NOt for lack of desire for a firearm, you understand.  I could 
have purchased a rifle or shotgun but didn't want one.
-Case Kim



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54501
Subject: Re: Cop kills teenager
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
>	SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED IN REVENGE TRIPLE HOMICIDE
>
>PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer afraid he would be fired for
>allegedly assaulting a teen-ager walked into an auto body shop wher the youth
>worked, said "You're going to die" and fatally shot him and two others, police
>said.
>A fourth youth was wounded.  A fifth escaped injury by hiding under a car.
>Suspended police officer Robert Sabetta, 23, of Cranston, was arrested at
>gunpoint over three hours after the shooting at Wilson's Auto Enterprises in
>Foster, a rural town of about 4,000 people in northwest Rhode Island.
>						Doug Holland
>
	I think I have updated info on this.  My understandingis that
former officer Cranston approached a teenager who was being questioned
by another officer.   Officer Cranston struck Teenager A in the head
with a heavy police flashlight, causing a significant, though not
life-threatening.  THere is no evidence that Teenager A was
doing anything threatening at the time.  Teenager A was released
on bail/recognizance and filed a formal complaint against Officer
Cranston.  The Police Chief suspended Cranston pending an 
investigation into the use of excessive force.  
	The above is pretty clear... but what seems to have 
happened is this.  The Chief requested Cranston's gun, but Cranston
refused to turn it over until the Chief went the Cranston's home
 to get it.  Sources said Cranston had always wanted to be
a cop and was very afraid of loosing his job because of the complaint
against him.
	A few days afterward, Cranston allegedly walked into 
Wilson's Garage, where Teenager A and friends were known to
hang out and work on cars as a hobby.  Cranston fatally shot
Teenager A as well as TEenagers B and C.  Teenager D was shot once
in the shoulder/chest.  Teenager E was working under the car
and was not noticed by Officer Cranston.  Teenager D went to a home
and summoned police, who went to Wilson's Garage and found the 
3 corpses and one unscathed survivor.

	A few days after his arrest, Officer Cranston attemped
to commit suicide in his cell.
-Case Kim




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54502
From: mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen)
Subject: Re: We knew it would happen

In talk.politics.guns, jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman) writes:

	Well Josh I agree with you to some respect...less your spelling
	errors.  The Gov'mnt always must win! even if they kill every
	man women and child....by GOD they must win at all costs......

	This happens over and over and over in this country.  Lets make
	excuses, get the worthless press to cover up everything, let the
	officials take the heat for top management stupidity etc...etc...

> I am sick with greif for the entire well being of this nation and the 
> constitution in claims to protect.
	> 
> Later,
> Josh   

> 
>later Morty
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54503
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

Re: More on Gun Buybacks

The Denver buy back, trading guns for Denver Nuggets tickets was pretty much
a bust. Very few guns were turned in. The news tried to hype it but 
when the best they could do was ".... including a loaded .38..." well,
you get the picture.

A side note- the news also reported that the guns would be checked for
whether or not they were stolen. STOLEN GUNS WILL BE RETURNED TO THEIR
OWNERS!!!!! (They say)

(Does this have anything to do with the rally on the Capital steps yesterday
 in support of the RKBA????)

Even the rally made the 5 pm news on 3 channels :-)


Ron Miller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54504
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Subject: Re: Waco, they did it.    ( MASADA )

Re: Flaming wreckage

I wrote my congressmen strongly worded letters demanding they dissolve the
BATF.

Perhaps anger and grief can help spur a letter writing campaign?

Ron Miller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54505
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r27ld$bp2@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <C5t38G.IL@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>> In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>> 
>>   [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the 
>>    "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on 
>>    the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.]
>
>Was THAT your argument.  Well, you didn't make it very well.  You started 
>from the questionable premise that the fire was necessarily an act of
>insanity, rather than an act of negligence or an accident.  Recall, one
>survivor claims that the fire started when a tank knocked over a kerosene 
>lamp.  Kind of makes arguments regarding relative sanity somewhat moot, no?

And another survivor claims he heard someone shouting "The fire's started!".
Odd terminology.  That's what one says when you know a fire is planned, not 
when one occurs by accident.  We will have to wait and see what the evidence 
shows, assuming one is willing to believe any evidence offered by the 
"distrustful ones".

>> >> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
>> >> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
>> >> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
>> >> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
>> >> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
>> >> to the way Jim Jones has been described.
>> >
>> >Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance?
>> >Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15.
>> 
>> I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form.
>> The comments above and below were meant to address who might be unstable 
>> enough to keep children in a building with tear gas or start a fire.
>
>"Nice evasive maneuver, Mr. Chekov, but they're still on our tail."
>
>Let me ask it more plainly.  Which of the above complaints about David 
>Koresh's religious or sexual proclivities justified an armed raid by the 
>Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?

Neither.  Again I was merely addressing the sanity level of the players.  
I agree that the BATF handled the affair badly from day one.  BTW, I heard 
on the news today that the affadavit behind the no-knock warrant was unsealed 
today.  Grenade launcher was the only thing on the list that I found 
unusual.

>> >> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>> >> >:by cult members.
>
>> >> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details, 
>> >> will you believe them?
>
>> >Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else
>> >who doesn't know them personally.
>
>> Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?
>
>It's not entirely far-fetched.  Nobody outside the compound would know 
>EVERYBODY inside the compound.  Don't forget, the BATF admits having 
>agents inside the compound, in any case.

Ambitious news reporters could use the documentary filmed by an Australian 
in 1992 on the compound grounds to help identify survivors.  I, for one, 
will check their stories for consistency with what I learned in a long 
news story about that documentary.

>> At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors.
>> Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no 
>> good if you believe in eternal darkness.
>
>I'm simply being the devil's advocate.  There's reasonable doubt by the
>boatload standing in the way of anybody totally swallowing the official 
>government story on Waco.

Certainly there is some room for doubt.  I certainly reserve the right 
to change my opinions when new evidence warrants such a change.  If I 
were conspiratorially minded, however, I would never be able to change 
my mind, because any evidence I disliked would have to be a lie 
fabricated by the "distrustful ones".


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54506
From: mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r1j1l$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
> 
> Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.
> 
> You sick bastard.
> -- 
> 
> 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...
> 

Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said 
that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  However it was the Branch
Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior" 
(yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that 
what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their
lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and
for many of the rest of the U.S.  I am however sad to hear of the death of any 
child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              |
| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    |
| Kent State University	| 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|      Look here for future advice.quotes.sayings.jibberish.philosohy        |
|                                                                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54508
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

Here is a press release from the White House.

 President Clinton's Remarks On Waco With Q/A
 To: National Desk
 Contact: White House Office of the Press Secretary, 202-456-2100

   WASHINGTON, April 20 -- Following are remarks by President 
Clinton in a question and answer session with the press:

1:36 P.M. EDT

     THE PRESIDENT:  On February the 28th, four federal
agents were killed in the line of duty trying to enforce the law
against the Branch Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled
weaponry and ammunition, and placed innocent children at risk.
Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51-day
standoff ensued.

     The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every
reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without
bloodshed and further loss of life.  The Bureau's efforts were
ultimately unavailing because the individual with whom they were
dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably
insane.

     He engaged in numerous activities which violated both
federal law and common standards of decency.  He was, moreover,
responsible for the deaths and injuries which occurred during the
action against the compound in February.  Given his inclination
towards violence and in an effort to protect his young hostages, no
provocative actions were taken for more than seven weeks by federal
agents against the compound.

     This weekend I was briefed by Attorney General Reno on
an operation prepared by the FBI, designed to increase pressure on
Koresh and persuade those in the compound to surrender peacefully.
The plan included a decision to withhold the use of ammunition, even
in the face of fire, and instead to use tear gas that would not cause
permanent harm to health, but would, it was hoped, force the people
in the compound to come outside and to surrender.

     I was informed of the plan to end the siege.  I
discussed it with Attorney General Reno.  I asked the questions I
thought it was appropriate for me to ask.  I then told her to do what
she thought was right, and I take full responsibility for the
implementation of the decision.

     Yesterday's action ended in a horrible human tragedy.
Mr. Koresh's response to the demands for his surrender by federal
agents was to destroy himself and murder the children who were his
captives, as well as all the other people who were there who did not
survive.  He killed those he controlled, and he bears ultimate
responsibility for the carnage that ensued.

     Now we must review the past with an eye towards the
future.  I have directed the United Stated Departments of Justice and
Treasury to undertake a vigorous and thorough investigation to
uncover what happened and why, and whether anything could have been
dne differently.  I have told the departments to involve independent
professional law enforcement officials in the investigation.  I
expect to receive analysis and answers in whatever time is required
to complete the review.  Finally, I have directed the departments to
cooperate fully with all congressional inquiries so that we can
continue to be fully accountable to the American people.

     I want to express my appreciation to the Attorney
General, to the Justice Department, and to the federal agents on the
front lines who did the best job they could under deeply difficult
circumstances.

     Again, I want to say as I did yesterday, I am very sorry
for the loss of life which occurred at the beginning and at the end
of this tragedy in Waco.  I hope very much that others who will be
tempted to join cults and to become involved with people like David
Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over
the last seven weeks.  And I hope very much that the difficult
situations which federal agents confronted there and which they will
be doubtless required to confront in other contexts in the future
will be somewhat better handled and better understood because of what
has been learned now.

     Q  Mr. President, can you, first of all, tell us why,
after 51 days, you decided --

     Q  Mr. President, can you describe for us what it is
that Janet Reno outlined to you in your 15-minute phone conversation
with --

     THE PRESIDENT:  I can't hear you both.  If one will go
first and then the other.

     Q  Sorry.  Can you describe what Janet Reno --

     Q  Mr. President --

     THE PRESIDENT:  I'll answer both your questions, but I
can't do it at once.

     Q  Can you describe what she told you on Sunday about
the nature of the operation and how much detail you knew about it?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  I was told by the Attorney General
that the FBI strongly felt that the time had come to take another
step in trying to dislodge the people in the compound.  And she
described generally what the operation would be -- that they wanted
to go in and use tear gas which had been tested not to cause
permanent damage to adults or to children, but which would make it
very difficult for people to stay inside the building.  And it was
hoped that the tear gas would permit them to come outside.

     I was further told that under no circumstances would our
people fire any shots at them even if fired upon.  They were going to
shoot the tear gas from armored vehicles which would protect them and
there would be no exchange of fire.  In fact, as you know, an awful
lot of shots were fired by the cult members at the federal officials.
There were no shots coming back from the government side.

     I asked a number of questions.  The first question I
asked is, why now?  We have waited seven weeks; why now?  The reasons
I was given were the following:

     Number one, that there was a limit to how long the
federal authorities could maintain with their limited resources the
quality and intensity of coverage by experts there.  They might be
needed in other parts of the country.

     Number two, that the people who had reviewed this had
never seen a case quite like this one before, and they were convinced
that no progress had been made recently and no progress was going to
be made through the normal means of getting Koresh and the other cult
members to come out.

     Number three, that the danger of their doing something
to themselves or to others was likely to increase, not decrease, with
the passage of time.

     And number four, that they had reason to believe that
the children who were still inside the compound were being abused
significantly, as well as being forced to live in unsanitary and
unsafe conditions.

     So for those reasons, they wanted to move at that time.
The second question I asked the Attorney General is whether they had
given consideration to all of the things that could go wrong and
evaluated them against what might happen that was good.  She said
that the FBI personnel on the scene and those working with them were
convinced that the chances of bad things happening would only
increase with the passage of time.

     The third question I asked was, has the military been
consulted?  As soon as the initial tragedy came to light in Waco,
that's the first thing I asked to be done, because it was obvious
that this was not a typical law enforcement situation.  Military
people were then brought in, helped to analyze the situation and some
of the problems that were presented by it.   And so I asked if the
military had been consulted.  The Attorney General said that they
had, and that they were in basic agreement that there was only one
minor tactical difference of opinion between the FBI and the military
-- something that both sides thought was not of overwhelming
significance.

     Having asked those questions and gotten those answers, I
said that if she thought it was the right thing to do, that she
should proceed and that I would support it.  And I stand by that
today.

     Q  Mr. President --

     THE PRESIDENT:  Wait.  Go ahead.

     Q  Can you address the widespread perception --
reported widely, television, radio and newspapers -- that you were
trying somehow to distance yourself from this disaster?

     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I'm bewildered by it.  The only
reason I made no public statement yesterday -- let me say -- the only
reason I made no public statement yesterday is that I had nothing to
add to what was being said and I literally did not know until rather
late in the day whether anybody was still alive other than those who
had been actually seen and taken to the hospital or taken into
custody.  It was purely and simply a question of waiting for events
to unfold.

     There was -- I have -- I can't account for why people
speculated one way or the other, but I talked to the Attorney General
on the day before the action took place.  I talked to her yesterday.
I called her again late last night after she appeared on the Larry
King Show, and I talked to her again this morning.  A President -- it
is not possible for a President to distance himself from things that
happen when the federal government is in control.

     I will say this, however.  I was, frankly, surprised
would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the
Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics
murdered themselves.  (Applause.)

     I regret what happened, but it is not possible in this
life to control the behavior of others in every circumstance.  These
people killed four federal officials in the line of duty.  They were
heavily armed.  They fired on federal officials yesterday repeatedly,
and they were never fired back on.  We did everything we could to
avoid the loss of life.  They made the decision to immolate
themselves.  And I regret it terribly, and I feel awful about the
children.

     But in the end, the last comment I had from Janet Reno,
is when -- and I talked to her on Sunday -- I said, now, I want you
to tell me once more why you believe -- not why they believe -- why
you believe we should move now rather than wait some more.  And she
said, it's because of the children.  They have evidence that those
children are still being abused and that they're in increasingly
unsafe conditions, and that they don't think it will get any easier
with time -- with the passage of time.  I have to take their word for
that.  So that is where I think things stand.

     Q  Can we assume then that you don't think this was
mishandled in view of the outcome, that you didn't run out of
patience?  And if you had it to do over again, would you really
decide that way?

     THE PRESIDENT:  No -- well, I think what you can assume
is just exactly what I announced today.  This is a -- the FBI has
done a lot of things right for this country over a long period of
time.  This is the same FBI that found the people that bombed the
World Trade Center in lickety-split, record time.  We want an inquiry
to analyze the steps along the way.  Is there something else we
should have known?  Is there some other question they should have
asked?  Is there some other question I should have asked?  Can I say
for sure that no one -- that we could have done nothing else to make
the outcome come different?  I don't know that.  That's why I want
the inquiry and that's why I would like to make sure that we have
some independent law enforcement people, not political people, but
totally non-political, outside experts who can bring to bear the best
evidence we have.

     There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of
fanaticism all across the world.  And we may have to confront it
again.  And I want to know whether there is anything we can do,
particularly when there are children involved.  But I do think it is
important to recognize that the wrong-doers in this case were the
people who killed others and then killed themselves.

     Q  Mr. President, were there any other options
presented to you for resolving this situation at any point from
February 28th until yesterday?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, yes, I got regular reports all
along the way.  There were lots of other options pursued.  If you go
back -- you all covered it very well.  The FBI -- you did a very good
job of it.  I mean, the FBI and the other authorities there pursued
any number of other options all along the way, and a lot of them
early on seemed to be working.  Some of the children got out, some of
the other people left.  There was a -- at one point, there seemed to
be some lines of communication opening up between Koresh and the
authorities.  And then he would say things and not do them and things
just began to spin downward.

     Whether there were other -- in terms of what happened
yesterday, the conversation I had with the Attorney General did not
involve other options except whether we should take more time with
the present strategy we were pursuing -- because they said they
wanted to do this, because they thought this was the best way to get
people out of the compound quickly before they could kill themselves.
That's what they thought.

     Q  Did the government know that the children did not
have gas masks?

     Q     congressional hearings once the situation -- are
you in agreement with that?

     THE PRESIDENT:  That's up to the Congress.  They can do
whatever they want.  But I think it's very important that the
Treasury and Justice Departments launch this investigation and bring
in some outside experts.  And as I said in my statement, if any
congressional committees want to look into it, we will fully
cooperate.  There is nothing to hide here.  This was probably the
most well-covered operation of its kind in the history of the
country.

   (more, more)
 -30-

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54509
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 2

Here is a press release from the White House.

 President Clinton's Remarks On Waco With Q/A
 To: National Desk
 Contact: White House Office of the Press Secretary, 202-456-2100

   WASHINGTON, April 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following are
remarks by President Clinton in a question and answer session
with the press (Part 2 of 2):

     Go ahead, Sarah.

     Q  There are two questions I want to ask you.  The
first is, I think that they knew very well that the children did not
have gas masks while the adults did, so the children had no chance
because this gas was very -- she said it was not lethal, but it was
very dangerous to the children and they could not have survived
without gas masks.  And on February 28th -- let's go back -- didn't
those people have a right to practice their religion?

     THE PRESIDENT:  They were not just practicing their
religion, they were -- the Treasury Department believed that they had
violated federal laws, any number of them.

     Q  What federal laws --

     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me go back and answer -- I can't
answer the question about the gas masks, except to tell you that the
whole purpose of using the tear gas was that it had been tested; they
were convinced that it wouldn't kill either a child or an adult but
it would force anybody that breathed it to run outside.  And one of
the things that I've heard -- I don't want to get into the details of
this because I don't know -- but one of the things that they were
speculating about today was that the wind was blowing so fast that
the windows might have been opened and some of the gas might have
escaped and that may be why it didn't have the desired effect.

     They also knew, Sarah, that there was an underground
compound -- a bus buried underground where the children could be
sent.  And they were -- I think they were hoping very much that if
the children were not released immediately outside that the humane
thing would be done and that the children would be sent someplace
where they could be protected.

     In terms of the gas masks themselves, I learned
yesterday -- I did not ask this fact question before -- that the gas
was supposed to stay active in the compound longer than the gas masks
themselves were to work.  So that it was thought that even if they
all had gas masks, that eventually the gas would force them out in a
nonviolent, nonshooting circumstance.

     MS. MYERS:  Last question.

     Q  Mr. President, why are you still saying that --

     Q  Could you tell us whether or not you ever asked
Janet Reno about the possibility of a mass suicide?  And when you
learned about the actual fire and explosion what went through your
mind during those horrendous moments?

     THE PRESIDENT:  What I asked Janet Reno is if they had
considered all the worse things that could happen.  And she said --
and, of course, the whole issue of suicide had been raised in the
public -- he had -- that had been debated anyway.  And she said that
the people who were most knowledgeable  about these kinds of issues
concluded that there was no greater risk of that now than there would
be tomorrow or the next day or the day after that or at anytime in
the future.  That was the judgment they made.  Whether they were
right or wrong, of course, we will never know.

     What happened when I saw the fire, when I saw the
building burning?  I was sick.  I felt terrible.  And my immediate
concern was whether the children had gotten out and whether they were
escaping or whether they were inside, trying to burn themselves up.
That's the first thing I wanted to know.

     Thank you.

     Q  Mr. President, why are you still saying it was a
Janet Reno decision?  Isn't it, in the end, your decision?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what I'm saying is that I didn't
have a four- or five-hour, detailed briefing from the FBI.  I didn't
go over every strategic part of it.  It is a decision for which I
take responsibility.  I'm the President of the United States and I
signed off on the general decision and giving her the authority to
make the last call.  When I talked to her on Sunday, some time had
elapsed.  She might have made a decision to change her mind.  I said,
if you decide to go forward with this tomorrow, I will support you.
And I do support her.

     She is not ultimately responsible to the American
people; I am.  But I think she has conducted her duties in an
appropriate fashion and she has dealt with this situation I think as
well as she could have.

     Thank you.  (Applause.)

 -30-

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54510
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>We have NO evidence that BATF & FBI would not have started shooting
>when and if people had started coming out of the burning building.

Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people
leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the
press first?

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54511
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)

In article <C5n0vy.EJ6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
<In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
<-> In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
<-> > But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
<-> > group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
<-> > every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
<-> > be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it 
<-> > requires a continually standing committee of organizers.  
<-> 
<-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
<-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
<-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
<-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
<-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.
<
<No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
<and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
<an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
<people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
<that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
<cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
<interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
<of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
<of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
<how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.

Wrong.  Neglecting that the government and media have bullshitted the
people almost nonstop on this issue, Constitutional limitations are
there to prevent a 'tyrrany of the majority'.  For example, a majority
could vote that given ethnics have no rights, are not people, etc.
and it would fly using the logic above.

When government feels the Constitution is not right for the times,
there is a procedure called an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  THis
is deliberately difficult, and cumbersome, to prevent abuse of those
who decide to ignore the people, or impose unjust policies of a
majority on a minority.   A lynch mob is a majority, remember, outvoting
the hangee.

What the government is doing are VIOLATIONS, end-runs around the
limitations on the government, probably because they know that the
people would be very hard to convince that a good intention is behind
tampering with the Bill of Rights.  Government propeganda on guns has
been very strong and persistant, but not THAT strong.  And it just
shows how gullible the people have become to "I am from the government
and am here to help you sort of line".  We have been lied to, fed
half truths, rigged stats, while the government knows their control
laws have no effect on crime.  They want a government monopoly on
force, pure and simple.  Do you REALLY want the government to be able
to override Constitutional limitations by a simple vote of a bunch
of elitists (congresscritters)?  I sure don't.  The Founding Fathers
sure as hell didn't, either.

<> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
<-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
<-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
<-> number of times.  
<
<No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
<organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
<meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
<state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
<to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
<by Hamilton. 

You better read the Senate Subcommitte on the Constitution regarding the
Second Amendment, and a linguist's analisys of the Second itself.
IN the meanwhile, show us some stuff to back up your assertions.
And yes, I have the above mentioned documents (and more) online.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54512
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r27vo$425@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>:mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>:
>:According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
>:began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
>:had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
>:These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
>:his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
>:to the way Jim Jones has been described.
>
>I don't know how accurate the documentary was; 

The documentary interviewed Koresh and current and ex-members.  
The documentary disucussed Koresh's "Christ" status inside the cult, 
cult brain-washing techniques, and unusual sex practices (the leader 
gets any he wants, and tells others when they can or can't).  I will let 
others decide if using religious authority to have sex with a minor is 
technically child abuse or not.

>however, Koresh was never
>convicted of any crimes against children, nor was the BATF after him for
>child abuse.  
>Their purview (in this case) is strictly in firearms violations,

All true.

>so this information is irrelevant to the discussion.

Well, if a fire was deliberately set by members of the cult, then the 
history and background of the cult is very relevant.  The history 
and backgournd of the Jones cult was very important in understanding 
what happened at Jonestown.

Not taking into account the history and background of Koresh's cult may 
also help explain why the FBI and BATF so badly predicted the reponses 
they would get from inside the compund nearly every step of the way in 
this badly handled affair.

>:FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background 
>:checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their 
>:decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill 
>:Koresh's own prophecy?
>
>Those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain *something*, but whether
>their answers even remotely resembles the truth we may never know.  And who
>is left alive to care whether the prophecy is fulfilled?  It only holds
>meaning for the nine who survived.

It is likely that there will be at least two investigations (JD and congress) 
at this point.

>:>Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far,
>:>no one else has been able to talk to them.
>:
>:So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same 
>:details, will you believe them?
>
>*IF* they confirm the story, I probably will.  Definitely not until then, 
>however.

Interesting and conflicting details are starting to come out.  I have 
reverted back to wait mode to find out whether the fire was intentional 
or accidental and how it started and why it spread so fast.

>
>Mike Ruff
>-- 


-- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54513
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno

On 21 Apr 93 02:59:52 GMT, Glenn R. Stone (gs26@prism.gatech.EDU) wrote:

> Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of
>        law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty
>        of life in prison.

Title 18, 241 and/or 242 seem to apply.  241 is conspiracy (two or
more persons) against rights of citizens.  242 is deprivation of
rights under color of law.  Both call for up to life in prison if
death occurs.  Reno, Bentsen, and Clinton are probably all principals
to the crime (as they are responsible for authorized actions on the
part of their subordinates). 

> Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to 
>              impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.

You forgot one detail, they should be turned over to the Texas
authorities for trial, as the crime was committed there (Article 4,
section 2). 

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54514
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: We knew it would happen

God forgive me for being an American who pays taxes to a government
that commits atrocities like the Waco Massacre of 1993.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54515
From: diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich)
Subject: BATF Acronym

  Haven't seen this one on here yet, so here it goes:

B. arely
A. dequate,
T. otally
F. ***ed!

  I don't know about adequate, but it fits the acronym.  =)

-- 
Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu

These opinions are only mine on alternate Tuesdays.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54516
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
>mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
>neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
>gas on his/her property.  

	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining
these weapons, and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of
modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.  I'll give
you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, biological in
nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate
the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So,
where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that
a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54517
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 03:52:11 GMT, Peter Cash (cash@convex.com) wrote:

> I just got through listening to the 10 o'clock news on Channel 4 here in
> Dallas. They trotted out a list of justifications produced by the ATF after
> "months of investigation" for their raid. 

CNN just claimed he bought 104 "semi-automatic assault rifles".  And
they say Koresh wasn't god-like...  He managed to buy or build a
collection of fully-automatic semi-automatic rifles...  Quite a feat,
I would say.  ;-)

They're still making charges of "sexual abuse" and such, or course.
Nobody seems to have noticed that the Treasury department has nothing
to do with sex crimes.  Or maybe the feds have recently instituted a
TAX on sex crimes...  Yeah, that's why the BATF was there, looking for
unregistered *guns* ("this is my weapon, this is my gun, this is for
fighting, this is for...").

> I couldn't believe the junk on this list! For example, the BDs were accused
> of stockpiling a bunch of "9mm and .223 ammunition that can be used in M15
> and M16 assault rifles". Imagine that--they had ammunition!

I also heard that they're claiming to be cautious because of Koresh's
"heated ammunition stockpile".  I seem to recall that smokeless powder
tends to decompose at even moderate temperatures.  I would be rather
surprised, after a fire of that nature, if *any* of his "stockpile" is
unexploded, or unburned.

> They also had
> aluminum dust! (Yeah, it's a component of thermite, but so far I haven't
> heard that it's illegal to take a grinder to the aluminum lawn
> furniture...)

I seem to recall that aluminum powder is a common component of
fireworks...  The folks on rec.pyro could probably tell you.

> The only thing on the list that could conceivably have been
> illegal was an M-79 grenade launcher. (Anybody know about this?)

I think *anything* is legal if you have the proper license.  If he had
a "curios and relics" permit, I believe he could legally own
handgrenades to go with his launcher.

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54518
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Subject: Re: The Cold War: Who REALLY Won?

>If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented 
>and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >> 
>(and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism << 
>absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite 
>(which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?
>
>Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply!
>
>----------------
>Graham K. Glover
>----------------

The Cold War has not ended.  The only thing that has happened is that 
the two sides have exchanged roles.

The USA has a higher imprisonment rate (400 per 100,000 population)
than any country in Europe by a factor of 10 or so.  In California,
it is over 600 per 100,000 population.  The prison population in
California is now over 100,000, a quadrupling since 1980.  Most of
these inmates were convicted under the drug prohibition laws.  Police
now confiscate property, without trial, under a "good faith probable
cause" standard, in the name of depriving the horrible ghastly drug
dealers of their ill-gotten gains.  Conduct an opinion poll, and a
majority will answer "yes" if you ask them whether civil liberties and
due process should be diluted in order to Send Our Young People The
Message That We Are Serious About Winning The War On Drugs.  I don't
know whether anyone has measured such a figure among gun owners, but
I would expect the same result.  They certainly seem to vote that way.

According to Jack Herer's book _The Emperor Wears No Clothes_, over
TWELVE MILLION YEARS of prison time have been served under the
marijuana prohibition laws, by people who were minding their own
business and causing no harm to others (and less harm to themselves
than users of tobacco, with 400,000 confirmed kills/year).  Under
the "War on Drugs" campaign of "zero tolerance" due process protections
have eroded, and mandatory sentences of ten years without parole have
proliferated.  By and large, gun owners have voted for the politicians
who favor such measures.  And now, all the precedents--not only
legal, but political:  "My fellow Americans, we must send our young
people the message that we are serious about winning the War On
Murder"--are going to be applied to the oncoming wave of gun
prohibition laws.  Gun owners are about to get a taste of the medicine
they voted for believing it would be used only on those with different
tastes in recreational drugs.

What goes around comes around.


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54519
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr19.203606.27625@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>In article <93108.172544U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>>The point that I forgot to bring up here (and this has nothing to do with    g
>bein
>>a gang member or not) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in   s
>thi
>>area (or in the state of illinois for that matter).
>
>Right - it nas nothing to do with whther or not the person
>is/was a gang member, but that's what Kratz inferred....
>
>Wrong - there are people who can legally carry concealed in IL and
>there are circumstances under which MANY people can carry concealed.
>
>Is accuracy really too much to expect?
>
>-andy
>--
No it's not.  If you would have read my other post I was accurate.  Here's what
I said:

[material from another post]------------------------->  The other point that I
would like to make because I know it's true (looked this one up in the Illinois
                  this is for you Andy-----> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
statutes before) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois.
^^^^^^^^ <------ Also for you Andy.

And then I went on to say:
There is no such thing as a CCW for us ordinary folk here.
[end of quoted material]

Of course I forgot to mention who "us ordinary folk" are so just for Andy I'm
going to go to the library tomorrow and photocopy the part of the Illinois
statutes with this information and post it.  Ordinary citizens CAN NOT get a
license to carry a concealed weapon.  There are very few people who can.  I
even asked my lawyer friend about this and he told me that only certain people
can get licenses for concealed carry.  He couldn't remember which people but he
knew for sure that regular citizens couldn't get that type of license.  He told
me to go check at the library for the statutes which I did.  I'll post that
info tomorrow night.  Until then.......

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54520
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (was: Re: Who's next?...)

mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:

>st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>:Just because someting was good once, does not mean it will be forever.

>Yes, gone are the days when you can leave your house unlocked at night.
>Well, it couldn't last forever.

	For the record, it wasn't until I came to college (excluding
the times I went to Omaha or Council Bluffs for something) that I
ever removed the keys from the ignition of my car!  Come to think of
it, it was only after I moved to Ames, Ia (pop 45K) that I ever took
to locking my doors at night.

	I've discovered that $50K/year isn't worth living in fear
all day.  I might just move back to the farm.

	This weekend is Veishea.  You know, when ISU students riot
for no apparent reason.  This year, we've the Farm Aid concert
to add to the festivities.  Anybody bet me there's another riot?
Remember, Iowa law has three guys talking loud defined as a riot.
Stay tuned for an on-the-scene report this weekend.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54521
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qvff6INN9p4@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
Arras) says:
>
>In article <93109.172450U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz
>[...]
>
>> It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up
>> the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on
>the
>> gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part.
>>
>> Jason
>
>
>I guess that just means "Everyone else" was mistaken?
>
>Jim
>
>jmd@handheld.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
Actually not Jim.  I just said that everyone else seemed to have skimmed by
that part and not mentioned it.  You can get whatever meaning you want from it.

Jason




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54522
From: mwj@se17.wg2.waii.com (Mike Johnson)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 2

Did anyone else notice how the question of what federal
laws were violated was brushed aside? I'd like to know
what laws were violated, and on what evidence the orignial
BATF warrants were based.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54523
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:

>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

	SeAL Team six should have handled it?  Delta Force?  The
BATF had more than enough equipment and men.  They did not have
good intel, but they did have poor planning.  They fucked up.  Even
in just the most basic military sense, they fucked up.  Excuses do
not justify body counts.

>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

	And your excuses fall upon deaf ears when the same BATF
has shown shitty leadership despite more people, better weapons,
and exclusive use of armor against their targets.  BATF is nothing
more than a private army of the government.  Do the agents swear an
oath, as I did, to uphold the Constitution?  You know, that document
that stipulates the highest law of the land?  If they do, they should
be up for charges in a court of law.  Remember, the law?  That's
the whole reason for any of this.

>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.

	Yeah, I've been related to many of them.  This is flame-bait,
right?  I'm not paying your price.  Mind if I sight in my guns on
your body?  Think of it as the price you have to pay that we may all
live without fear of my making a stray shot.  It's fine and dandy to
revel in the other guy being the target and your supposed safety.  In
the military, we called this "chicken shit."  Leadership from the rear.
The War on Drugs, despite being a catchy term for nothing more than
a continuation of policy since before this century, seems to have
gotten you convinced that my rights aren't worth your good vibes.
Mind if I cut your net access, as well as access to any and all forms
of expression?  See, you make me nervous, what with you being able
to influence so many.  I'm sure you can see how this is the price we
have to pay for freedom and liberty in this country, as well as
a fair and unbiased judiciary.

>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.

	Mind if we include you in the body count?  I'm sure we could
all file it under "civic improvement" and your life wouldn't have
been sacrificed in vain.  If you like, you can will your estate to
defecit reduction, too.  Now, when you learn how the law protects, or
doesn't protect, everybody equally and how our collective boot may
one day be on your collective throat, perhaps at that time you will
mature enough to realize just what you're talking about and how
serious this is.

	Next time, include a smiley.  While I hesitate to think that
you could have meant this seriously, it deserved a small flame anyway.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54524
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption


Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.

David
-- 
David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of
                         our information, errors and omissions excepted.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54525
From: dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1r1eu1$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>> In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> >In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>
>> >> The massive destructive power of many modern weapons, makes the
>> >> cost of an accidental or crimial usage of these weapons to great.
>> >> The weapons of mass destruction need to be in the control of
>> >> the government only.  Individual access would result in the
>> >> needless deaths of millions.  This makes the right of the people
>> >> to keep and bear many modern weapons non-existant.

>> >Thanks for stating where you're coming from.  Needless to say, I
>> >disagree on every count.

>> You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
>> mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
>> neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
>> gas on his/her property.  

>> If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of
>> the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?

>I don't sign any blank checks.

Of course.  The term must be rigidly defined in any bill.

>When Doug Foxvog says "weapons of mass destruction," he means CBW and
>nukes.  When Sarah Brady says "weapons of mass destruction" she means
>Street Sweeper shotguns and semi-automatic SKS rifles.  

I doubt she uses this term for that.  You are using a quote allegedly
from her, can you back it up?

>When John
>Lawrence Rutledge says "weapons of mass destruction," and then immediately
>follows it with:

>>> The US has thousands of people killed each year by handguns,
>>> this number can easily be reduced by putting reasonable restrictions
>>> on them.

>...what does Rutledge mean by the term?

I read the article as presenting first an argument about weapons of mass
destruction (as commonly understood) and then switching to other topics.
The first point evidently was to show that not all weapons should be
allowed, and then the later analysis was, given this understanding, to
consider another class.

>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...



-- 
doug foxvog
douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54526
From: dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>>You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
>>mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
>>neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
>>gas on his/her property.  

>	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining
>these weapons, 

This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.

>and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of
>modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.  

I would hope so.  Let's define a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon
whose majority of energy comes from fission and/or fusion of atomic
nuclei.  Let's define a biological weapon as live organisms or viruses 
in such state, quantity, and with such a vector that they could cause 
death or serious disease [further defined] to a significant number of
people if released in a city, similarly populated area, resevoir, or
cropland.  


Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
research purposes on such chemicals.

I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
definitions.

>I'll give
>you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
>road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, 

Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.

>biological in
>nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate
>the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So,
>where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that
>a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?

It is not defined as a weapon of mass destruction.  Many things are
banned for other reasons.

>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >


-- 
doug foxvog
douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54527
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Will CS burn or explode

rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:

>The FBI released large amounts of CS tear gas into the compound in
>Waco.  CS tear gas is a fine power.  Is CS inflammable.  Grain dust
>suspended in air can form an explosive mixture, will CS suspended in air
>form an explosive mix? Could large quantities of CS have fueled the
>rapid spread of fire in the compound?

	No chance.  If that CS ignited at all, it would have been
quite similar to a grain bin explosion.  Explosion, I note.  The
entire compound would have been leveled, not merely burned.  As
there was no explosion, there was no CS ignition causing the fire.

	Note: at five miles a decent grain elevator explosion will
knock you on your butt and your ears will ring for days.  I speak
from experience here.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54528
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

johnston@cyberia.win.net (Robert Johnston) writes:
>>
>>How 'bout we embed the `card` in the forhead of everyones skull ? 
>>Can't lose it without being already dead (ergo, no need for treatment).
>>
>Close, at birth we implant a smart chip just behind the ear under the skin but
>above the skull.  We incase it in a hypo-allergenic high carbon content
>glass.  This chip would be reprogrammed as we age with the pertinent
>medical, correctional, taxational data.  Behave yourself or we'll 
>input it into your permenant record.

     You forgot the part about encasing it in a small shaped charge so that
if anyone tries to tamper with it, it explodes and kills you.

     Oh, and the shaped charge can be set off by remote control...but only
if you get out of line. Properly patriotic citizens have nothing to fear.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
     This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
     "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
      or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
      assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
      -- The Constitution of the United States of America

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54529
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


How we survived ww2:
We mailed postings about things we didn't know any thing about
to ONLY the wrong places.

I'm NOT trying to censor this or any newsgroup, I'm just trying to
give some hints about OTHER newsgroups.
Doesn't this belong to alt.conspiracy ??

NOTE!!!
My posting was in reply to those about FBI torching the plasce after
filling it with napalm, and arrested people dissapering.

>We all know what a quisling is, right?
Obviously we don't.....
Vidkun Quisling is known to be a traitor in Norway, not a 'censor'.
If I have betrayed my country (Norway) bescause I implied that som of 
you jumped to conclusions/sound a little paranoid then I think there
is a LOT of quislings in Norway.......


About Waco
It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this.
The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house
in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)

It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54530
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: American Horror File -- call for help


Today's atrocity in Waco has finally impelled me to start working on
something I've been thinking about for some time.  Over the last few
years I have heard of one case after another of government running
completely amok.  Unfortunately, most people are oblivious of the
government's crimes and still think of it as their protector.  So I
intend to put together what I call the "American Horror File": a
compilation of cases where the American government has run roughshod
over the rights of its citizens over the last few years, focusing
especially on deaths and injuries resulting from no-knock warrants,
and financial ruin to innocents resulting from civil forfeiture laws,
but including any other cases for which I can find decent
documentation.  I hope to make people blood-boiling, artery-bursting,
red-hot enraged at their government.

The end result will probably be a book in electronic form (ASCII text
and postscript files) detailing the government's crimes of recent
years.  This book will be distributed at cost, and I will encourage
people to post copies to BBS's, send copies on disk to friends, and
print out copies and give them to neighbors.

This is a call for your help.  Any information that you can send me on
how government is running amok will be greatly appreciated.  I would prefer
information that is well-documented, with sources given, about specific
instances of governmental abuses.  I also welcome anyone who wants to
join me in collecting and researching information for this project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn       | Is your religion BATF-approved?
vanhorn@bert.cs.byu.edu |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54531
Subject: news says BATF indictment/warrant unsealed...
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

Something about how Koresh had threatened to cause local 
problems with all these wepaons he had and was alleged to
have.  

Someone else will post more details soon, I'm sure.

Other News:
Sniper injures 9 outside MCA buildling in L.A.  Man arrested--suspect
was disgruntled employee of Universal Studios, which
is a division of M.C.A.


QUESTION:
What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald
denny trial?

-Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54532
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: BATF's Prime Directive

Bully, Them; Bludgeon Them, Bury Them.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54533
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Janet Reno and "Responsibility"

I see no difference between Janet Reno's claim of responsibility for
the Waco Massacre and the IRA's claims of responsibility for various
acts of terrorism against British citizens.


-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54534
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card



I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
in 1991 that was caused by guns.....
This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!
(Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the
figures but they're still *pretty* high right??)
I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......


*I* should not suffer because of others....
We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

Do you have an insurance??
Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...

Do you buy anything??
YOU are paying for those who return goods, steal or even those who gets a bonus...

Do you live with other people??
Then you 'can't' do ererything you'd want (burping/farting playing music LOUD)

-What the hell is he trying to say ??
When you live in a society (USA are stilll counted as one...) you
have to saccrifice.
The question is HOW MUCH.


One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
other people.

It seems like you all realize that you have a problem in America, the only
problem is
that you won't take the car away from the drunk driver, you hope to cure him
first.

Hope life comfirms to the standard of Winnie the Poh.



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54535
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr19.162137.1306@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) says:
>
>In article <C5KsE0.5px.1@cs.cmu.edu>, tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr16.022926.27270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>                       U
>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.ED
>(Frank Crary) writes:
>>>In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>>>>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know,
>do
>>>>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it
>>>>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?
>>>
>>>This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
>>>coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
>>>national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
>>>must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
>>>you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills.
>>>In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them,
>>>you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
>>>so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
>>>24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
>>>your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
>>>wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
>>>the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.
>>>
>> Which works fine until you end up in the hospital because you were hit on
>the
>> head and your wallet, with your insurance card, is stolen.  This happened to
>> me, and it took six months to sort the mess out.  These sorts of plans sound
>> nice at first, but in the end they just create a lot of paperwork and
>> bureaucracy to deal with all the checking and filing they involve.
>>
>>                               Tom the non hacker
>
>Whoa!  Have a care what you say, Tom.  The _obvious_ answer to that problem
>is to tatoo your National I.D. Number on you -- say, your forearm -- so you
>can never leave home without it.  Hell, it worked once before...
>
>And that brings us back to my original, sarcasm-laden post:  where's the
>outcry from the liberal sector over the National ID Card?  My God, if some
>conservative had proposed this -- plus Clinton's "National Police" proposal
>-- the liberals would be shrieking "Sieg Heil!" and "Police State"!
>
>You self-styled liberals ought to be ashamed of yourselves.  Hypocrites!

I don't know what you watch, but I saw a spokesman for the ACLU voice
opposition to this idea on NBC the very first night.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54537
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
shoot-to-kill directives.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54538
From: stevek@cellar.org (Steve Kraisler)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:

> Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> 
> : failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it i
> : plain view.
> 
>   Brent, I'm still waiting to see if there are any evidence of how the fire
> got started, so I'm not going to tell you who did it...  As far as you keep
> talking about the Davidians pouring kerosene all over, stop and *think*
> for a second if it is possible the stove or lamp was knocked over and
> started a fire, and the Davidians were pouring water on it (wrong solution
> but I doubt I can do much better in their states of mind...) to try to
> put it out?   
> 
>   By the way, just how far where you standing from the Davidians when you
> saw them setting the place on fire?   Oh, in case you are new in town,
> microwave ovens doesn't work very well when there's no electricty. :-0
> 
>   Get some *facts* before you post next time!
> 
> --F. Chiu

First the FBI said they saw two members of the cult start the fire-and the 
FBI never lies.  Second, the first started in opposite ends of the compound 
at the same time and thirdly, the fire spread too quickly for it not to be 
help without an accelerate.


------
stevek@cellar.org (Steve Kraisler)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54539
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
>   The problem with the FBI as a monolithic entity doing it is that it requires
> *everybody* involved to keep their mouths shut.  While they tended to behave 
> like total idiots, that does not make them homocidal maniacs, either.  And if
> it was one nutcase agent, then it serves no purpose to blame the whole agency.

A great deal of documentation exists on exactly that phenomenon. Especially
regarding Vietnam and the Mai Lai (sp?) massacre

Not that I'm suggesting that they started it on purpose but even if they
now know that they accidentally started (or contributed to it) you can
be sure the initial reaction is to lie. Remember the Iranian airliner
which the US navy mistook for a fighter and shot down?
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54540
From: mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell)
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Revisited

In article <1993Apr21.151601.14962@gozer.mv.com>, klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
> The U.S. Government's campaign of persecution and genocide against the
> Branch Davidians was a resounding success.
> 
> Heil Clinton!  Heil Reno!  The Gestapo is alive and well and living in
> Washington, D.C.

Are you for real?

People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's
jesus deserve all they get

Anyway, he killed a few feds

He's not the goddam hero here

He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!

> 
> -- 
> Kevin, who agrees that David Koresh was probably a first-rate nutcase
>        but who firmly believes that the Bill of Rights guaranteed his
>        his right to be a religious fanatic and that the government is
>        guilty of violating his civil rights and of 1st degree murder.
> 
>        OK, which small, under-represented-in-congress religious group
>        are we going to persecute next and are we going to torch their
>        church with a rolled up copy of the Constitution?
> 
>        I think I'm going to be sick now. . .
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% John Bell %%%  Dundee FC:                                                %%% 
%% D.I.T.    %%%  League Champions:61/62        runners up: 06/07 48/49     %%%
%% Dundee    %%%  League Cup wins :51/52 52/53  runners up: 67/68 80/81     %%%
%% Scotland  %%%  Scottish Cup win:1910         runners up: 1925,1953,1964  %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54541
From: <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cost/Benefit Analysis (was FBI Director's Statement...)

Has anyone noticed or commented on the fact that so many of those who
were willing, nay demanding, that we wait forever for Mr Hussein and
Iraq, that we use tremendously costly "sanctions", to avoid a loss
of life, are now at the fore front of those clammoring that we should
have smashed those "religious radicals" and we were wasting money allowing
this stand off to go on  ?  How the worm turns when the sect changes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54542
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: CNN report: FBI/ATF killing ALL Americans


CNN just reported the ATF and the FBI have begun killing everyone in the
United States. A press release stated this action was required because
bugs had revealed that many people were doing something illegal in their
homes, and statistical data indicated that those who weren't might someday
do something illegal. An ATF spokesperson, just before he shot himself, stated
that "this would clean up things once and for all".

If the citizens can be gathered into groups of more than 100, the FBI has
indicated they will "burn them, just like we did those kooks in Waco". 
It hasn't been decided how the new proposed "energy tax" will enter into
this, an IRS representative stated "We're looking at the tax code to determine
if taxes really end at death. With this many dead Americans, we don't want
to overlook anything". An ATF agent ran into the room, and shot her.

Stay tuned....rich

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54543
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

In article <C5uCHu.FFn@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
>gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
>They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
>some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
>media-event brought to you by HCI.
>
>Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>tacky, but hey, whatever works.
>-- 
>Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Here are a few ideas:

1) a free library card so they can look up the FBI
   Uniform Crime Report which shows how good HCI is
   at lying through their teeth,

2) a free RTD Transit Pass which will allow anti-gunners
   to tour South Central Los Angeles and convince
   people living there that they don't need guns to protect
   themselves because the police will do it for them 
   (don't lose the pass, you'll need it to get out),

3) a free bus ride to Vermont, which has almost no gun
   control and, curiously enough, almost no crime either,

4) a free calculator, since anti-gunners have heretofore
   been unable to figure out what a small percentage of
   the guns owned in America are used to commit violent crime.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher    NRA                  |  My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu      |  No one else's.
--------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54544
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r2dqq$5of@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>:cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>:>mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>:>>
>:Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>:Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
>
>Hey, Einstein, ever tried to use an electric stove or microwave WITHOUT
>ELECTRICITY?  It's been shut off for weeks now, courtesy of your local FBI
>assault squad.

Calm down.  It is not as if I tweaked the fount of the flame wars
or anything (guns, anything to do with them).

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54545
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re:  Blast them next time

oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) babbles:

What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

	If they'd gone to the door and knocked on it to serve the
	warrant, like the Sheriff had done 3 other times, they
	wouldn't have needed to HAVE an initial assault.  But then,
	Herr Klinton and Attorney Gen'l Reno wouldn't have been
	able to have told such heroic stories about how they
	"protected" the rest of us from a group of people who
	kept to themselves, miles out in the prairie.

The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

	The BATF needs to be disbanded.  This out of control group
	of Rambo wannabees is a danger to the Republic.

With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country.

	Well, I figure you're going to get flamed pretty badly by
	everybody else for this incredibly stupid statement, so I'll
	just let it pass for now.

	Case Western reserve, huh?  Do the Feds know about that big 
	stockpile of automatic weapons and crack you have in  your
	house?  Are you the same Daniel Oldham that lives on Orchard
	Drive?  Just so they get the address right, that is...

Look
at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
of ours.

	Well, it used to be a great country.  Now I'm not so sure.  
	I knew a few of those good people who died in wars;  I was
	in Viet Nam.  I can assure you, none of us fought to protect
	the right of the government to attack its own citizens with
	military force without provocation.  (Hint: serving a search warrant
	is NOT sufficient provocation to stage a military style assault
	on a religious group.  At Least not here in the US.  Maybe in
	Iraq, or Syria...)

With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
to death 51 days later.

	This is a joke, right?  Or are they really letting fools like
	you into CWRU now?  Too bad. Used to be a good school.  How'd you
	get in anyway, did your old man buy a new wing for the library?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54546
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: "43 to 1" all over again.

In article <1993Apr21.175441.22582@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>[Followups to talk.politics.guns only.]
>
>In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares
>writes:
>>In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John
>>Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>>
>So, a person who keeps a gun at home is 43 times more likely to die,
>at home, from a gunshot than he or she is likely to kill an intruder.
>
>Sounds like apples 'n' oranges to me.
>
>In any case, has anybody tried to make the obvious counter-study?
>
>What are the numbers for someone who does not keep a gun at home?
>That is, what is the ratio of dying-at-home-from-a-gunshot to
>killing-an-intruder, for people who do NOT keep guns in their homes?
>
>So, what are is the ratio of unarmed people shot to death in their
>homes v.s. unarmed people who kill intruders?  Is it worse than 6 to 1?
>
>Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't know this specific ratio, but I do have an earlier post that says
a gun is 33 times more likely to defend someone (including the times where
the gun isn't fired, just scares the perpetrator away) than it is to kill
someone. (including self defense)  The post is kind of long, but I'll be
glad to dig it up and email it to anyone who asks.

Doug Holland

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Doug Holland                | Anyone who tries to take away my freedom  |
|  holland@cs.colostate.edu    | of speech will have to pry it from my     |
|  PGP key available by E-mail | cold, dead lips!!                         |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54549
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

In article <C5uCHu.FFn@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
>gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
>They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
>some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
>media-event brought to you by HCI.
>
>Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>tacky, but hey, whatever works.

      Ack, what a public relations nightmare just begging happen.

      "Gun Lobby pays vigilanties."

      "NRA to shell out dough to gunfighters."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54550
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:

>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

   >Some< of?

>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

  Yes, I think so and it has been reported as such.  Seems like a cowboy
movie-style attack was needed for some reason....

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

  The answer is probably YES. But consider; what was the WORST thing that
could have happened if they waited?  Hint: whatever it was it could not have
been any worse that what DID happen.  

>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

  But that statement of taking full responsibility is totally meaningless.
What are the consequences for being fully responsible for this disaster?
A note in your personnell file??  Slick already called these people a bunch
of crazy people and dismissed the idea she should resign.  Doesn't take 
ANY balls at all to take the responsibility.  Hell, at that rate >I< will
take full responsibility for it.  No skin off my nose....
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54551
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

The Dividians didn't have that option after the FBI cut off their
electricity.

-- 
 Flag burners don't bother me as much as seeing the American flag on
tanks assaulting the church of Americans who had never bothered anyone.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54552
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Revisited

In <1993Apr21.175443.5338@dct.ac.uk> mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell) dribbles
in his nappies and manages to splutter:

	You know, John, if you had kept the follow-up to line here on talk
politics guns, we might have taken you a bit more seriously.  It would have
at least implied that you had some backbone, perhaps a modicum of willingness
to present your views and support them.  I guess we all know better now.

>People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's
>jesus deserve all they get

	Really?  That's interesting, as I was always of the opinion that
people dumb enough to keep a monarchy around and support them with tax
funds when said monarchy is merely a figurehead deserve all that
they get.  Dunkirk, for example.  What?  That has nothing to do with it?
Then enjoy your helping of foot.

>Anyway, he killed a few feds

	And they killed a few people of their own, including one child
at last report.  So what?  Being a federal agent is not license to kill.
Then there's CNN indicating that the ATF/FBI actually *DID* start the
fires which would mean feds killed just under 100 people.  If you're
so hot to assign blame, make sure you don't overlook the obvious.

>He's not the goddam hero here

	Montgomery isn't much of a hero here, either.  Amazing how
different things look on the other side of the pond, isn't it?  Not
that what you think makes much of a difference in the USA, though, and
for good reason.  When you can vote I'll take your rhetoric a bit more
seriously.  Right now, you're merely a waste of trans-atlantic bandwidth.

>He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!

	Proof positive that ignorance really is bliss.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54553
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93110.165704U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.203606.27625@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>Wrong - there are people who can legally carry concealed in IL and
>>there are circumstances under which MANY people can carry concealed.
>>
>>Is accuracy really too much to expect?
>
>As I said before no it isn't.  In another post I referred to the Illinois
>statutes and how I looked up the law for concealed carry.   I will type in the
>complete law and post later  but I would like to prove that I was correct using
>accurate information so I will put sections down here now.

Good - now let's look at those sections.  They'll prove my point.

>     (a)  A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he
>knowingly:
>
>(4)  Carries or possesses in any vehicle or CONCEALED on or about his person
>     except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business
>     any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm;

Note that this doesn't affect all concealed carry.  (Look after the
word "except".)  It always helps to read the law before commenting on
it.

Would a prudent storekeeper carry concealed?  How about someone at
home?  Note that both are legal, and a lot of "common" people qualify
for one or the other.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54554
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....
>This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!
>(Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the
>figures but they're still *pretty* high right??)
>I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......

And you'd be wrong about that too.

Note that Texas isn't unique in this "more with-gun deaths than
with-car deaths", but some of the other states where it happens have
extremely strict gun laws.  Oops - so much for the "meaning".

It isn't clear that the comparision means anything anyway as car
accidents are unintentional while gun deaths aren't, but if we're
going to make it, let's at least be honest.

>*I* should not suffer because of others....
>We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
>we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

Give it up for what?  Gun control doesn't have any benefits, so
it fails by this standard.

>Do you have an insurance??
>Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...

Note that insurance gives me something in return - gun control doesn't.

>-What the hell is he trying to say ??
>When you live in a society (USA are stilll counted as one...) you
>have to saccrifice.
>The question is HOW MUCH.

That's half the question - the rest is "and what do you get for your
sacrifice".  If the answer to the second question is "nothing", as it
is for gun control, then we don't have to ask the first question
because getting nothing means that no sacrifice is justified.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54555
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!


In a previous article, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) says:

>If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are
>true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for
>the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the
>US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no
>exceptions. 
>
>Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive
>in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?

I leave the anti-semitism to anti-gun types like Holly Silva.  I have in
fact been calling for the disbanding of the BATF for quite some time.
It is an outlaw agency run by incompetants who only have contempt for
the laws which they supposedly enforce.

>Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather
>than stupidity?
>
I attribute the acts of the FBI to stupidity.  I attribute the acts of
the BATF to malice.  So did Senator Dennis DeConcini when he held
hearings about their misconduct.


-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54557
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter's address?

In article <1993Apr22.143329.4296@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>> Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him
>> for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation
>> into the Waco mess.
>> 
>> Ken
> 
> 	You are talking about the man who as a federal attorney did so
> much to frustrate the proper investigation of the JFK assassination by
> the House sub-committee on assassinations.  Fox and hen house???
> 
Please note that my above comment was not intended as a flame of Ken's
call for Congressional leadership to conduct a proper investigation.
It was merely to call attention to the hazard of having Specter involved.
If anyone took it that way, I apologize.

 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54558
From: mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <4615@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>Michael Frederick Rhein (mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU) wrote:
># In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>#                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
># in Texas.
>
>Not that I agree with the original theory or anything, buuuuut:
>Since their utilities were turned off they might be using wood stoves
>to cook their meals.
>
>Rob.
>--
>Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
To Rob and all others that have been debating about the wood stove.
   The original post claimed that the ATF/FBI was pumping napalm into the 
building with the hopes that the wood stove inside would ignite it.  I responed
with why would the wood stove be lit in the first place?  It wouldn't be lit 
for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims 
that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.  CS gas was being pumped
into the building and I presume that everyone was wearing gas masks (either
bought or some type of makeshift type) and this had been going on for 6 hours.
I don't know if you have ever been around CS, but I have.  Being exposed to CS
gas was part of my Army training, so I know that without a mask it VERY 
uncomfortable and makes your eyes water, nose run, and makes you sick in 
the stomach.  And with the mask it is very difficult to drink water much less 
eat.  So my question now is "why were they cooking food?"
   I will buy that a lantern could have been knocked over and caused the fire.
But that stove was not being used for cooking (unless they were even more
crazy than the ATF/FBI claim).

Michael



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54559
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers

In <53930421052235/0005111312NA3EM@mcimail.com> 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt) writes:

>I want to get involved in the fight to save our gun rights.  But first, I need
>to get a little more educated.  I've been reading all the magzines and books I
>can get my hands on, and sifting through hundreds of messages here in the 
>Internet.
[...]
>Can anyone tell me how/where to obtain this info?  Surely there has to be a
>way to obtain copies of anti-gun legislation from those *&%$#@'s in Washington.

The House Document Room can be reached at +1 202 225 3456.  You need to 
have the number of the document you want (e.g. HR1036) and they'll be happy
to send it to you.  Tell them if it's going to be a big stack, because the
surly sounding guy who answers is scrawling in a really awful hand on the
back of the envelope that will come and will run out of room quickly if
you don't tell him.

The Senate document room is too important to deal with the likes of you
and I, and will answer requests from off the hill only by mail.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54560
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: request advice on waist-bags/fanny paks

In <9304200955.aa09758@angel.qdeck.com> burge@qdeck.com (Bill Burge) writes:

>(I've heard that the color strip on the Bianchi was put there to identify
>the Bianchi fanny pack to law enforcement.  They suposedly recieved a flyer
>indicating the color combinations for easy sighting.  This has led to 
>lackluster sales for the Bianchi.)

Well, that was an easy decision.  No more Bianchi anything for me.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54561
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, representing the Students for 
Increased Beverage Access (SIBA), writes:


>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?


Well, I only saw it start in one place.  A tank punched a hole in a wall,
and as it withdrew flames came out and spread quickly in the direction that
a 30+ mph wind was blowing.  I saw a diagram in USA Today yesterday, and
fires started at 2 of the 3 holes that the tanks made.  A terrible, negligent
accident.


>And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
>to get out of the compound?


Maybe they couldn't.  I've often marvelled at how people could get burned alive
in the upstairs of a 2 story house on fire, but it happens all the time.
What if they were in sealed rooms, trying to avoid the gas, and didn't know
about the fire until it surrounded them?  Remember the Israelis hiding in
sealed rooms during Desert Storm to avoid gas-bearing Scuds?

Cripes, Mark, are you REALLY a college student?  Maybe you ought to stop
worrying about increased beverage access and start clearing your head.
Ever heard of questioning authority? 

>And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.


OK, I'll buy that.  You _do_ seem totally clueless...


>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
>a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
contrary. 

Wellllll....  They weren't murderous.  They'd never harmed or even threatened 
anybody until they were attacked by a paramilitary force using military weapons
and hardware.  And as far as "evidence", what are you talking about?  
Everything the Feds have said they've retracted practically as soon as they get
questioned in detail about it.  Maybe you and your Increased Beverage
Access buddies, sitting around the bar slurring stuff like "they shoulda
killed 'em all 51 days ago" don't feel that way, but then you're probably
one of those people still saying about Klinton "Give the guy a chance, we don't
even know what he's gonna do! (Burp)


>Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
>the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
>prefer to believe the cultists?

>(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

No problem, you don't have any questions that scare any of us.  Most of our
minds are apparently more developed than yours.  

The answer is:  *YES!*  In a f*cking heartbeat!  

Thought Experiment:  Would you be mindlessly down on your knees with your mouth 
open, blissfully sucking up anything the Feds said if Bush were the president?
What, no comeback?  (OK, go ahead, say it.  "Read my lips, no new taxes" %^P   )


>>But then
>>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
>>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.

>Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?

Not in such a great degree.  Bush broke one promise, maybe two (taxes/guns)
and we held him accountable for it.  Of course, it took him the better part of
4 years to do it;  Slick's only been in office 101 days and he's broken lots
of them.  Anddd...  I imagine he'll also be held accountable for that.

(I can just see the campaign buttons now:   "ABC - Anybody But Clinton")

>So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
>people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
>one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
>to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

Hmmm.... Apparently you just got here.  Nobody's claiming that it was anything
but a stupid mistake by a bunch of incompetent public employees who normally
don't get this kind of scrutiny when the mess up.  And as far as how they picked
the Davidians, who knows?  Maybe they figured that nobody'd care about such
a politically incorrect group as a bunch of fundies out on the Texas prairie.
Maybe they figured they'd just go in there and run roughshod over the BDs
during their religious services (which was the reason the Feds gave for the
timing of the raid) rather than running into resistance.  Maybe they KNEW
that the BDs weren't ANYWHERE NEAR as violent as the Feds' spin doctors are
trying to tell the public.  Maybe they were AFRAID to try this kind of thing
on the Crips and Bloods.  Maybe it was because the ATF's budget is up for
approval and they seem to favor doing something dramatic whenever that is
the case.  Of course, their reasoning doesn't matter, only what they did,
and this time, people are just paying more attention to it.


>And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? 

Not if you mean that stupid "don't stop thinking about tomorrow"...

>How is he on diabolical laughter? 

All I've ever heard is Hillary's diabolical giggle.  Waffle Man seems to have
lost his sense of humor...

>Does he look good in a cape? 

Don't know, never seen him in one.  He probably looks fat and puffy faced,
just like in a suit.  I saw him in the Rose Garden the other day, and I
couldn't get over how much he is starting to look like Teddy Kennedy.


>These things MUST be investigated. You first.


Don't worry, these things WILL be investigated.  Now go back to your beer,
you dimwit....



  ************************************************************************
*  I've heard a lot of people compare Bill Clinton to Jimmy Carter, and   *
*  I'd like to go on record as saying that I don't think that it's fair.  *
*  Jimmy Carter was a veteran, and he had personal character.  And even   *
*  though I can't agree with Carter's policies, I always believed that    *
*  he was telling the truth, as best he understood it.  I can't say       *
*  that for the Fat Cat...                                                *
  ************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54562
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)



>In article <1993Apr15.152834.16638@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.
com


>>Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
>>revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver.
>>Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
>>autoloaders give you, that is.

On a DA revolver, you get another try on a misfire.  On a pistol where
the trigger does not cock the hammer, like a Jennings, or an Astra M400,
or a Glock, a misfire requires the slide be cycled to get the gun  to
function.

Rather than a high capacity revolver, think of a Glock as an Astra M400 
with no manual safety and a heavier trigger pull.

Jim Del Vecchio

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54563
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Latest on Texas HB 1776 (CCW)


I called the Texas bill tracking people (800/253-9693) again today 
regarding HB 1776 -- Concealed Carry.  Well, it was supposed to come
up for a vote this past Wednesday, but the bill got sent back to
the Public Safety Committee.  The PSC gave it a favorable rating
AGAIN, and the bill must now be scheduled for debate by
the Calendars Committee AGAIN.
             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54564
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.162447.26289@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
> In article <1qicep$obf@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:

re: is "John Q. Public with a gun" protected?

> >> It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
> >> of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
> >> was not a proper militia weapon. 

> >No, they noted that no one had CLAIMED that it was a proper militia
> >weapon (despite having been used in at least two wars).  This was true,
> >since neither Miller nor his lawyer appeared before the Court.

> Did they or did they not sustain Miller's conviction? I don't have the
> text of the case handy. 

Miller was convicted of owning a sawed-off shotgun and not paying the
NFA '34 tax.  Snatches of the court's decision:

The Second Amendment was intended to "assure the continuation and render 
possible the effectiveness of such a force [the militia]... It must be 
interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The militia includes "all males physically capable of acting in concert 
for the common defense."

However, regarding sawed-off shotguns, "certainly it is not within 
judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military 
equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

"Judicial notice" is the term of art here -- it meant that no such
evidence had been formally presented.  This is different from claiming
that they had ruled that it wasn't.

> Yes, shotguns had been used in WWI, the Spanish-American War, and the
> US Civil War. That was not in question. The possession of a sawed-off
> shotgun was, i.e., a weapon altered to improve concealibility.

I'm not talking about plain shotguns in war -- I'm talking about short-
barrelled ("sawed-off") shotguns in war.

Compare Revolutionary War blunderbusses; luparas in the Spanish-American 
War; and trench-cleaners in WW I.  They were also put to good use by
US soldiers in WW II, not to mention being invaluable to "tunnel rats" 
in Vietnam, but, of course, "Miller" took place in 1939.

> >> Therefore, US vs. Miller supports limited government regulation of 
> >> firearms.
> >
> >Don't go arguing down this road unless you are willing to abide by 
> >the consequences that you find at the end of it -- mainly, that the
> >law-abiding common man has a right to own any weapon that has a militia 
> >purpose, from handguns to sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons.
> >That, in fact, is what this decision says.
> 
> You are free to produce evidence that I'm not willing to abide with
> all the implications of this. 

Here is my quandary:  you seem to be arguing that certain types of 
guns fall outside the scope of the Second.  This isn't a useful argument 
unless you believe that some significant gun or class of gun belongs
in that class.  

I think we both agree that zip guns probably aren't protected.  Maybe 
we also both agree that all the weapons that random state governments 
have been banning or trying to ban because they have "no sporting purpose" 
and "no provate citizen would ever need these guns" DO fall under the 
protection of the Second.  

So, given that damn near any gun of any practical utility is or has at 
some time been used by the military, even if only for marksmanship 
training purposes, I need to understand why you are intent on pressing 
this point, arguing that that SOMETHING is not protected by the Second.

> Just because I don't whole-heartedly endorse the NRA position does not
> mean that I oppose the RKBA. This attitude is what makes the NRA
> unpopular.

Often, what makes someone unpopular is what other people say about him.
How much did any of us fear or abhor the Branch Davidians six months ago?
How many of us feared or abhorred Saddam Hussein five years ago?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54565
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

In article <C5L2BC.C2x.1@cs.cmu.edu> rubinoff+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
>In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
>>Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
>>he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  

That's a revisionist account of what happened.  Gritz was well-aware
of Duke's presence on the ticket.  Given that Gritz is not at all shy
about associating and promoting other white supremacists (such as the
Christian Identity movement or Willis Carto), whatever reasons Gritz
had to leave the ticket had nothing to do with Duke's presence.

>>So Gritz gave up his
>>chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
>>Duke.
>
>I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US";
>the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still,
>it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.

I believe Chip Berlet has a Populist Party newsletter from the time with
a photo of Gritz happily shaking hands with Duke.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54566
From: rboudrie@wpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A. Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
>jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
>
>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.
>
>> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last 
>> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
>> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
>> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:
>
>> 	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security 
>                         ^^^^^^^ Militia
>
>> 	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear 
>                  ^^^^^ State
>
>> 	arms, shall not be infringed.
>        ^^^^ Arms
>
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution. 
>
>> This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
>> to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined 
>> structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.
>
>Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!
>
>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of
>    being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
>    every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to
>    which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
>    are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
>    ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
>    of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military
>    establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
>    carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
>    are afraid to trust the people with arms."
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right
>    of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed.  A
>    well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
>    country..."
>
>    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of
>    the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
>    respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
>    will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
>    a year."
>
>    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing
>    armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the
>    government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
>    formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large
>    body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****
>    own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
>    ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>But *surely* Hamilton and Madison didn't mean the PEOPLE when they
>said "people", right?  That's why the Amendment refers to "the Right
>of the Militia"?...  ;-)
>
>> Your average 
>> 17-45 year old male does not fall into the definition.
>
>You're right, the Militia consists of ALL able bodied males (and
>probably females under current interpretation). 
>
>> Therefore most
>> members of The Militia, the one the every gun advocate refers to, are
>> not members of a well organized militia and therefore are not directly
>
>The Amendment does nor refer to "well organized", it says "well
>regulated".  I have some targets you may examine if you wish to check
>how _well regulated_ I am. 
>
>> mentioned in the amendment.
>
>> If this amendment wanted to allow every member of The Militia to keep
>> and bear arms, why did it specificly mention a "well organized militia" 
>> in the SAME SENTENCE as the right to keep and bear arms?
>
>Correct.  That's why the Right is reserved to the People.  And that
>was to insure the People could form a "well regulated Militia", not a
>"well organized militia".
>
>> It could be
>> argued that the first part of the sentence is separate from the last 
>> part.  If so, why was it include in the same atomic unit of written
>
>What do Atomic Units have to do with this argument?  Any moron can set
>h_bar = C = 1...
>
>> instead of a separate sentence?
>
>Oh, I see what your question is; Why don't you read the federalist
>Papers?! 
>
>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
>    Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
>    to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
>    recital of particulars."
>
>But what does Madison know about the grammatical style of the 2nd?  He
>only wrote it.
>
>> The amendment also implies that the right to arms has to due with 
>> the security of a free state.  The Federalist Paper's mention of a
>> well regulated militia gives many examples of how this militia protects
>> the security of a free state.  All these examples are actions of a
>> very organized force, not some John Q. Public with a gun.
>
>That's obviously because you've never actually *read* the Federalist
>Papers. 
>
>> All that the Second Amendment clearly states to me is that the people's
>> right to form well regulated militias shall not be infringed.  That is 
>> people have the right to join a well organized militia.  This well
>> organized militia will, of course, provide training in how to use arms
>> and in basic military tactics.  These training members of the militia
>> can keep and bear the arms.
>
>Can't read, huh?  Show me where the document says "well organized
>militia". 
>
>> Lastly, reading through the Federalist Paper's on well organized 
>> militia it is very clear that many of the reasons for these militias.
>> One reason stated is the protection from a standing army.  These days
>> the standing army could easily defeat a group consisting of every 
>> 17-45 year old male and female not in the armied forces.
>
>That is *exactly* why EVERY PERSON should be allowed to own *any*
>weapon currently in use in the armed forces.
>
>> Another
>> reason stated for well organized militias is to reduced the need
>> for a standing army.  Well, the US Armied Forces have been a standing
>> army for more than half the history of the US.
>
>But the major reason is to protect against that very same army.
>
>> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
>> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
>> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
>> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
>> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.
>
>    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
>    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
>    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
>    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
>    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
>
>    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
>    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
>    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
>    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
>    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
>    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
>    to raise an army upon their ruins."
>
>So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
>our Liberties and Rights.
>
>--
>Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
>Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
>drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
>powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
>become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
>separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.
>
>> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last
>> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
>> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
>> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:
>
>>       A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
>                         ^^^^^^^ Militia
>
>>       of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
>                  ^^^^^ State
>
>>       arms, shall not be infringed.
>        ^^^^ Arms
>
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution.

There are several ways in which one can choose to intrepret any 
constitutational issue :

   (a) Original intent
   (b) Subjectively intrepreted accordiong to political whims of the day.

If we use original intent as the basis for intrepreting the constitution, 
it is clear that the founding fathers intended that the individual citizen 
be allowed to bear arms similar to those used by soldiers of the day.

For references, I cite :

  - Federalist papers
  
  - "The Embarassing Second Ammendment", Yale Law Review, 
    Prof. Stanford Levinson [sorry, I don't have the date handy]

       Prof Levinson sought to prove that the 2nd ammendment did not
       convey an individual right, but concluded that it did, hence the 
       "embarassing" in his title.
 
  - Report of the Subcomittee on the Consititution, United States Sendate,
    97th Congress, Second Session February 1982.

  - U.S. vs. Verguido Urguidez (Supreme court case in recent years).  
    Although this case did not pertain to firearms, Justice Rhenquist
    notes that the term "the people" is a term of art conveying individual
    rights, and specifically cited several used, 2nd ammentment included,
    in his opinion.

  - Title 10, U.S. Code.  This states that all males between the ages of
    18 & 45 not part of the organized militia, and all female officers of
    the national guard are part of the unorganized militia.

Feel free to cite any scholarly and historical references you have to
support your position.  I could go on a greater length with my personal
proof by assertion, however, such a technique would carry no more or
less weight that your dubious proofs by assertion.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54567
From: cwwhite@vax2.concordia.ca (Stephen White)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

In article <C5L2BC.C2x.1@cs.cmu.edu>, rubinoff+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes...
>In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
>>Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
>>he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his
>>chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
>>Duke.

>I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US";
>the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still,
>it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.

>  Robert

Exactly, after all he was in the same party, probably just didn't want the
bad press that being directly associated with Duke would bring.  Conversely,
is his disdain for David Duke supposed to make us ideolize him?  I mean
a stand against neo-nazism ... Whoa!  Now that's progressive!  Come on.

I certainly know that I would refuse and openly denounce my Vice Presidency
if it meant putting him in control.

								--Stephen White

| 	"Live simply that others may simply live" --Mohandas K. Gandhi	       |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54569
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Need info on 43:1 and suicide for refutation

The following is quoted from the tail end of a (rather condescending)
article about Paxton Quigley, that appeared in US Snooze and World Lies,
(sorry... i think it was in the wall street journal...)
and was repeated in the Colorado (people's) Daily, a student newspaper
at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

"A study of residential gunsot deaths in King County, Wash., found that
a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder.  Studies by the 
Western Psychiatric Institute, in Pittsburgh, found that the mere presence
of a gun in the home sharply incresases the likelihood a family member
will commit suicide, even in the absence of psychiatric illness."

I have seen these numbers quoted before, and I have seen very specific
refutation of them quoted as well.  If someone will be so kind as to
email the relevant information, I will write a letter to the editor of
the Co. Daily (which might get published) and send a copy to USN&WR as
well.

Thanx...

--Dan

--
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.1

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54570
From: kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....


> From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
> Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....
> Date: 15 Apr 1993 20:57:53 -0500
> 
> I can't speak for the organizations you cited but everywhere you look in
> our society and government, one can see the relentless movement toward
> one world government.  The fact that the media demeans such charished 
> values as patriotism, nationalism and protectionism are some of the
> clues....Our porous border both people and trade are an indiciation that 
> we have already lost a great deal of sovergnty.

...and I'm sure that people who were big fans of fuedalism pissed and
moaned about the emergence of the modern nation-state. Imagine, the King
allowing serfs their freedom if they could live in the city for a year!
Times change, technology changes, viable forms of social organization
change. While concerns about preserving Western notions of civil liberties
in the face of cultures with very different values is a valid one, it's
a waste of effort to try to turn back the tide. It's much smarter to focus
on trying to make sure that the emerging forms of social organization are
acceptable than it iss to lament the passing of the old forms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54571
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>
>So the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
>not be infringed" must either qualify or explain the phrase "a well 
>regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."  

[stuff deleted]

>Since "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>infringed" does not describe, modify or make less harsh anything and
>it has nothing to do with grammar or some sort of position or task.
>By process of elimination it must fall into definition #3.  And since
>#3 deals with legal power, the same thing the Constitution does, it
>must be the correct definition in this case.  Therefore, "the right 
>of the people to keep and bear Arms" gives legal power to the "well 
>regualated militia" and this legal power "shall not be infringed".  

Ah, clarification by obfuscation.

Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the
security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an
adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of
the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It
asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for
maintaining a milita.  The sentence doesn't restrict the right, or
state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other
than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a
right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First,
Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment.
The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the
amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right
to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of
a free state.
In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and
bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.


>So in effort not to force my views and not "to destory our Liberties and
>Rights,"  I state that nothing I have written, or will write, in
>the matter of "Liberties and Rights" is the final word.  For I am only
>one person among many and the final word on "Liberties and Rights" cleary
>and irrevocably belongs to the many.

The final word on liberties and rights should not belong "to the
many".  That is why we have a Constitution.  Otherwise, a tyrrany of
the majority can ensue from "popular" opinion, a concept which you
should be familiar with from the Federalist papers.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54572
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Slaughter

  [followups to talk.politics.guns]

rl> Russell Lawrence
kr> Karl Rominger

kr> I support the right of any citizen with out a criminal history to own and
    use firearms, regardless of race, gender, and RELIGION.

rl> Thanks for admitting that you, yourself, adhere to an illogical dogma.

  Well, folks in t.p.guns, want to show how Russell's "illogical dogma" is
  wrong?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54573
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Randy Weaver Trial - Day 2 

This was posted to the firearms-politics mailing list.
==============================================================
Hi Folks;

Wednesday marked day 2, the beginning of the trial.  Opening
statements were given by both the prosecution and the defense,
each side presenting its version of what happenned last August.

The prosecution argued that Weaver and his family moved to
Idaho in 1983 anticipating a battle with the "evil" federal
government.  The prosecution alleges that Weaver sold federal
agents "sawed off" shotguns and later failed to appear for
trial: Despite repeated "good faith" efforts to get Weaver
to surrender peacefully, Weaver refused.  The shootout erupted
when Weaver discovered agents on a surveillance mission and
began firing.  According to the prosecution, three people
were taking an "offensive action" against an FBI helicopter
when an FBI sniper killed Vicki Weaver.

The defense argued that Weaver and his family moved to northern
Idaho in 1983 to practice their religion in peace.  They wanted
simply to be left alone.  Weaver was induced by federal agents to
sell the short-barrelled shotgun (and did not, as the prosecution
alleged, want to become a "regular supplier").  The defense also
argued that the federal government sought to arrest Weaver when
he wouldn't become an informant [it is not specified explicitly,
but I assume that this is a reference to the white separatist
angle of the story.  We'll know more as things develop].  The
failure to appear in court happenned because Weaver was given
an incorrect court date and then indicted before that date.
The shootout occurred when federal agent Arthur Roderick killed
Weaver's dog that was in proximity to Weaver's son, Samuel.  Weaver
then fired in self-defense.  In the ensuing battle, federal
agent William Degan was killed (when his gun was later found,
there were 7 .223 cases nearby and the gun was on semi-automatic:
However, agents were near the body for an extended period of
time and could have played with the select-fire - this will
have to be more fully explained).  Finally, the defense claims
that Vicki Weaver was only going to "look at the body" [not recover?]
of her son when she was cut-down by an FBI sniper.

Prosecution quote: "Weaver wanted that confrontation, and he made
that confrontation." -- Asst. U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist

Defense quote: "The evidence in this case is going to show that
this is a case where Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris are charged
with crimes they didn't commit in order to cover crimes that
the government did commit."  -- Gerry Spence  [nice soundbite!]

Notes: The _Idaho Statesman_ claims that Weaver supporters
heeded a call from Spence not to repeat yesterday's protests
outside the courthouse.  However, the local NBC affiliate
again had footage on the 10:00 news with 5 supporters including
"Tim" again.  "Tim" claimed he was a skinhead, who were "ordinary,
working class people."  He also claimed he was for "white pride,
not white power."

Outside the courthouse the television crew had an impromptu interview
with Bo Gritz, who charged that the neo-nazi protestors are exactly
what the government wants to smear Randy Weaver.

In an affiliated article carried in the _Idaho Statesman_, about
a dozen lawyers were among the 70 or so people packed into the
courthouse.  These lawyers were present to watch Gerry Spence
in action, and to perhaps learn something from him.  Some
tidbits: Spence flatly told the jurors that he and his son Kent
were volunteering their time to represent Weaver because they
believed in him.  Spence, during his 90-minute opening statement,
repeatedly walked behind Weaver and placed his hands on the
defendants shoulders (Weaver broke down and cried during the
recounting of his wife's death), and Spence compared the "sawed
off" shotgun to driving 56 mph when the limit was 55 (another
good one!).

Today (Thursday, April 15th) the prosecution was scheduled to
begin presenting evidence.

Drew
=============================================================


-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54574
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Randy Weaver Trail - Day 3 

This was posted to the firearms-politics mailing list.
=============================================================
Hi Folks;

Thursday, April 15 marked Day 3 of the trial.

This day marked the first testimony of the trial.  Deputy
U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper took the stand for the prosecution.

The short version is that his testimony was consistent with
the opening statements for the prosecution.

Cooper testified that he had arrived in Spokane (Washington)
on August 17, 1992 to participate in a surveillance operation
with five other deputies near the Weaver cabin.  The team was
using night vision equipment for surveillance, and split up
into two teams of three people.  The six later met at an
observation point above the cabin.  After this, deputies
Cooper, William Degan, and Arthur Roderick began a descent to
scout further possible surveillance sites.

Cooper told the court that Roderick threw two large rocks into
a gully to see, "whether the [Weaver family] dogs would respond."
Striker, the Weaver's yellow lab, started toward them barking
loudly.  Roderick led the three in a run from the area.

They ran through some dense woods into an open area [called the
"fern field"] with the dog in pursuit.  By this time, Kevin
Harris and Samuel Weaver had joined the chase.  The surveillance
team had reached a Y in the road: Cooper decided that they should
take cover in the woods because otherwise they would be an easy
target and might be "shot in the back."

As Degan reached the Y, he spotted Randy Weaver coming down the
road from the cabin ahead.  Weaver was startled but did not fire.

At this moment, Striker reached Degan, and Cooper had to "fend
him off with his gun."  [It is unclear whether this means he
clubbed the dog or shot the dog].  Both Cooper and Degan then
took cover in the woods.  According to Cooper, Kevin Harris and
Samuel Weaver continued walking down the road, apparently not
noticing the two.  After they had passed by on the road, Degan
got up on one knee, raised his gun, and shouted, "Stop!  U.S.
Marshal!"  Harris then "...brought the weapon around at hip level
and fired.  He didn't bring the weapon up to eye level.  I saw
Bill's arm going back, and I knew he had been hit."  Cooper fired
at Harris, and Harris went down.  Cooper then brought his weapon
to bear on Samuel, but did not fire.  At this point, Cooper then
heard two shots to his right.  Samuel Weaver looked in the
direction of the shots, yelled, "You son of a bitch!" and ran
toward them.  Cooper then realized that shots were coming at him
from directly ahead, so he fired a three-round burst at the
cabin.  At this point he then saw Samuel Weaver running toward
the cabin.  When Cooper reached Degan, he placed his first two
fingers on Degan carotid artery, counted two or three beats, and
then his heart stopped.  Shortly thereafter, Roderick and the
other three marshals joined him.  They then all heard a large
burst of gunfire from the area around the cabin.

On cross-examination, David Nevin questioned the point of
throwing rocks into the gulley, asking, "You wanted to lure that
dog out so you could shoot that dog, didn't you?"  Nevin also
pointed out that in last September's testimony, Cooper had
claimed that he spotted Weaver after the dog had left him.
Cooper claimed that he had gone over the events in his head and
decided that Thursday's account was correct.  Nevin continued the
cross-examination by asking what Cooper would have done had an
armed man dressed in full camouflage jumped out of the woods at
him [no answer was available].

Friday, April 16 marks continued cross-examination of Cooper.

Notes: There was no coverage of protestors.

Drew
==============================================================

-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54575
From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <mjones.735513787@fenway> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:
>>I have already called senators, legislators and the Governor demanding
>>that the warrants be unsealed, and that all involved in this atrocity
>>(including the President, Attorney General and Governor) be suspended
>>pending an investigation.
>>Welcome to Amerika!
>Let's see...first, you want everybody up through the President suspended
>PENDING an investigation, then you refer to AMERIKA? Guess you remembered to
>take your irony supplements this morning, eh?

*sigh*

It is standard procedure to suspend law enforcement officers, or re-assign
them to administrative (non enforcement) duties, while an investigation
into possible misconduct is going on. The Administration has given no
indication that such suspensions will occur in this case. And given that
the president, attorney general and governor were all involved in the
decisions that led to the Waco Massacre, they should also suspend all
activities regarding law enforcement. Given their positions, that equates
to an enforced vacation.


-- 
                            REMEMBER WACO!
     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54576
From:  ()
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
Arras) wrote:
>  
> I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
> devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
> government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
> own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
> 
> Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
> 
> Jim

Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
Just let him be? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
the first time.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54577
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Brandon D. Ray) wrote:

> Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
> are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
> that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
> briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
> go ahead.
> 
> Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?

Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How
in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking
governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE
reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't
there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the
sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens. That sounds like a
callous way to dismiss the deaths of 90+ people, but I can't understand why
people get so bent about the accidental death/suicide (which is it? could
take months...) of some total fucking sociopath/child molester and his
crazed followers while opposing U.S. intervention in Bosnia. Just like
Billy boy said. I think some of you people have too much time on your
hands, and screwed up priorities.

Just my HO...

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54578
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
Arras) wrote:
>   
> You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal agencies  
> you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from your  
> Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious  
> persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all?
> 
> Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.
> 
> Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the dictionary  
> of "cult".
> 

I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry
son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54579
From:  ()
Subject: Re: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

Ditto. Great post.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54580
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Ammo in a fire (was Re: WACO burning)


In article <C5xBwr.5B8@world.std.com>, htf@world.std.com (Harry Carter) writes:
>sunshine@cco.caltech.edu (Tom Renner) writes:
>
>>v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>
>>>Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every
>>>where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>>>went up.
>
>>A minor technical point: unless a cartridge is contained (for example in the
>>chamber of a gun) when it goes off, very little of interest happens.....
>
>
>Quoting Hatcher's notebook:
>      The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures' Institute reported
>      a demonstration made by taking a large quantity of metallic
>      cartridges and shotgun shells and burning them in a fire of oil-
>      soaked wood.  The cartridges and shells exploded from time to
>      time, but there was no general explosion or throwing off of
>      bullets or shot to any distance.
>      Throughout the test the men conducting it remained within 20 ft.
>      of the fire without being injured in any way..... the material
>      of which the cartridge and shells are composed will usually not
>      fly more than a few feet.
>      In tests conducted by the National Rifle Association, both rifle
>      and pistol cartridges were exploded by heat under an ordinary
>      corrugated pasteboard carton, and neither fragments of the
>      cartridge cases nor bullets penetrated the cardboard.
>
>
>  Any scientists care to try this out in their kitchen?  :-)

Here goes:

More than a few years back (if you were born that year, you can legally drink),
we tried it out.  We found an 8 ft. deep cistern that we lined with some 10 ft.
2X6s.  We put a large can (one of those industrial sized pork'n beans cans)
stuffed with oily rags and scraps of wood in the bottom.  After lighting the
fire, we LOWERED a box of .38 Spc. SWCs into the can.  We heard pops, one solid
bang and several "fizzzz shussss".  After we thought the excitment was over, we
boldly climbed down to find that NONE of the bullets had left the can, several
of the shells were lieing around the bottom of the well and the boards had all
died of smoke inhalation.  And 5 or 6 of the shells still had live primers!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54581
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco


In the videos of the original BATF attack on the BD church, did anyone
happen to see BATF agents on the highest structure, where Koresh's
room was? I don't recall seeing BATF agents higher than the roof of the
lowest structures, so I made an assumption that BATF helos did the
firing down into the tower. Any other info on how the rounds came
through the roof?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54582
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:

> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.

  I am not a paranoid, nor a government toady, nor even am I the guy you were
talking to originally, but I think you are simply NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

  A bunch of people living off by themselves with a lot of guns nearby is not
that wierd in Texas.  My own family, very quiet taxpayers with extremely con-
ventional views, has something like 10 rifles and shotguns in a two-person
home.  Some of them were mine, but I don't live there anymore.  I now have
my own shotgun in my apartment.

  Texas Child Protective Services (which loves to find child abuse) found no,
I repeat NO, evidence of abuse when they first looked at the BD, and is saying
that they see none in any of the kids who were released.  There is no evidence
that Koresh was banging anyone but his wives.

  It is not against the law to stockpile (most) weapons or campbell's soup.  
Nor is there any hard evidence in the form of actual hardware (as I write this)
to prove the BD really had any *proscribed* weapons.

  I feel they were all loonies, but there is no indication that they ever 
bothered anyone.  They were gone after in the wrong ways for the wrong reasons,
and the BATF and FBI who are so busy trumpeting this child abuse angle hasn't
got a leg to stand on or any right to be involved in such abuse cases anyway. 
If there was any real danger of the BD's going out on a rampage, then that
is up to the officers of the state of Texas, who are probably getting a per-
verse bit of pleasure at getting to torque the Feds for fucking up something
in their state.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54583
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>>>
>>>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>>>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>>>themselves to death.
>>
>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>of paranoia?
>
>Are you a moron or just illiterate? The "facts" that the FBI 

Neither.  

>proclaimed on Monday suddenly weren't "facts" anymore by 
>the Tuesday press conference.

You don't have to pay attention to any one source, neither do you
have to abandon your critical thinking, but to disregard all sources
of information as 'lies' and 'distortions' and substitute your own
pet theories is more likely to get you wild untruths than by basing
your theories on the 'facts' as they are reported by the media and
the government.

> There has beed NO evidence of
>anyone setting the fire deliberately you simpleton so

Actually there was evidence of the fire being set deliberately -
both testamony by the survivors and IR tape showing the fire
being set in 3 places AND the petrochemical soot that the fire 
was giving off (indications of kerosine or gasoline feeding the
fire).  

You might not believe 1 or 2 if you are totally paranoid or very
skeptical, but my 3rd point is visible to anyone who watches the
tapes of the fire and has started a BBQ grill.

>what are YOU basing your statements on? Oh, I forgot, you're
>the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need electricity,
>never mind.

Ho ho ho.  I listen to NPR, watch CNN, NBC.  I also read the
papers.   Where do you get YOURS?

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54584
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

>>That's The BD side of the story.  The other is that D. Koresh met
>>agents at the door with a weapon.  Remember the affidavit indicates
>>that Koresh had spent $200,000 on assault weapons in the past year and
>>now we know that the 'bunker' adjacent to the house is thigh deep with
>>a million rounds of ammunition.



	* The news statement was that there was $200,000 worth of "firearms
	  and ammunition (no mention of "assault weapons")" on the premises,
	  not that Koresh had purchased them (what would his crime be if he
	  had?).  This averages to about $2000 per person, not an astronomical
	  number.

	* We don't know that there is a thigh-deep pile of a million rounds...
	  we know that the FBI SAYS there is a pile of a million rounds. 

	* This is the first I've heard that Koresh was identified as being
	  at the door with a weapon.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54585
From: kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Mark 'Mark' Sachs (MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:

: Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
: In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?

The crushed remains of a PRESSURIZED propane tank were found in the ruins
of the BD compound.  The key word is PRESSURIZED.  When that baby was 
crushed, the gas would have gone all over the place.  And when ignited, 
would look just like the pictures of the explosion we saw on the TV 
news.  Ammo doesn't go up all at once - kind of like fireworks going off.
Propane gas goes off in a big fireball.  Gee, that's kind of consistent 
with what the pictorial history shows.  Hmmmmm...

: And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
: to get out of the compound?

Remember, PRESSURIZED gas.  People all over the building.
Conflagration in less than a minute.  Huge explosion.  Gas masks being
worn by the inhabitants.  Makes a lot of sense that very few of those
on the inside would even know that the tank was damaged.  If they
thought it was just a normal fire, they would probably be trying to
put it out.  Then - BOOM - the fireball.  After that explosion and 
concussion, I doubt anybody on the inside of the building was capable
of moving.

: And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.

Good question.  Take an objective look at what happened, listen to the 
things that the FBI said ("The BD's started the fire."  "The BD's bodies
were found with gunshot wounds.") that are now being refuted by the 
evidence being recovered.  Seems that the FBI is deliberately making
statements that have no rational basis in fact, and trying to make
them sound like fact.  

: I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
: a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
: contrary. Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
: the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
: prefer to believe the cultists?

Yes, I would still believe that the FBI and the BATF were on a non-stop
string of lies and half-truths.  This is consistent with their operations
on numerous occasions.

And as for the BD's being murderous, they did not cause any problems until
they were assaulted by the BATF.  So now a thought experiment for you:  If
the BATF had never stormed that farm, would four agents and 90 BD's be
dead today?  

: (No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

: >But then
: >again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
: >his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.

: Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?

Yes.  That is how politicians are elected.  Kind of scary, isn't it.  Now
if we as a people actually held Mr. Clinton to his promises instead of
apologizing and denying that he ever made them, and actually expected
accountability by our government, I doubt that debacles like Waco would
happen as often as they do.

: So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
: people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
: one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
: to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

Acutally, no.  THe BATF has a rather checkered history of staging raids of
this sort just prior to the time when their budget comes up for review.  
Oddly enough, their budget was about to be reviewed just two weeks after
the initial raid on the BD's.  "Coincidence?  I think not!"

And as for the fire, what happened was caused by the act of knocking over
walls with an armored vehicle of destruction.  The FBI tried to convince
the world it was suicide, but all of the facts that are coming out by
the investigation of the Texas rangers and medical examiners point to 
a gas explosion and quick fire that decimated all of the occupants of the
building.  Sounds to me like a law enforcement agency that is trying to 
cover its ass.  

: And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? How is he
: on diabolical laughter? Does he look good in a cape? These things MUST be
: investigated. You first.

Oh, please.  If you want to argue, argue.  If  you merely want to demean those
who see this differently than you, then please go somewhere else.  

: Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu

Keith Marchington

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54586
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:
>In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
>Arras) wrote:
>>  
>> I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
>> devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
>> government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
>> own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
>> 
>> Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
>> 
>> Jim
>
>Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
>generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
>Just let him be? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
>the first time.
>
>joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu


This is, apparently, what passes for intelligent discourse at Trinity.
Joe "FBI cultist" Kusmierczak gets angry when its pointed out that
the FBI has told him is a LIE, the mounting evidence is that 
they've lied about almost every detail of 4/19 except that they
were there. What can you expect of cultists like him, somebody
oughtta burn him out, and if he's trapped, well, good riddance!
Right Joe?

-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54587
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr23.140355.25353@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>>>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>>>burning building?
>
>Could be a lot of reasons, James...  We won't know until the survivors are
>allowed to speak for themselves, rather than through an FBI spokesman.

Some of the survivors have been "interviewed" on TV as they were going
to or returning from court. They basically said, no way was there any
kind of suicide pact or attempt.

-- 
 Remember the Texas holocaust.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54588
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <1r6klv$64f@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>> In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>> >In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> >>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>> >
>> >Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>> >latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>> >themselves to death.
>> 
>> If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>> is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>> your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>> of paranoia?
>
>Funny, Brent, but so far we have heard two versions of the "facts:"
>
>1) What the government says.  This includes what the government says that
>   two survivors have said.
>
>2) What Koresh's lawyer (who was actually inside the compound) says,
>   including what he says that most of the survivors have said.
>
>Strange, but they seem to disagree in most important particulars.
>
>If anyone has actually seen news reports of any of the survivors
>speaking first-hand, feel free ot pitch in.  I may have missed it.
>But my money is that their story will sound a hell of a lot like
>case 2, and not at all like case 1.

Since neither side would be particularly interested in telling the truth,
you have to weigh the 'facts' given by each yourself, and weigh it with
the newsreporting if you care.

Many cult members will probably side with the attorney, and if he
is lying, change their stories to match his.  And if the Feds also
lie, the cult members who become disillusioned will change their
stories to match the Feds.  

Neither sides are interested in the truth.  The Media is more interested,
but usually either don't have the time to get it straight or tie themselves
to the ratings and deliberately distort.  

For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with
how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the
compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter.  I doubt the Feds
did that as they were more interested in arresting Vernon.  The real
unbalanced one (at least the one that lost his cool) was Vernon, so
I figured that he was more likely to do it (after all he was Jesus 
being persecuted by the authorities, and had followers to hold onto,
so made the decision.  He and his followers also probably felt that they
were rocketing to heaven by doing this stuff).  Thsi conclusion, I came
to after umpteen million hours of listening to NPR and other radio
shows (I always have the radio going when I am in my office on some
innocuous talk-show or news program as background noise).


-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54589
From: kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

 wrote:
: In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
: Arras) wrote:
: >  
: > I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
: > devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
: > government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
: > own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
: > 
: > Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
: > 
: > Jim

: Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
: generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
: Just let him be? 

Yes.  Given the history of the BD's and the fact that they were just 
peacefully minding their own business, I think this would have been
the correct course of action in the very beginning.  Everything that
followed was a direct result of the major media fuck-up that the BATF
perpetrated just over 51 days ago.

:Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
: the first time.

: joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Yep, no doubt about it.  They should have just bombed those kooks
right from the git-go.  Yeah, sure!  So much for any resemblence
to an America that abides by the Constitution.  So much for feeling
safe in your home.  So much for any of the rights enumerated in the
Bill of Rights being upheld.  Why bother?  They just get in the way
of an effective government.  That is, a government of the elite, by
the elite, for the elite.  

Joe, attitudes like yours frighten me.  You have very few facts about
what actually happened, and what information you do have came from a 
single source, the FBI/BATF.  Yet you are more than happy to pronounce
the BD's guilty-as-charged based on this one-sided testimony.  Scary!

--
Keith Marchington

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54590
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Feds Caught in Another Lie


In article <1993Apr23.120935.21848@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>Well, after 2 days of hearing that 3 of the BD bodies had
>been shot in the head (Horrors!  Another Jonestown! Crazed
>Cultists!  Child Abusers!  WHACKOS in Waco!), last night the 
>medical examiner was on TV and was pretty vehement in denying
>that ANY of them had bullet wounds...  he seemed just a tad upset 
>at the Feds for having spread that rumor.  (Aw, gee, he shouldn't 
>be so hard on them;  they're just practicing the new principle 
>of "flexible reality" that their big boss has implemented.)
>
>Before long, I think all the kneejerk government apologists
>are going to start getting pretty pissed off at how easily
>they were misled.

Two notes of interest from Texas:

The Tarrant Couonty ME (who is doing the autopsies) is well known for rendering
judgements that are contrary to the police view.  He presented evidence a few
years ago that a man who police said was pointing a gun at them actually had
his hands in the air.  This does not bode well for the boys in black.

The Texas Dept. of Public Saftey and the Texas Rangers have no great love for
the ATF.  I have heard them referred to as "those fucking cowboys".  The DPS
was totally squeezed out of the BD operation and resented being left as
"traffic cops".  ATF now has two strikes against them.

Finally (I guess that makes three notes), rumour from Waco is that four ATF
agents were stopped by four Waco police cars and a DPS trooper after one of the
flashed "an automatic weapon" at a cop.  Lots of pissed of cops.  And you
wonder why there were so few cops really cheering on the ATF.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54591
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <dusek.735489223@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>>or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>>interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>>started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>>knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.
>
>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>burning building?

In this case, it was unimportant as to who set the fire.  The Davidians
would have burned no matter what, ESPECIALLY if the BATF/FBI set the
fire as this would make the beseiged martyrs to Vernon Howell and
therefore rocket to heaven.  A few comments from the remaining
Davidians scattered throughout the country seemed to confirm this
theory (One cult member said that she wished that she had been there,
and that now she would have to wait for Vernon to Return for them.  She
actually seemed upset that she did not burn with them).

While I think that Vernon started the fire (his followers anyway), 
it is incidental to their reaction.

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54592
From: auerbach@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <scottj-230493091606@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>, scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
> In article <dusek.735489223@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek)
> wrote:
>> 	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>> burning building?
> 
> Okay, James, tell you what: I'll but you in a building with 90 other
> people.  I'll put you in a highly tense situation.  I'll subject you to
> sleep deprivation, remove your utilities, march tanks back in forth in
> front of you, play recordings of tortured rabbits at high volume, shine
> bright lights in your windows, threaten to attack you at any time, and cut
> you off from the outside world, all for weeks at a time.  Then, I'll begin
> to smash in the building you're in, destroying passages and stairs and
> spreading debris everywhere.  At the same time, I'll pump in massive
> quantities of nasty tear gas, for six hours.  

STOP IT!!!! ENOUGH!!! I'm out of there!  I mean, I'm a relatively sane person. 
God knows I'm weak and will forgive me.  But I'm not stupid enough to stay in
this place any longer.  I WANT OUT!!!

>You'll be holed up in a small
> area with 90 sweaty people on a hot day.  Then the building will fill with
> smoke and become a inferno.  90 people in a small room will try to leave
> with you.  And Jim, if you don't make it out, won't you agree that it must
> be because you wanted to die?
> 
> Besides, nine people *did* successfully flee the fire.

Yeah, and at least one person ran back in. SOunds like a personal choice to me.
Religious fanaticsm, and a beleive that dying in the 'defense' of your beliefs,
is probably at the core of what happened in Waco. We in the west tend to
disregard fanaticsm of the type displayed by many Moslem fundamentalist groups
who see nothing wrong with dying for their beliefs/convictions. I suspect that
this same type of fanaticsm was displayed by the BDs. BUt we'll probably never
know...

Karl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54593
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <4615@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>Michael Frederick Rhein (mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU) wrote:
># In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>#                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
># in Texas.
>
>Not that I agree with the original theory or anything, buuuuut:
>Since their utilities were turned off they might be using wood stoves
>to cook their meals.

But they also might have run out of fire-wood (maybe chopping up furnature?).

They also may not have been cooking, but eating MREs and other
delicacies stored for just such an occation...

Just a thought.

Brent "Yes I am well aware that their electricity was cut, thanks to the
HUNDREDS of E-mail messages and replies to my post" Irvine

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54596
From: lilak@peaks.enet.dec.com (Rod Lilak)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1


In article <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
|>Xref: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com misc.legal:62088 talk.politics.guns:56997 alt.activism:43746
|>Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utcsri!relay.cs.toronto.edu!neat.cs.toronto.edu!cs.toronto.edu!quoctp
|>Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.guns,alt.activism
|>From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham)
|>Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1
|>Message-ID: <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
|>Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
|>References: <1993Apr21.021301.25113@r-node.hub.org>
|>Date: 23 Apr 93 03:46:24 GMT
|>Lines: 3
|>
|>Did anyone notice that Clinton was smiling and making jokes just before
|>this press conference? Considering the number of people killed, this 
|>seems very inappropriate to me.
|>

Or, did anyone notice that when Clinton referred to the Davidians as
'religious fanatics' that a round of spontaneous applause burst forth from
the reporters ? 

To me this was not only in poor taste, but it showed the media's bias and
hostility to anyone not of the politically correct stripe.  No wonder they
have been cheerleading for the kgBATF and the FBI during this whole affair.

			Rod
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come
close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell
after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The
savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
    -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54597
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Two Questions

In article <16BB910F7.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal) writes:
>In article <16BB8C820.SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
>SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
> 
>>I'd appreciate any help anyone could give me on these two questions:
>>
>>The Brady Bill was in the news throughout 1992 but what actually happened to
>>it in Congress?  Did Bush veto it?  If so, when?
> 
>       The Brady Bill passed the House in 1992, but failed to reach a
>vote in the Senate.  As such, it never reached Bush.  (Sarah Brady's
>condemnation not-withstanding).

I have a joint House-Senate conference committe report (i.e., crime bill)
for the 102rd Congress which contains a "Brady Bill -- 7 day waiting period"
within it.  I believe it just died and never came up for a vote in either
house.

>       It'll probably pass the House again, and will probably pass the
>Senate if they can get it to a vote.  Whether of not they'll be busy
>with other things will be the question.

They got four years of Clinton's support to pass it.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54598
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 21:30:12 GMT, Pete Zakel (phz@cadence.com) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
> >You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
> >the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
> >Constitution. 

> This is REALLY STUPID nitpicking.  Capitalization rules in the late 18th
> century were quite different from today, and what was posted matches current
> capitalization rules.

pete zakel is right, we don't need to worry about capitalization
rules. after all, the punctuation gives all the necessary information
about the sentence structure. why should anyone worry about whether the
text is as close to the original as possible. (sarcasm intended). 

> In the original Constitution, "militia", "arms", etc. were capitalized simply
> because they were nouns.  This is also done currently in German.  There is
> no special significance to these words simply because they are capitalized.
> The capitalization denotes no special emphasis.

Then you didn't understand my grumble...  Again, I said to get a
CORRECT version of the Constitution.  The first indicator that
something is wrong (i.e. the copy has been modernized) is the modern
capitalization rules.  The next thing to go is the spelling, and then
I've even seen versions where the GRAMMAR was modernized (oh, but
don't worry, modernizing the grammar won't change the meaning of the
text, right?... ;-)  [p.s.  I have found about 10 *different* versions
of the Constitution on the network; And accuracy DOES matter...]

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54599
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>the people on the net.
>
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  What kind
>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>saw you and you were caught?
>

In Massachusetts, you will likely be arrested for murder, but
if you convince the cops/DA that you used lethal force because
of threat of death or serious bodily harm, then the charges
would probably be dropped.  If you run away and are later caught,
then you will have a much harder time convincing cops/judge/jury
of your innocence.  Going "on the lam" is seen as an indication
of guilt by a lot of people.

-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54600
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU> mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>
>for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims 
>that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.

This whole thread is rediculous.  Who cares if they had a stove going
or not.  Does it matter if they had a stove burning, or lanterns
burning, or candles burning, or someone smoking, etc, etc, etc.  The
premise is that the FBI was filling the house with napalm so that it
would catch fire.  This is crazy.  FBI was NOT PUMPING NAPALM into the
Davidians home.  You will have to have pretty damn strong evidence to
convince me of that.

I can believe mass suicide/murder by Koresh.  I can believe an
accident by the Davidians.  I can believe an accident by the FBI.  I
can easily believe mass stupidity on all sides but I can not believe
that the FBI lit this fire intentionally.  No way.

-- 
-- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54601
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5y1LJ.7At@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>>In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>>>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>>>>
>>>>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>>>>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>>>>themselves to death.
>>>
>>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>>of paranoia?

Then post what the press has said, not what you wished they said.
The Medical Examiner has refuted the FBI "facts" and if you don't
believe someone who has a LOT more reason to be impartial then 
what do you have to say for yourself.

>>Are you a moron or just illiterate? The "facts" that the FBI 
>
>Neither.  

I was willing to grant this for sake or argument until I read the
following.

>>proclaimed on Monday suddenly weren't "facts" anymore by 
>>the Tuesday press conference.
>
>You don't have to pay attention to any one source, neither do you
>have to abandon your critical thinking, but to disregard all sources
>of information as 'lies' and 'distortions' and substitute your own
>pet theories is more likely to get you wild untruths than by basing
>your theories on the 'facts' as they are reported by the media and
>the government.
>
The FACTS as reported by the press and impartial government
sources support ME.

>> There has beed NO evidence of
>>anyone setting the fire deliberately you simpleton so
>
>Actually there was evidence of the fire being set deliberately -
>both testamony by the survivors and IR tape showing the fire
>being set in 3 places AND the petrochemical soot that the fire 
>was giving off (indications of kerosine or gasoline feeding the
>fire).  

There is NO testimony, at the press conference, the FBI said they
had NO testimony, the SURVIVORS as reported by CNN and Newsday
wire service said that ALL the survivors gave consistent stories
refuting the FBI. They were lighting and heating with kerosine.
Are you trying to PROVE you're an idiot.

>You might not believe 1 or 2 if you are totally paranoid or very
>skeptical, but my 3rd point is visible to anyone who watches the
>tapes of the fire and has started a BBQ grill.
>


>>what are YOU basing your statements on? Oh, I forgot, you're
>>the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need electricity,
>>never mind.
>
>Ho ho ho.  I listen to NPR, watch CNN, NBC.  I also read the
>papers.   Where do you get YOURS?

Then open your eyes and ears, at least 3 of those 4 sources have
reported your full of shit.

>-- 
><><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
><><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54602
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start
violence.
 
When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back.
But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for
their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It
is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical
attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.
 
If the BD were violent they would have held the ATF agents as
hostages.  They would not have released them like they did.  If they
had kept the agents hostage they could have used them as bargening
chips for medical attention etc.
 
A big thing is being made of the BD collection of weapons but no one
has shown that they had any plans to use them.  It is also apparent
that the BD did not have any military training.  If they had, they
could have dug bunkers and trenches and increased their
fortifications.  They could have shot out the lights and speakers.  It
appears that the BD were not violent, they shot back at the attacking
ATF agents out of panic.  There were shots fired on the last day but
they were in response to the FBI attack on the compound with armor.
 
All the violence in Waco was initiated by the federal agents, not the
BD.
 
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54603
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Waco fire

Flash over is a frequent occurrence with indoor fires.  A fire will
start small and in one location and heat the air.  The temperature in
the room builds up and then everything inflammable in the room catches
fire at once.
 
This may have occurred in the BD compound, I have heard reports that
the windows were covered which would permit a fire to start unnoticed
by those outside the compound.  When the fire got big enough, and
broke through the walls, it appeared to be started in two places but
was really one big fire.
 
Because of the large quantities of tear gas inserted into the building
it is possible that many of the women and children were in a room free
of tear gas they would try to seal the door to keep out the tear gas.
When they learned that a fire had broken out it was too late for them
to escape.  They were trapped by the flames in their safe room.
 
I find it hard to believe that the FBI was not recording the final
assault.  I think that they would have wanted to have tapes to show
their agents of the the FBI overcoming the "forces of evil", aka
the Branch Davidians.  The tapes would also allow the FBI to prove
that they were not using excessive force.
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54604
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5y36B.8MG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>
>For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with
>how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the
>compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter.

Just from experience, seeing a couple of houses burn down, one doesn't
need any accelerant to get a lot of black soot.  There's plenty of
stuff in a house that will burn 'dirty'.  Even the asphalt shingles
would make a really sooty smoke.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54605
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <94380@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU
(COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
[...]
>Btw, if I screwed up bad enough to get someone hurt/killed, my CO, the
>PMS, probably the Brigade Commander, and possibly the Region Commander
>could all expect a good amount of heat, possibly including
>reassignment or seperationfrom service.  Certainly the PMS would not
>be promotable, and would shortly thereafter be asked to retire.  This
>is called accountability.  If my PMS knew beforehand about the
>activities in which a person was killed, he would be nailed for
>failing to ensure that proper safety measures were taken.  If he
>didn't know , he would be nailed for improper supervision.  Can we
>hold the President of the US to lower standards than his subordinates?
>After all, he was briefed on the FBI raid.  He could have asked HOW
>they intended to flush the BD's out...

The President is not competent to plan or judge the planning of such a
raid, nor does he need to be.  His job is to set basic policies and
manage the people under him.  If Clinton instructed Reno to preserve
lives, and if she confirmed that the plan for the raid was a safe as
could be, then he did his job.  The President should not involve
himself in the minor details of these kinds of operations.  This sort
of micromanagement only leads to disaster, as was demonstrated so well
in Vietnam.

But the raid went bad:  Over 80 civilians have been killed in a
controntation with U.S. authorities.

NOW Clinton enters the picture in a big way.  Will Clinton start an
investigation?  Or will he try to squash any attempt to investigate?
Is he a responsible leader?  Or is he only interested in protecting
the image of his administration?

We'll all find out as this unfolds.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54606
From: garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness .44 calibre

jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
   From psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell) on rec.martial-arts...
   >I'm sure such weapons have been developed.  Our society does not,
   >however, condone their possession or use.  

Actually, Joe, I wrote the above.  Peter was responding to my article.

I'm actually rather confused by your post.  I suppose I didn't
make myself clear, cause you seem to have gotten exactly the
opposite impression from what I intended.  I suppose "the authorities"
might have been a better term than "society".  Carry and use a firearm
in many parts of the country (certainly the parts I live in), and expect,
at the very least, to have an awful lot of explaining to do.
And there is also appears to be  a trend in society at large that
actively opposes what many see as their right to defend themselves.

   In a few other parts of our society, handguns are banned or
   so restricted as to be practically unavailable to the law-
   abiding citizen for self-defense outside the home.  Funny, 
   though, how the criminals in such places continue to have a 
   lush supply of guns and no compunctions about using them.  
   IMHO, you don't need to be either a political philosopher or 
   a crime victim to realize that there's a flaw in the gun-
   grabbers' logic.  

Agreed.

   You're welcome to your HO, too, the First Amendment being as 
   important as the Second, but please don't let your obvious 
   good intentions be subverted by insupportable generalities 
   about something as big and diverse as US society.

My only intention was to comment that the existence of suitable
weapons of self defense doesn't mean you'll escape a whole shitload
of trouble should you be forced to use them.

   Or by the
   naive hope that making gun possession a crime will give pause 
   to someone who would be a criminal anyway.

I made no such statements, nor do I have such a naive hope or outlook.  
   
   Wishing you peace and the wherewithal to defend yourself
   if others' thoughts are not that kindly,

That's all I want: the opportunity to leave in peace, or to 
have the means to defend myself when that in not possible.

I *think* we agree on this issue.  I guess my position didn't
survive the transition from cognition to ASCII.

-- 
Garry Hodgson			A slow winter day
AT&T Bell Labs			A night like forever
garry@alice.att.com		Sink like a stone
att!alice!garry			Float like a feather

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54607
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Karl Auerbach writes:

>>> Besides, nine people *did* successfully flee the fire.

>Yeah, and at least one person ran back in. SOunds like a personal choice to me.
>Religious fanaticsm, and a beleive that dying in the 'defense' of your beliefs,
>is probably at the core of what happened in Waco.

	Religious fanaticism?

	People try to get back in all the time when their homes are afire.  
	Firefighters often have to restrain them.  They want to rush back in in an
	effort to save things-- old photos, keepsakes, stamp collections,
	cash, books, jewelery, pets, their wives and husbands, their babies...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54608
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <C5sv4r.HFA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

[and quotes a lot of stuff unnecessarily]
>In article <93869@hydra.gatech.EDU> glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes:
>>
>> [worth posting again ;-]
>>Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys,
>>it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming
>>houses and violating civil rights under color of law. 
>>
>>Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution?

>Its also about crazy fatigue clad survivalist types blasting the 
>snot out of people who accidentally stray onto his land in the
>name of 'self defense.'

>Don't get too self-righteous, Mr. gun-toter.

Ain't got a pair of fatigues... and I don't blast people wandering aimlessly,
I ask them what they're doing there... I only blast people who display
obvious violent intent... like black-clad men with weapons climbing thru
second-story windows, or people who break down the door instead of knocking.
Or people who knock my house down with tanks and set it afire.  Sound 
familiar yet?

Riddle me this: Why the hell are the CONVICTED CRIMINALS in Ohio getting
the kid glove treatment, and the BD's are burned alive without a trial?
Put aside who started the blaze, I still think any decent shyster can 
make a case for cruel and unusual punishment, playing the sounds of
tortured rabbits over the loudspeakers (where's the SPCA in all this?)...

Oh, and that's Mister gun-toter SIR to you, bucko.  Just because you choose
to abandon your rights, leave mine the hell alone, thankyouverymuch.

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
Impeach Clinton, Reno -- the case is prima facie.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54609
From: seelowe@well.sf.ca.us (Hudson H Luce)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


 I suggest another name change:

   Thomas Parsli .... to .... Vidkun Quisling

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54610
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks


In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>,  () writes:
>In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
>Arras) wrote:
>>  
>> I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
>> devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
>> government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
>> own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
>> 
>> Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
>> 
>> Jim
>
>Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
>generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
>Just let him be? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
>the first time.

What is "doing it right the first time"?  Murdered them all?  Used tanks? 
Maybe they should have had enough evidence to indict.  From the list presented
to date, I haven't seen ANYTHING illegal.  They claim that the BD's bought
components to convert their weapons to Class III devices, but no evidence that
they had done so.  In fact, with a Class III FFL living with them, this may
have been legal (given recent court rulings).

What you really meant to say was that the ATF should have done the right and
lwaful thing.  Or did you just want the BD's dead?
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54611
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Clipper Chip

In article <1993Apr20.183938.8024@news.columbia.edu> pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet) writes:
>I thought that the Clipper Chip that was posted to t.p.g (sorry, I lost
>the original post) was a joke.  I really did.  I didn't believe it for
>a second.  But on the way to work this morning, I heard about it on NPR.


No joke.  Here's another copy for you to save.  NPR, hmmm?  Did they
mention the part about "The fact of law enforcement access to the
escrowed keys will not be concealed from the American public." ...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: dg-rtp!psinntp!uunet!news.claremont.edu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!uiboise.idbsu.edu!blh
>From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
>Message-ID: <9304191630.AA03993@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>
>Subject: Heil, Clinton
>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 93 11:50:13 MDT
>X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA21120; Mon, 19 Apr 93 09:30:51 -0700
>X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA03993; Mon, 19 Apr 93 09:30:17 -0700
>X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
>	(16.6/16.2) id AA01185; Sun, 18 Apr 93 11:50:14 -0600
>X-To: talk.politics.guns.usenet
>X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
>Lines: 112
>
>
>    Although the subject matter of this re-posting is not directly 
>    related to talk.politics.guns, I believe that the information 
>    here will be of interest to a large number of readers.
>
>    Especially considering our latest BATF escapade.
>
>> From: clipper@csrc.ncsl.nist.gov (Clipper Chip Announcement)
>> Subject: White House Public Encryption Management Fact Sheet
>> Message-ID: <C5LGAz.250@dove.nist.gov>
>> Sender: news@dove.nist.gov
>> Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology
>> Distribution: na
>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 20:44:58 GMT
>> Lines: 94
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Note:     The following was released by the White House today in
>>           conjunction with the announcement of the Clipper Chip
>>           encryption technology.
>> 
>>                            FACT SHEET
>> 
>>                   PUBLIC ENCRYPTION MANAGEMENT
>> 
>> The President has approved a directive on "Public Encryption
>> Management."  The directive provides for the following:
>> 
>> Advanced telecommunications and commercially available encryption
>> are part of a wave of new computer and communications technology.
>> Encryption products scramble information to protect the privacy of
>> communications and data by preventing unauthorized access.
>> Advanced telecommunications systems use digital technology to
>> rapidly and precisely handle a high volume of communications.
>> These advanced telecommunications systems are integral to the
>> infrastructure needed to ensure economic competitiveness in the
>> information age.
>> 
>> Despite its benefits, new communications technology can also
>> frustrate lawful government electronic surveillance.  Sophisticated
>> encryption can have this effect in the United States.  When
>> exported abroad, it can be used to thwart foreign intelligence
>> activities critical to our national interests.  In the past, it has
>> been possible to preserve a government capability to conduct
>> electronic surveillance in furtherance of legitimate law
>> enforcement and national security interests, while at the same time
>> protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all citizens.  As
>> encryption technology improves, doing so will require new,
>> innovative approaches.
>> 
>> In the area of communications encryption, the U. S. Government has
>> developed a microcircuit that not only provides privacy through
>> encryption that is substantially more robust than the current
>> government standard, but also permits escrowing of the keys needed
>> to unlock the encryption.  The system for the escrowing of keys
>> will allow the government to gain access to encrypted information
>> only with appropriate legal authorization.
>> 
>> To assist law enforcement and other government agencies to collect
>> and decrypt, under legal authority, electronically transmitted
>> information, I hereby direct the following action to be taken:
>> 
>> INSTALLATION OF GOVERNMENT-DEVELOPED MICROCIRCUITS
>> 
>> The Attorney General of the United States, or her representative,
>> shall request manufacturers of communications hardware which
>> incorporates encryption to install the U.S. government-developed
>> key-escrow microcircuits in their products.  The fact of law
>> enforcement access to the escrowed keys will not be concealed from
>> the American public.  All appropriate steps shall be taken to
>> ensure that any existing or future versions of the key-escrow
>> microcircuit are made widely available to U.S. communications
>> hardware manufacturers, consistent with the need to ensure the
>> security of the key-escrow system.  In making this decision, I do
>> not intend to prevent the private sector from developing, or the
>> government from approving, other microcircuits or algorithms that
>> are equally effective in assuring both privacy and a secure key-
>> escrow system.
>> 
>> KEY-ESCROW
>> 
>> The Attorney General shall make all arrangements with appropriate
>> entities to hold the keys for the key-escrow microcircuits
>> installed in communications equipment.  In each case, the key
>> holder must agree to strict security procedures to prevent
>> unauthorized release of the keys.  The keys shall be released only
>> to government agencies that have established their authority to
>> acquire the content of those communications that have been
>> encrypted by devices containing the microcircuits.  The Attorney
>> General shall review for legal sufficiency the procedures by which
>> an agency establishes its authority to acquire the content of such
>> communications.
>> 
>> PROCUREMENT AND USE OF ENCRYPTION DEVICES
>> 
>> The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other appropriate
>> U.S. agencies, shall initiate a process to write standards to
>> facilitate the procurement and use of encryption devices fitted
>> with key-escrow microcircuits in federal communications systems
>> that process sensitive but unclassified information.  I expect this
>> process to proceed on a schedule that will permit promulgation of
>> a final standard within six months of this directive.
>> 
>> The Attorney General will procure and utilize encryption devices to
>> the extent needed to preserve the government's ability to conduct
>> lawful electronic surveillance and to fulfill the need for secure
>> law enforcement communications.  Further, the Attorney General
>> shall utilize funds from the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture
>> Super Surplus Fund to effect this purchase.
>> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54612
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes...
>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.

	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?
	Further, the BD members have as much reason to lie as the 
	Gov't.


>Medical Examiners have found no bullet wounds, as was stated by the
>FBI, on the corpses.

	They'd only autopsied one body when this information was released.
	I wouldn't doubt though


>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
>the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.

	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54613
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff


In article <C5w0C9.2D0@intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>In <1993Apr21.182458.12735@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> news&aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET) News (brenda kenworthy) writes:
>
>>And another thing that puzzles
>>me--why are they finding dead bodies inside who had bullet holes already in 
>>them???  Don't you think it's possible that Koresh shot the TRAITORS rather 
>>than letting them out???
>
>Possible.  I wouldn't put it past him.  It is also possible that they
>were hit by rounds exploding in the extreme heat.  Remember that kept
>the cops away for hours.  I have only heard that bodies were found
>shot, not any coroner's cause of death.

So far, the medical examiner (according to the news) has found NO EVIDENCE
of gunshot wounds in bodies so far examined.  If this continues to be
the case, it will sort of shoot holes (pun intended) in the FBI story,
wouldn't it?  And cartridges going off outside a firearm do not launch
a bullet like they do when fired from a gun.  The bullet hardly moves,
it is the brass casing that goes flying, and then with less than lethal
force.  It will hurt, yes, but not KILL you - I doubt if it wil penetrate
a coat, for example.

How about an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full subpoena powers, and
powers to prosecute on felony charges, to investigate for any possible
illegal/criminal activity on the part of both the BATF and FBI?  I
cannot see any reason why not - to use the phrase they like to use
so often, "if they have nothing to hide..." they should welcome it,
and vigorously support it.  Note that an internal investigation by the
Dept of Justice is NOT an independent investigation...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54614
From: pagan@DPW.COM (Kathleen M. Pagan)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>
>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?
>
Yes, the local sheriff stated that anytime he wanted to talk to Koresh, all
he had to do was call him and Koresh would come down.


>
>
>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

Full agree with you here.  I think its ridiculous that he did not even talk
to Janet Reno until sometime Tuesday, however, he did talk with Wendell
Hubbel(?).  So who really is the Attorney General????


Hopefully the investigation will answer some of these bizarre questions.

Katie

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54615
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:

> To Rob and all others that have been debating about the wood stove.
>    The original post claimed that the ATF/FBI was pumping napalm into the 
> building with the hopes that the wood stove inside would ignite it.  I responed
> with why would the wood stove be lit in the first place?  It wouldn't be lit 
> for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas. 

Which statement is dead wrong, because our local posters have confirmed that 
it was quite chilly that morning.

> Everyone now claims that it was for cooking.

No, we argue that it was not entirely unreasonable for a woodstove to be 
operational.

> Stop and think about this.  CS gas was being pumped
> into the building and I presume that everyone was wearing gas masks (either
> bought or some type of makeshift type) and this had been going on for 6 hours.
> I don't know if you have ever been around CS, but I have.  Being exposed to CS
> gas was part of my Army training, so I know that without a mask it VERY 
> uncomfortable and makes your eyes water, nose run, and makes you sick in 
> the stomach.  And with the mask it is very difficult to drink water much less 
> eat.  So my question now is "why were they cooking food?"

Obviously you missed my earlier posting about the physica of woodstoves.
In brief, you can't turn your woodstove on and off like your gas range.
It stays on all the time.  It even stays "on" for over 24 hours AFTER you
shut it off (which is why most working woodstoves aren't ever "shut off"
until spring).
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54616
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter's address?

In article <1993Apr23.002908.24394@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> williams@bagels.enet.dec.com (Bryan H. Williams) writes:
>
>In article <16BB89C7D.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu>, R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes...
>>In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com>
>>kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
<< 
<<<
<<<Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him
<<<for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation
<<<into the Waco mess.
<< 
<<If I had Arlen's address, I would go to his house (Do weasels live
<<in houses or in holes?) and personally tell him what a pathetic idiot
<<he is.  Arlen is the personification of the word "jerk". [snip...]
<< 
<I'm no fan of Arlen Spectre's, but he did the right thing, and attacking his
<motives in this case is wrong. 

Pardon me, here, but I don't trust Spectre's motives here at all.  Spectre
was a major part of the Warren Commission, (remember the magic bullet theory?)
and is NOT to be trusted if there's even the tiniest chance the guv'mint may
have done something wrong.  If he gets a chance I'm afraid he will satisfy
the public outcry with another whitewash.

<Unfortunately, if some of us get our wish and the BATF is disbanded or folded
<into the FBI,  etc., we may end up with a "more efficient" agency than the
<bumbling and competition we have today. Some agents should be fired. Some
<should be prosecuted. But keep them as bumbling as possible -- we retain more
<of our liberties that way.
<
Right on the money here.  We should certainly applaud the disbanding of the 
BARTF but we must stress the personal responsibility of the goons who set
up the assault on American citizens.  

We must NOT count on Spectre, though, to get it done.

RJL


-- 
Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54617
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas

In article <1993Apr23.130234.23728@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
> Saw a REAL interesting report on CNN last night;  it seems the gas that
> was used has been banned by international law for military use.  However,
> our president was quick to point out that "there are exemptions for law
> enforcement".  Hmmm...  too inhumane to use in war against the enemy,
> but OK for civilians

Whoa.  Think twice, now, unless you want the same standards applied to
hollowpoints...
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54618
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
>jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>>>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
>>>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
>>>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
>>>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
>>>crime.
>>
>>What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
>>any of these things?  Evidence, please?
>>
>> Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point tha
>there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
>there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
>of common incidents.

Saying "hopefully the effect of policy X will be Y" is *much* different
from saying "hopefully if there is any effect of policy X it will be Y."
Here you've made both statements.
If the former describes a reasonably-likely outcome of policy X, then
perhaps policy X is worthy of consideration - but the latter statement
is not something to base policy decisions on!

> Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
>ages 14 and under.

According to groups like the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (formerly
the National Coalition to Ban Handguns - interesting name change, don't you
think?) who include murder and suicide by firearms in the "leading causes of
unintentional death) figures but *don't* include murder and suicide by other
means as causes of unintentional death.  Can't you see past the bullshit?

>  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
>deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
>What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
>I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
>justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
>gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
>person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
>gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.

Certainly accidental deaths by any cause are serious things - but the
anti-gun groups insist over and over again that accidental death by
firearms is a *stastically serious problem*, and even if you don't use
these deaths as a justification for gun control, these groups do.  I'm
sorry if I jumped to conclusions about your reason for mentioning
accidental deaths due to firearms being something that warranted concern,
but in light of your statement that you are a staunch supporter of gun
control measures, I think the conclusion was a reasonable one.
The fact remains that tragic though individual accidental gun deaths may
be, they are *not* a serious problem statistically speaking.

>>Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
>>
> My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
>departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
>giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
>to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
>had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
>useful.

Sorry if it wasn't clear to me.  I thought you were waffling on your view
of buyback programs with the talk of symbolic offerings and hopefully
preventing accidents and heat-of-passion shootings.  I have to disagree on
all these counts; I can't understand how a buying guns from people who
aren't intending to misuse them (obviously those who want to use guns to
commit crimes aren't going to turn them in) could be construed as a
positive way for police to respond to "interpersonal violence."

>>I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
>>suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
>>students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
>>to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
>>who carry a gun to school daily.
>>
> Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence

What, the people who publish figures saying that as many children commit
suicide by HANDGUNS ALONE each year as the FBI says commit suicide by ALL
METHODS per year?  Who do you think I should believe?  The people who call
everyone up to age 24 "children" when they're screaming about the "carnage
of our nation's children" being caused by handguns?

>or the Centers for Disease Control.

Ah, yes, the agency that considers accidental shootings of children to be
such a statistical problem that a stated objective in the Healthy People
2000 document is to "enact laws in 50 states requiring manufacturers of
handguns to make the handguns more difficult to fire, minimizing the
likelihood of accidental or intentional dscharge by children?"  The
agency that funded the "study" of DC which pronounced that the DC gun ban
had saved X lives (yes, they actually gave us a number) on the basis of
a look at the *number* of shootings rather than the *rate* of shootings?
It wasn't their fault that the population of DC dropped in their "post law"
period...


>  If YOU look carefully you will see
>that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
>The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
>400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
>that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
>in 1990.

Okay, I'll concede I no longer have the numbers I once read on these.  I'll
retract my dispute of your numbers.  However, I would be greatly interested
in seeing how CPHV and CDC came up with these numbers.

>  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
>children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
>to guns in their home.

What's this got to do with anything?  Hell, when *I* was in elementary
school I came home to an empty house with guns in it.  Why is this a
problem?  I didn't touch the guns - I had been taught not to.  I had also
been taught not to mess with the gasoline in the garage, the fuse box, the
car, the knives, the oven, and the tools.  The problem is not the guns,
it's the parents!!!

>  California schools reported a 200% increase in
>student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
>1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
>schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".

And what are these states doing with the kids they find with guns?
NOTHING.  No criminal prosecution, no expulsion, in most cases not even
suspension.  They take the gun, slap the kids on the wrist, say "ain't it
awful," and go on as if everything's back to normal.  What's wrong with
this picture?

> Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
>situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
>act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
>these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
>would not let innocent children die.

I don't think Koresh was the Messiah, either... but isn't it obvious that
if he believed the forces of evil were come to destroy him, then he
believed the children were much safer inside the compound?  I didn't say
he was sane... just that he behaved in a pretty rational manner given what
he thought was going on.  He thought he had them in the one place where
harm *wouldn't* come to them.

>If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
>did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
>burn alive?

Let's see *you* try to find the exits, unbarricade them, and flee a fire
when you've been kept awake for most of 50 days by loudspeakers and subjected
to six hours of tanks knocking in your walls and tear gas assault.

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54619
From: azoun@cormyr.att.com (Joe Preiser)
Subject: Re: Gun Control, who needs it?

In article <1r7693$64f@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>3) The "teflon bullet" bill proposed by NRA included MUCH more than
                                         ^^^
				I think you mean HCI here.

>   "teflon bullets" -- it would have banned damn near ALL COMMON HUNTING
>   AMMUNITION.
>

>4) We finally did get a bill that outlawed the sale of "teflon bullets" --
>   and ONLY "teflon bullets" -- outside the law enforcement community.
>   Guess who wrote it, Joe m'boy?  It was your beloved NRA.
>

[snip]

>Followups to t.p.g.
>-- 
>
>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...
>

				Joe
-- 
 Joe Preiser					AT&T Bell Laboratories
 azoun@cormyr.att.com				Room IH 6G-329	
 cormyr!azoun					2000 N. Naperville Rd.
 (708) 979-4152					Naperville, IL 60566

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54620
From: random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  ():

> 
> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds. 

So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't
seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more
than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What
proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any
"banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your
wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?

> You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.

Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's
going to insult you AND your mom!

> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend
> sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the
> paranoia.

Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior.
Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing
             the same ranch-house.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
                                ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.

Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?

	Random
	

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54621
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>, () writes:

> Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
> generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
> Just let him be?

You're sitting in your home reading a good book.  Your neighbors think
you're a quiet, upstanding citizen.  A random person anonymously calls 
the authorities and tells them you beat your children, sleep with all 
the neighbor wimmen, and own a bunch of "nasty 50mm machine guns."  

Now what are they supposed to do?  

> Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
> the first time.

Ah, I see.  They're supposed to send 100 men in horse trailers with
automatic weapons, storm onto your roof, and throw grenades at your 
house with no warning.  Then, after subjecting you to noise torture
and telling the national news media for a month what a filthy son of 
a bitch you are, they're supposed to gas you and knock your house 
around a bit until they manage to collapse it, cause a fire, or 
something equally conclusive.

Hope your neighbors don't tumble to this -- at least none of them that
might have a craving for a ringside seat at some cheap but dramatic 
local entertainment at someone else's expense.  Or maybe even
PARTICULARLY at your expense.

At least they won't have to read you your rights, Joe -- obviously you
had no use for them anyway.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
-- 

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...












Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54622
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <23APR199314304189@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu writes:

> In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes...
> >From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
> >the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
> >tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.
> 
> 	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
> 	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?

  There was at least one blast consistent with petroleum products that I
saw, however propane is interesting stuff.  It doesn't explode on contact with
air.  It is *possible* for a tank to rupture without exploding.  Far more
likely, however, is that the compound was equipped with NG outlets running to
the tank.  Damage from the CEV's could have ruptured the gas lines, allowing
the gas to spread, unnoticed in the CS fumes and general excitement (propane
typically has a distinctive odor added to it for just this reason -- to smell
leaks), until reaching a flame or spark, and then Whooosh!  Fire everywhere,
and maybe an explosion.  Use of NG is pretty common in Texas, especially
semi-rural areas.

> 	Further, the BD members have as much reason to lie as the 
> 	Gov't.

  This is true, but so far the FBI/BATF track record on this incident is very
bad.

> >I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
> >the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
> 	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
> 	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

  I think it would have disarmed many people if the FBI followed this same
policy.  They have not.  They are making claims without evidence, and what
evidence we have so far tends to refute their story.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54623
From: cgwillme@pyr.swan.ac.uk (r b willmersdorf)
Subject: Once upon a time ...

american and european universities were full of Angry Young People(tm)
that wanted to overthrow the government, and wouldn't think twice
about lobbing a molotov cocktail at the national guard (military police
in Europe.)

Certainly, it would have been very bad form to take anything
the System(tm) said at face value.

This was in the end of the sixties and the begining of the seventies,
I'm told. I was too young to remember.

Something wrong happened along the way, I'm afraid.  Maybe the west
became just too comfortable, or maybe I was born too late :(

Yours, disappointed with with the youth of today,

PS: 1) Half smilies implied.
    2) There *is* a difference between lining up 90 people against the
       wall and executing them, and causing their deaths through negligence/
       imcompetence.  I honestly hope we witnessed the latter.  As they say,
       the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
    3) I'm sure the Abused Children(tm) from the compound are much 
       safer now.
-- 

Ramiro || cgwillme@pyr.swan.ac.uk

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54624
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <23APR199314304189@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
>	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?

From what I saw of the videotape, there was an explosion which looked
more like one due to propane rather than (official version)
ammunition.

>	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
>	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
>	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

If only we could be certain that the hard evidence will be released.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54625
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu wrote:
> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it.

There it is.  The Constitution isn't for "sociopaths", only "normal"
people, eh?  We mustn't allow our Constitution to be cheapened by applying
it to everybody, eh?

You disgust me.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54626
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <22APR199317092767@zeus.tamu.edu>, mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

> >David Koresh's lawyer seemed to think that everyone *would* come out
> >peacefully sooner or later.  The FBI and ATF had NOTHING BUT TIME ON
> >THEIR HANDS!  Why did they have to escalate the situation and cause
> >this senseless tragedy?  Their job is to protect the public and SAVE
> >LIVES NOT KILL PEOPLE for crying out loud.
> 
> 	Koresh had lied and lied and lied about coming out of the
> 	compound. To the FBI. To his lawyer. To just about everyone.

I keep hearing this, but every assertion of this form has come from
government sources except two.  As far as I am concerned, I am not
ready to stipulate that Koresh EVER promised to come out except for
his first promise and his last promise.

The first promise was conditional on his audio tape being given 
NATIONAL exposure.  Well, it never was -- it was broadcast locally,
in a chopped-up fashion, and that's all.  And even then, they cleverly 
cut it off when it got to the part where he demanded "national exposure,"
but not so cleverly that we didn't hear it.

The last promise was conditional on the finishing of his manuscript.
We'll never know if he would have kept that one.

> 	The FBI etc. can't wait forever for Koresh to come out. As
> 	long as they thought that Koresh's intended to surrender 
> 	peacefully. When they lost hope in that, they decided to go
> 	in. 

Strangely enough, the previous day they said they were prepared to
"wait as long as it takes."

>	Further, while the Mondays tactics were silly and clumsy,
>	they were obviously intended to drive the Davidians out of the
> 	compound, not to kill Koresh and his followers. 

Quite possible.  But arguments of intent do not mark the dividing 
line between guilt and innocence -- only the line between murder and 
negligent manslaughter.

> 	*If* it is true. *I* read in the paper that the government 
> 	listening devices inside the compound picked up orders to 
> 	burn the joint down shortly before the fire was started. I'm
> 	waiting to see what the tapes really hold.

This would be an interesting development.

> 	The Davidian may be telling the truth, or he may be lying
> 	to save his skin from possible murder charges resulting from
> 	the blaze. Koresh's lawyer, being the attorney for at least
> 	one surviving Davidian, has an interest in claiming that
> 	the gov't caused the fire, at least as much as the gov't
> 	has an interest in blaming Koresh for the fire. It's the
> 	physical evidence that will decide who's telling what.

It's too tempting for one or more of the survivors to "go state's
evidence," parrot the FBI story, hang the whole "suicide" on Koresh, 
claim they only stayed at gunpoint, etc.  If any of them do this
in the next few weeks, it doesn't prove much; but if none of them
do, it would be a strong indication to me that the FBI story is
dead wrong.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54627
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: What if the Dividians were black?

In article <1993Apr9.134525.21567@medtron.medtronic.com> rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls) writes:
>Kenneth D. Whitehead (kdw@icd.ab.com) wrote:
>: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
>
>: > Questions for the media and the politically correct:
>: > 
  [...]
>: > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits

Some of the Davidians *are* black.

Next question?


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54628
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

Mr. Nice Guy (rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start
: violence.
:  
: When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back.
: But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for
: their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It
: is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical
: attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.

  This is the first I've heard of the BD capturing and releasing ATF agents.
Is there any more info about this?

Rob P.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54630
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear
>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapons
>that are being confiscated.

Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16
from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and
a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various
versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?

If so, I'd love to hear the details, if only because they'll demonstrate
that Kratz is blowing smoke.

Considering that one can design a gun so that it looks just like
another gun, yet have very different properties, and that that's
quite common....

Most kids in my neighborhood were quite young when they figured out
that my parents car wasn't much like Richard Petty's, even though it
looked just like it (except for the paint job).  Things must have been
different with Kratz.

>Sure it's on TV but why does that make a difference?

No, it doesn't, but that's irrelevant.  If visual inspection of the
outside worked, TV would be acceptable, but since it doesn't, the fact
that it's just as good as seeing in person doesn't mean much.

-andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54631
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Weaver trial update

I've been running a daily summary of the Randy Weaver/Kevin
Harris trial from here in Boise.  These summaries are sent
primarily to mailing lists.  However, I was wondering if
people would be interested in seeing them here.  Post or
email.

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54632
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Need info on 43:1 and suicide for refutation

Here's something Preston Covey (professor of ethics at CMU) wrote:

From: "Preston K. Covey" <covey+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Gun Stats & Mortal Risks
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:35:05 -0500 (EST)


Folks,

Hail from the nether world.  On February 4th, the Wall Street Journal
carried a front-page article by Erik Larson entitled "Armed Force."  I
felt a reply was in order to his citation of the notorious scare stat
that "A Gun is 43 times more likely to kill than to protect."  I sent
the following to the WSJ.

-----

Gun Stats & Mortal Risks

Preston K. Covey


	Erik Larson~s even-handed article on Paxton Quigley (~Armed Force,~
2/4/93, WSJ) cites the world~s most notorious ~statistic~ regarding guns
in the home:  ~A pioneering study of residential gunshot deaths in King
County, Washington, found that a gun in the home was 43 times more
likely to be used to kill its owner, spouse, a friend or child than to
kill an intruder.~  The ~43 times~ stat is everywhere these days;  it
has grown in media lore like the proverbial urban myth: it was inflated
by one pugilistic talk-show pundit to ~93.~  Given the shock value of
the finding, the conclusion of the 1986 New England Journal of Medicine
(NEJM) study is remarkably understated:  ~The advisability of keeping
firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.~ 
 
	Responsible people should indeed question the risks and benefits of
bringing a firearm into their home.   But what we need to know is this: 
What exactly are the risks and benefits?  The NEJM testimony is neither
the whole truth about the benefits nor nothing but the truth about the
risks.  Further, as with motor vehicles, we want to know:  What control
do we have over the risks and benefits?  And, as with the risks of
cancer or heart disease or auto accidents:  How can we minimize the
risks?  Like raw highway death tolls, the NEJM stat is not very helpful
here. 

	The NEJM finding purports to inform us, but it is framed to warn us
off.  It is widely promulgated in the media as a ~scare stat,~ a
misleading half-truth whose very formulation is calculated to prejudice
and terrify.  The frightful statistic screams for itself:  The risks far
outweigh the benefits, yes?   What fool would run these risks?   If your
car were 43 times more likely to kill you, a loved one, a dear friend or
an innocent child than to get you to your destination,  should you not
take the bus?  

	Uncritical citation puts the good name of statistics in the bad company
of lies and damned lies.   Surely, we can do better where lives are at
stake.   Let~s take a closer look at this risky business:

	The ~43 times~ stat of the NEJM study is the product of dividing the
number of home intruders/aggressors justifiably killed in self-defense
(the divisor) into the number of family members or acquaintances  killed
by a gun in the home (the dividend).  The divisor of this risk equation
is 9: in the study~s five-year sample there were 2 intruders and 7 other
cases of self-defense.  The dividend is 387:  in the study there were 12
accidental deaths, 42 criminal homicides, and 333 suicides.  387 divided
by 9 yields 43.  There were a total of 743 gun-related deaths in King
County between 1978 and 1983,  so the study leaves 347 deaths outside of
homes unaccounted.

	The NEJM~s notorious ~43 times~ statistic is seriously misleading on
six counts:

	1.  The dividend is misleadingly characterized in the media:  the ~or
acquaintances~ of the study (who include your friendly drug dealers and
neighborhood gang members) is equated to ~friends.~  The implication is
that the offending guns target and kill only beloved family members,
dear friends, and innocent children.  Deaths may all be equally tragic,
but the character and circumstance of both victims and killers are
relevant to the risk.  These crucial risk factors are masked by the
calculated impression that the death toll is generated by witless
Waltons shooting dear friends and friendly neighbors.  This is
criminological hogwash.

	2.   The study itself does not distinguish households or environs
populated by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories
-- where the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited
by more civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities
like drug dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is
very low indeed.  In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but
avoidable accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with
histories of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and
certifiably at ~high risk~ for misadventure.  To ignore these obvious
risk factors in firearm accidents and homicides is as misleading as
ignoring the role of alcohol in vehicular deaths: by tautology, neither
gun deaths nor vehicular deaths would occur without firearms or
vehicles; but the person and circumstance of the gun owner or driver
crucially affect the risk. 

	3.  One misleading implication of the way the NEJM stat is framed is
that the mere presence of a gun in the home is much more likely to kill
than to protect, and this obscures -- indeed, disregards -- the role of
personal responsibility.  The typical quotation of this study (unlike
Larson~s) attributes fatal agency to the gun:  ~A gun in the home is 43
times as likely to kill . . . .~  (The Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence, a major promulgator of the NEJM statistic, uses this
particular formulation.)  We can dispense with the silly debate about
whether it~s people or guns that accomplish the killing:  again, by
tautology, gun  deaths would not occur without the guns.  The question
begged is how many deaths would occur anyway, without the guns.  In any
case, people are the death-dealing agents, the guns are their lethal
instruments.  The moral core of the personal  risk factors in gun deaths
are personal responsibility and choice.  Due care and responsibility
obviate gun accidents; human choice mediates homicide and suicide (by
gun or otherwise).  The choice to own a gun need not condemn a person to
NEJM~s high-risk pool.  The gun does not create this risk by itself. 
People have a lot to say about what risk they run with guns in their
homes.  For example, graduates of Paxton Quigley~s personal protection
course do not run the touted ~43 times~ risk any more than skilled and
sober drivers run the same risks of causing or suffering vehicular death
as do reckless or drunk drivers.  Undiscriminating actuarials disregard
and obscure the role of personal responsibility and choice, just as they
disregard and obscure the role of socio-economic, criminological and
other risk-relevant factors in firearm-related death.  This is why we
resent insurance premiums and actuarial consigment to risk pools whose
norms disregard our individualities.  Fortunately, nothing can consign
us to the NEJM risk pool but our own lack of choice or responsibility in
the matter.

	4.  Suicide accounts for 84% of the deaths by gun in the home in the
NEJM study.  As against the total deaths by gun in King County,
including those outside the home, in-house suicides are 44% of the total
death toll, which is closer to the roughly 50% proportion found by other
studies.  Suicide is a social problem of a very different order from
homicide or accidents.  The implication of the NEJM study is that these
suicides might not occur without readily available guns.  It is true
that attempted suicide by gun is likely to succeed.  It is not obviously
true that the absence of a gun would prevent any or all of these
suicides.  This is widely assumed or alleged, but the preponderance of
research on guns and suicide actually shows otherwise, that this is
wishful thinking in all but a few truly impulsive cases.  (See:  Bruce
L. Danto et al., The Human Side of Homicide,  Columbia University Press,
1982;  Charles Rich et al.,  ~Guns and Suicide,~  American Journal of
Psychiatry,  March 1990.)  If suicides were removed from the dividend of
the NEJM study~s risk equation, the ~43 times~ stat would deflate to
~six.~  The inclusion of suicides in the NEJM risk equation -- like the
causes, durability, or interdiction of suicidal intent itself -- is a
profoundly debatable matter.  Quotations of the NEJM study totally
disregard this issue.

	5.  Citations of the NEJM study also mislead regarding the estimable
rate of justifiable and excusable homicide.  Most measures, like the
NEJM homicide rate, are based on the immediate disposition of cases. 
But many homicides initially ruled criminal are appealed and later ruled
self-defense.  In the literature on battered women, immediate case
dispositions are notorious for under-representing the rate of
justifiable or excusable homicide. Time~s January 18, 1993, cover story
on women ~Fighting Back~ reported one study~s finding that 40% of women
who appeal have their murder convictions thrown out.  Time~s July 17,
1989, cover story on a week of gun deaths reported 51% of the domestic
cases as shootings by abuse victims; but only 3% of the homicides were
reported as self-defense.  In a May 14, 1990, update, Time  reported
that 12% of the homicides had eventually been ruled self-defense. In
Time~s sample, the originally reported rate of self-defense was in error
by a factor of four.  The possibility of such error is not acknowledged
by promulgators of the NEJM statistic. 

	6.  While both the dividend and the product of the NEJM risk equation
are arguably inflated, the divisor is unconscionably misleading.  The
divisor of this equation counts only aggressors who are killed,  not
aggressors who are successfully thwarted without being killed or even
shot at.   The utility of armed self-defense is the other side of the
coin from the harms done with guns in homes.  What kind of moral idiocy
is it to measure this utility only in terms of killings ?  Do we measure
the utility of our police solely in terms of felons killed  -- as
opposed to the many many more who are otherwise foiled, apprehended, or
deterred?  Should we not celebrate (let alone count ) those cases where
no human life is lost as successful armed defenses?  The question posed
to media that cite the NEJM scare stat is this:  Why neglect the
compendious research on successful armed defense, notably by
criminologist Gary Kleck (Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America ,
Aldine de Gruyter, 1992)?
	Kleck~s estimations of the rate and risk of defensive firearm use are
based on victimization surveys as well as other studies:  the rate is
high (about one million a year) and the risk is good (gun defenders fare
better than anyone, either those who resort to other forms of resistance
or those who do not resist).  Dividing one million gun defenses a year
by 30,000 annual gun deaths (from self-defense, homicides, suicides, and
accidents) yields 33.  Thus, we can construct a much more favorable
statistic than the NEJM scare stat:  

A gun is 33 times more likely to be used to defend against assault or
other crime than to kill anybody.   

	Of course, Kleck~s critics belittle the dividend of this calculation;
what is good news for gun defenders is bad news for gun control.  We
should indeed question the basis and method of Kleck~s high estimation
of defensive firearm use, as I have questioned the NEJM statistic. 
Clearly, the issue of how to manage mortal risks is not settled by
uncritical citation of statistics.   One thing troubles me still:  we
can hardly escape the unquestioned NEJM scare stat in our media,  but we
hardly ever find Kleck~s good work mentioned,  even critically.

-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54633
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Subject: Senator Patty Murrey's tax proposal

   If you haven't heard yet, US Senator Patty Murrey, a Mom in
tennis shoes, is planning to introduce legislation to tax
all handgun transactions and increase dealer licnese costs in
order to raise money to cover the costs of un-insured shooting
victums.  She plans to start with $2500.00 per year dealer fees
and $40.00 or so, depending on the type of firearm, per gun
transaction.  She plans to make it federal.
   She was elected in Washington state under the trade mark as
just a mom in tennis shoes.  She can be written to via the
United States Senate, Washinton DC.  She is looking for your
tennis shoes.  So if you have a pair please send them to her
with your feelings regarding this tax.  
   She claims she has heard little from the opposition.

Lets inundate her!


-- 
BIGOT!  The definition of a bigot is a conservative winning an argument!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54634
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1r8m19INNeph@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
/>/:/g
j:Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
:>coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
:>the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
:>to die.
:
:	Is CS gas lighter or heavier than air?  Do you know?  If the

CS is heavier than air... most chemical weapons are...

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54636
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Reno, fascist dog 

In article <1993Apr23.010640.4583@news.columbia.edu>, pgf5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Garfiel Freeman) writes:
> Janet Reno should be lauded for her decision to attack the 
> compound of the Davidians.  I mean, the last thing we 
> need in this country is more gun-toting hicks who want
> to end the world.  I think ATF, the US Marshalls, the FBI and local
> police forces should make a concerted effort to rid us 
> of the scourge of rebellious freaks.
> 
> Welch eine Wonne!  Welch ein Leiden!
> 
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
	While dedicating the Holocaust Memorial Museum, President 
Clinton remarked:

	``The evil represented in this museum is incontestable, 
but as we are its witness, so must we remain its adversary in the 
world in which we live, so we must stop the fabricators of history 
and the bullies as well."

	Clinton made this comment shortly after giving Janet Reno 
the go-ahead to hastily construct a gas chamber and crematorium
in Waco... on the fiftieth anniversary of the Warsaw uprising.

	Say, wasn't Monday also the anniversary of Paul Revere's ride?
Is that a clue?
	
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54637
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)

The suggestion that they Davidians committed suicide is
completely without evidence.  Except for the editorials...

Please re-word.  "propensity for allegedly dousing themselves".

Oh, and the survivors claim the the FBI started the burning
by accidentally igniting kerosene lanterns (remember that they'd
already cut the power), and the propane tanks.  This sounds
a lot more likely than committing suicide by setting the place
afire.

--D
-- 
-- -- -- David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu) -- -- --
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will &*kh*&n*&b&mk


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54638
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: The LAW of RETRIBUTION

In article <lteid7INN88q@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:

[re McElwaine]

> Is there NOWHERE on the net that this guy WILL NOT POST?

I just heard this week that he has started on COMPUSERVE flying models
forum now.  Sigh.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54639
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu> blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes:
>I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.
>
>Apparently not.
>
>Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.

That's right.  Despite claims that someone at Kent State fire a shotgun
at the the soldiers, the only projectiles that anyone can prove where
sent in the direction of the soldiers were rocks.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54640
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

From article <1r492jINN5fo@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, by nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish):
> In article <1993Apr19.184303.6205@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>>
>>both of my Senators, and my Rep.  I also called the White House
>>comment line (was on hold for 8-10 minutes so maybe LOTS of people
>>are calling).  Please call your Congress Critter/WH comment line NOW!
> 
> 	Just a general note, I have seen several polls lately and they
> show a large majority (a) thinks that this incident was handled ok and
> (b) thinks that the FBI and BATF gave them more than enough time (51 days)
> to come out.

I take it that when something happens that is wrong it's okay if
a bunch of people say it is?  For instance, if some people go on a
murderous rampage and lynch some blacks and then a poll is taken which
shows that the majority of people think that this is acceptable then
does this mean that what these people have done isn't bad?  This is an
example of mob rule not a democracy---a democracy in which people's
rights are protected.  I hope that I've made myself clear on this.

>>Make the following points:
>>
>> 1) Your outrage over todays behaviour.
> 
> 	And what if I'm not outraged?

Fine...you have the right to hold any opinion that you want to.  But,
let me ask you this:  are you outraged over this tragedy?  I hope
that you are, your opinions of David Koresh and his followers not
withstanding.  I know I am.

>> 2) Since BATF Chief Higgens AND Janet Reno were the 2 who "signed off"
>>    on this plan, demand that they be fired!
> 
> 	Actually, they should both be commended...

Why?  I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.

>> 5) Point out that even if the fire was set by someone inside of the
>>    building, it came as a direct result of the actions of the FBI/BATF.
>>    And the people inside (including 17 children) deserved a trial, instead
>>    of this.
> 
> 	What I want to know is what exactly did you expect them to do?  I
> can see it now...the 11 o'clock news...  "FBI and BATF agents still
> surround the Waco compound after 451 days..."  I don't think so.  They gave
> them every chance.  They had 51 days to surrender to proper authorities.
> They had attornies representing them, etc.  Koresh lied time and time again.
> I don't wish them dead but you can't let it stalemate forever.  It was time
> to do something and the FBI and BATF did.  What happened was unfortunate
> but acceptable (as long as the FBI didn't set the fire intentionally).
> 
> -- 
> Michael G. Larish       | Amateur Radio Callsign:  KD6CTZ
> nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu | Golden Empire Amateur Radio Society (GEARS) - W6RHC
> California State        | Chico State Amateur Radio Society (CSARS)
> University, Chico       | Butte County Sheriff's Search & Rescue - #317


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me

         *******************************************
         * BATF = Cigarette Cops                   *
         * FBI  = Fuehrer's Bureau of Incineration *
         *******************************************




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54641
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, () writes:
> > Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.

> > Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the dictionary  
> > of "cult".

> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's

Know any Mormons?

> and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds.

Know for a fact that this was happening?  State of Texas says it wasn't,
and they held a trial to prove it.

> You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.

Sure we can.  The top two things are perfectly legal.  The bottom one
isn't.  The person here who can't distinguish seems to be you.

> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it.

So the constitution is only for people you approve of.  Fine, fine.
I usually refer to that as "elitism," because "bigotry" is so negative.

> Get a life and chill on the paranoia.

Knowing that people like you are out there really gives me warm fuzzies.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54642
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  writes:
>In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
>Arras) wrote:
>>   
>> You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal agencies  
>> you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from your  
>
>I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
>and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry

Hmm... all reports from Texas authorities indicate that none of the children
which the group released showed any signs of child abuse.. given that the same
results were found the last time the group was investigated for such allegations,
I can pretty much state that I strongly suspect the government of disinformation
/deception on this issue.  And about stockpiling weapons/food, many recognized
religous groups practice maintaining a one years supply of food, and some even
maintain a supply of weapons and ammunition, why are those two facts grounds 
for an armed assault?  And from the dollar value of the weapons purchased, 
if they bought decent firearms it comes out to about one handgun, rifle, and
shotgun for each adult, with a few extras...  Going by that rule, the BATF
best get ready for the fight of their life when they assault Alabama...

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54643
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <1993Apr23.162517.14029@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:

> Good question.  Take an objective look at what happened, listen to the 
> things that the FBI said ("The BD's started the fire."  "The BD's bodies
> were found with gunshot wounds.") that are now being refuted by the 
> evidence being recovered.  Seems that the FBI is deliberately making
> statements that have no rational basis in fact, and trying to make
> them sound like fact.  

That's another sad thing.  I'd expect this sort of shit from the BATF.
But I'm goddamn disappointed in the FBI.  They used to be professionals.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54644
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
>there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
>been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
>rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.
>
>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.
>
>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

I think it was - he went into town fairly often, and was known to go
jogging.  This was even during the 9 month period when he was being
watched.  One wonders why the BATF went ahead, when they had been warned
according to an interview with a BATF agent, that the BD were expecting
them, and why they had the media in tow.  Almost looks like they wanted
to have a romp and a nice show for the media, and it all went to hell...

He was also never known to act violently.  He has always surrendered
peacefully before (but of course, the warrants were served peacefully).
He has been tried on the allegations before and found NOT GUILTY.

The justification for this mess was he was alleged to have purchased
$200,000.00 worth of guns and stuff (over an undetermined time period).
Last I heard this is not a crime, or indication of one.  I know of an
INDIVIDUAL with that much value in guns.  SHould he get a fly-thru-the-door
shoot-first-talk-later raid?  (grenades are shooting first, nobody I
know of can say 'oh, thats only a stun grenade, thats OK...').  Can you?
I sure cannot.  Also, one cannot be sure that 200K figure is not calculated
like the Feds calculate the value of a drug siezure...  Even so, it
is a 'so what' issue...  He wasn't bothering anyone (besides the
BATF who doesn't like folks other than themselves or other govt
people having any effective guns)... and having an unapproved
religeous group.  Are we required to not offend the BATF these
days?  I sure hope it hasn't come to THAT...

MY point is, it DOES NOT ADD UP.  We need an independent investigation,
and NOW.  Assuming other than FBI/BATF are preserving the evidence.

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

They had the premisis bugged.  I am inclined to think a further wait
would have saved lives.  One wonders why they didn't have emergency
gear on hand when they moved, and why they didn't turn on the water
when a fire was observed, instead of saying "aw, gee, there is no water".

Why so long before the fire gear even SHOWED UP - like after the building
had pretty much finished burning?  Fireman safety?  Isn't that a decision
the firefighters should be allowed to make?  No water?  Why didn't
the Feds TURN IT BACK ON?  They sure could cut it off quickly enough...

One does wonder about the possibility of 'settling scores'...

>3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?
>
>And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
>general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
>
>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

What does 'taking responsibility' mean?  You think she is going to be
facing jail time if the acts were found to be criminal?  You think
she is going to face ANY repercussions if the FBI/BATF are found to
have acted wrongly?  I don't.  It is a nice PR gimmick, though.

I am not assured there will even be a serious independent investigation
for possible wrongdoing or criminal acts on the part of the BATF or FBI.
I expect to hear "they are our best law enforcement.  They wouldn't do
anything like that - NO WAY.  OUT of the QUESTION.  End of issue".

I want to see an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full prosecuting and
subpoena powers.  With felony prosecution where felony acts are found.
Fat chance, I bet.  I bet the Justice Dept will have an internal
investigation which will turn up at most 'poor judgement'.

I hope I am wrong, that this is gone over with a fine tooth comb.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54645
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5stLG.Fwq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

> Sorry, guy, you got it wrong.  ATF was pumping tear gas into the compound.
> The Branch Davidians (going along with their apocolyptic faith) set their
> own compound on fire killing all but 9 or so.  No children survived.

Seeing as how people are willing to quote the FBI quoting cultists
who just yesterday were deranged and not to be trusted (hmm the FBI
or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.

Maybe true, partly true, or false.
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54646
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Government Exlanations for WACO

When you have no principles, you can't admit that someone else might,
and everyone who acts differently from what you expect can only be a nutcase.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54647
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:

> And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
> general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.

We've heard a lot of talk about brainwashing in Waco but the brainwashing
of the general population never ceases to amaze me. Here is an
example of action being taken which results in the worst possible
outcome and despite people's deep intuition telling them something
is wrong the programming will still cut in and say that the
agents probably acted in good faith. NO THEY DIDN'T. They either did
not have enough information to act in good faith or else they acted
knowing the risk. Sums up human stupidity all over and one of these
days it will destroy the fucking planet: "Oh sorry. Didn't think they
would respond by launching a strike. All our best calculations told
us they were bluffing."

-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54648
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
> In article <1r1j1l$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
>> 
>> Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.
>> 
>> You sick bastard.
>> -- 
>> 
>> 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...
>> 
> 
> Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said 
> that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  However it was the Branch
> Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior" 
> (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that 
> what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their
> lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
> who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and

For goodness sake if they had fired a cruise missile at the compound more
people would have come out alive. It was obvious to anyone with the remotest
contact with reality that such an outcome was likely (not just possible)
however the fire started. As, Mr Lawnmower, you seem to have already entered
your own little virtual reality I guess you can't be expected to understand
things in the real universe.
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54649
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5sIAJ.Ks7@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

> So, why didn't the BD's leave when the gas was first introduced much 
> earlier in the morning?  Didn't they care about the children?
> 
> Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?

Because most of the children were with their parent(s). Do you understand
that concept? Here's a bunch of people who believe in their minds that
the forces of Satanic evil are outside and you expect them to hand over
their own children? Were you born that stupid or does it take a lot
of effort?

-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54650
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
> In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>>
> Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
> really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
> a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."

As I understand it was considered unsafe for the tv networks to get
any closer. Surely the networks can judge the risks of reporting
for themselves. I haven't noticed CNN being banned from Baghdad
hotels yet despite the (all too real) risk of having a cruise
missile land in the lobby. Incidentally has that ever been explained
or are we to assume that out of the whole of the city an off-course
missile just happened to hit that hotel at a probability of about
1 in some very large number?

Unsafe for who I wonder?
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54651
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.195636.17742@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
> --
> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
> *** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
> *** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
> *** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
>     semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

If you really want to trigger the scanners then move the keywords
above the -- signature start bit... You'll only trip them once in
a sig (plus every so often it will flag one for human intervention
just to be sure)

I might not be being serious.

-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54652
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

>>This is a stretch.  In fact, a great many of the persecuted Indians were
>>Christian, a great many.  It would be simpler to state the obvious, that
>>white people wanted land the Indians dominated or threatened.  I really
>>don't think the government cared a hill of beans about the Indians' religion.

>My Native American Girlfriend asks: "If the government really doesn't
>'care a hill of beans' about our religion, how come they're still
>busting us for it in Oregon, Washington, and a few other places?
>You'd be a Christian, too, if the U.S. Army marched you into church
>at gunpoint."

Are you saying that the Indians who became Christians did so because the
US Army marched them into church at gunpoint?

This will be news to the Indians of the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi
basin-- of the Southwest-- of Mexico and South America-- who converted even
before there was such a thing as the US.  Are you saying that Indians are
incapable of coming to a decision themselves about their religion without
being forced to at gunpoint?  What about the Christian Cherokees who were
given the boot by the US government after the Civil War... because the
Cherokee nation gave mild support to the Confederacy, since they themselves
owned black slaves.  No, reducing it all to a matter of religion is to
support a much too narrow view of history.

I've never heard of a single treaty, whether broken by the US government or
not (were any NOT????), that said, if you guys convert to Christianity, you
get to keep all the land you claim.  No, treaties were invariably about land...
it meant ceding Indian claims to the government.  Sometimes in return the
US government promised the hunter-gatherer tribes (and plenty of tribes were
already farming for centuries, but we don't hear about non-Plains Indians
in movies) food and training in return for taking up a non-nomadic existence.
Promises, of course, which all to often proved empty. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54653
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article 1r1lp1INN752@mojo.eng.umd.edu, chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>>Does a "not harmful" gassing mean that you can, with a little willpower,
>>stay inside indefinitely without suffering any serious health problems?
>>
>>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam?
>>
>>What IS the difference, anyway?
>
>CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that
>your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but
>you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies.
>
>Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
>chuck@eng.umd.edu
>


Interesting... after several hours worth of exposure, do you still posess
the presence of mind to be able to determine how to escape from an inferno
surrounding you?  In other words, is it possible that the prolonged gassing
disoriented the wackos enough that possibility of escape was rendered
questionable?


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54654
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Cost/Benefit Analysis  (was FBI Director's Statement...)


In article <1993Apr20.212028.17463@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, 
costley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Brett Costley) said:

>> *sigh* I just DON'T understand why they couldn't have waited Koresh&Co
>> out.  [jlpicard@austin.ibm.com]
>
> Uh, maybe because it was costing hundreds of thousands of dollars a
> day to just sit and wait.

Yeah.  We don't want to spend too much money preserving lives, after
all.  Escpecially when they're all just a bunch of crazy fanatic
cultists anyway, instead of normal people.

[The above is supposed to be dripping with sarcasm, but I'm too burned
out right now (get it? "burned out" ha ha!) to tell if it's working.
Look, folks, what David Koresh and his followers were was _broken_.  It
takes a certain amount of flexibility and insanity to survive in this
world and they didn't have enough of it and that wasn't their fault.  So
please stop dancing on their graves, okay?]

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54655
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>>
>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
>>> in Texas. 
>>
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

Ever hear about cutting off the electricity? That was done.
How effective is an electric stove then?

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54656
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green)  
writes:
> Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
> there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
> been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
> rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

"Widely reported", eh?  Remember, this has had a news blackout since day 2.
The FBI is the single, sole, source of these rumors.  It may be the truth, but  
it may not be.  We may never know.  We MUST question it, though.  Why no media  
coverare?  What were they hiding?

> 
> What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
> believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
> with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
> well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.
> 
> 1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
> some time before the Feb. 28th raid?
> 
It would seem so.

> 2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.
> 

They would still be alive, today.  Another day is another chance.

> 3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of  
action?
> 
I think it contributed to the outcome.  Folks that are sleep deprived tend not  
to think clearly

> And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
> general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
> 
I feel strongly they were NOT proper.

> One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
> "balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
> had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

As expected.  If it had come out well, he would not have hesitated to take full  
credit.


Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54657
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tKI1.C8s@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques  
Fontenot) writes:
> In <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
> >Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
> >there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
> >been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
> >rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.
> 
> Consider this: The BDs had more than one lamp; The tanks made more than
> one hole in the building. Did anyone else notice on the video that it
> appeared that wherever there was smoke coming out of the building, there
> was a tank nearby?
> 
> The fact that it appears that fires started in several places does not
> rule out anything.

I watched it live, and have re-watched it several times, and from the press  
vantage point, there was only one starting point visible, where the tank  
punched in on the windward side, and the winds whipped that fire across the  
whole, dry, wooden, structure in minutes.  Faned by the 30 mph gusts, and the  
Hueys.   If there were other fires started, they were not visible, nor were  
they needed to cause the flame progression I observed.
> 
> Also, where are these several witnesses? The way I heard it (from the FBI
> spokesman on CNN) the "witnesses" were all people driving the tanks.
> 
All witnesses get thier paychecks from the FBI.

> >One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
> >"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
> >had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.
> 
> Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have
> done their job well.
> 
Yep.  They media has endorsed the FBI version without question.  Sad.

> Dwayne Jacques Fontenot
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54658
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> /  3:34 pm  Apr 18, 1993 /

>>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Listen buddy, if you're going to quote Star Trek get the quote right.  It was
>"Resistance is futile".  Get it right the next time :-)

Sounds like a VOGON quote to me..... Perhaps YOU should READ more widely 
instead of watching that idiot box....

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54659
From: phd85@seq1.keele.ac.uk (D.H. Holden)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

From article <1qvjh9INNh4l@hp-col.col.hp.com>, by dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff):
> NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!

   Brilliant I like it!
--
Dave Holden Phys. Dept. |  Email:                          
keele university.       | phd85@uk.ac.keele.seq1          
keele. staffs. England. |                                   
-----------------------------------------------------------x

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54660
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:



>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....
>This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!
>(Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the
>figures but they're still *pretty* high right??)
>I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......

In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.
And your numbers are misleading; they include suicides and accidents.  The
real number from the Department of Public Safety:

                   Murders, Non-neg hom		Car fatalities
1991			2651			  3079
1992			2240			  3057

Texas only has "liberal" gun laws as far as purchasing a firearm; aside 
from that, it's probably more restrictive than most states as far as carry
goes.


>One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
>only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

The state was Virginia, and the law passed.

>I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
>other people.

That right only inflicts on those who threaten my rights to life,
liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., in the first place.  I am not
a criminal, and I don't indiscriminately fire my weapons at random.  
So please explain how I am "inflicting" anything on other people.

>	This is not a .signature.
>	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
>	and to bring down the evil Internet.


>                        Thomas Parsli
>                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54661
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
>gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
>is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
>research purposes on such chemicals.

>I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
>definitions.

I hope you realize how trivial it is to manufacture these compounds.  Given
about $10k in lab equipment and chemicals (which are commercially available)
and given the knowledge that I have (graduating BS, Ch, 1993) I could 
synthesize enough of these compounds to make a serious dent in the population
of several major US cities.  As also noted, the knowledge is there for
the production of nuclear weapons.  It's not even that restricted.  The
only thing is the expense.  

Now I'm not going around making these things, but it's not 'cause of any
law; I simply don't get any marginal benefit out of killing anyone.  Any
law you enact in this respect is only going to give you the ability to 
add a charge against someone who does make and use said weapons.  In the
case of chemical agents, I seriously doubt that you would even know that
someone had set up a lab until after the weapons had been used.  

Part of the trouble with the chemical-weapons ban treaty between the US
and the USSR is that many of the precursors to chemical weapons such as
GB and Sarin, etc., is that they have very valid commercial uses, and 
it is very easy to divert those precursors to chemical weapons manufacture
without anyone knowing about it.

>>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
>><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >


>-- 
>doug foxvog
>douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54662
From: se08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth Adam Eliot)
Subject: reference needed....


Does anybody have any solid data on how many legally owned versus
illegally owned firearms are used in crime.  I know the number of
legally owned guns used in crime is small, but I would like a number,
and a reference if possible.

Data should be e-mailed to me.
Open discussion should be directed to talk.politics.guns

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54663
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers

Sorry for posting this here, but noone has replied to my post from the politics
side of the group.

I want to get involved in the fight to save our gun rights.  But first, I need
to get a little more educated.  I've been reading all the magzines and books I
can get my hands on, and sifting through hundreds of messages here in the 
Internet.

I want to obtain a COMPLETE list of Senate Bill and House Resolution
names/numbers.

Can anyone tell me how/where to obtain this info?  Surely there has to be a
way to obtain copies of anti-gun legislation from those *&%$#@'s in Washington.

Any help is appreciated.

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\

| Peter D. Nesbitt |     Air Traffic Controller     | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM    |

|                  |       Oakland Bay TRACON       |                         |

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  CBR600F2 Pilot  |       NRA Member CCX1380F      |  S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |

\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54665
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5tLxr.1xq@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1r21g2INNeah@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
Arras) writes:
> >In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu>  
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu  
> >(Andrew Betz) writes:
> >> >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
> >> >>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
> >> >>
> >> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
> >> >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
> >> >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
> >> 
> >> Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
> >> come out with their hands up several weeks ago.
> >> 
> >It didn't happen.
> 
> And who is responsible for it not happening?
> Certainly not the children.  Koresh was calling the shots.  He was 
> talking with his lawyer and the FBI.  Since others were released safely, 
> there is no sane reason for keeping the children inside the compound.
> 

The FBI and Koresh were calling the shots.  And there were very sane reasons  
for keeping the children, if they let them go, the parents would NEVER see them  
again.  That is not an easy choice, in spite of you cold attitude about it.

> >> >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
> >> >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
> >> >>scenarios.
> >> >
> >> >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
> >> >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
> >> >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.
> >> 
> >> More than someone who would not release children from the compound.
> >> 
> >Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper.
> 
> Not at all.  Are you a Koresh worshiper?

I am a constitution worshiper.  You quite obviously eat anything the  
authorities feed you, without doubt, which makes you no different that a Koresh  
worshiper

> 
> >> I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
> >> I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
> >> 1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.
> >
> >Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show  
you  
> >to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed. 
> 
> Thanks for my laugh of the day!  Definitely a very silly supposition.
> 
If you do not believe this, you are truly naive.  It is not only possible, it  
is easy.  I worked in the broadcast profession, at a network station, in the  
late 70s, I know what I'm saying here.  Embarrasing footage is easy to get, add  
a little sinister music, and the right voice-over, and I'll have you mother  
agreeing to commit you.

> >You should at least view the whole  
> >documentary before you claim it as a source.
> 
> I would if I could.  The news show that showed the lengthy excerpts also 
> had interviews with the filmmaker who made the documentary who basically 
> confirmed what was shown in the excerpts from the time he spent at the 
> compound in 1992.
> 
The news shows were looking for excerpts which backed their position.  Do you  
think they would show excerpts which disproved their points?

> >> I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
> >> bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
> >> responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.
> >
> >Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?  
> >I saw one place.
> 
> I believe that this was reported by local radio reporters on site.
> A fire started in a three story tower at the same time as the two 
> story window shown on the tv coverage.
> 
The reports of multi-starts came solely from the FBI.  Anyone observing the  
fire from the available video would be hard pressed to see more than one point  
of fire.  Which spread across the compound as a uniform rate.

> >> >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
> >> >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
> >> >>ludicrous.
> >> >
> >> >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
> >> >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
> >> >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
> >
> >Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all,  
it  
> >is the root cause of all the other suspicion.
> 
> I thought about mentioning how Reagan and the military treated the press 
> in Grenada and how that set the precedent, but decided it wasn't worthy 
> of discussion.  If the news reporter got shot, you can bet his family 
> would sue the government for letting him into the danger area.

No reported has ever sued the government for such a situation.  They know the  
dangers.  Remember, the BATF invited the initial coverage. And how about a  
simple, remote-controlled, camera or two?  There were ways to provide media  
access.  The FBI obviously just didn't want any.

> 
> The root cause of suspicion in my mind is why 100 people wouldn't flee 
> a building that had numerous exits during the 30 minutes time it took 
> to burn down.  Or why didn't they flee hours earlier when the tear gas was 
> first introduced?  I can find no rational explanation for their behavior.
> 
I can find several.  Tear gas and smoke making it impossible to remove the  
barricades.  Flames blocking exits to the saferooms. Perhaps the gun shots were  
from the FBI, keeping them pinned in?  Who knows?

> -- 
> 

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54666
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5tnGt.224@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1r21vqINNeb8@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
Arras) writes:
> >In article <C5spov.LrE@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
> >Arras) writes:
> >> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >> >writes:
> >> >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
> >> >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
> >> >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear  
> >gassed.
> >> >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
> >> >> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  
> >> 
> >> Unworthy of comment.
> >
> >But apparently true.  My opinion, only, of course.
> 
> So, your opinion is truth.  I see...  :-)
> 

Still mastering the language, eh?  Notice the use of "apparently".

> >> >Humans died  
> >> >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
> >> >actions  
> >> >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  
> >> 
> >> Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
> >> That is undeniable truth.  
> >
> >No, it is not.  It is possible the FBI planned for this to happen, and the  
> >gunfire heard was the FBI keeping the folks inside.  I'm not proposing this  
as  
> >the way it went down, but just to point out that it's not "undeniable" that  
if  
> >they walked out yesterday, they would be alive today.
> 
> You can believe that if you wish.  It is undeniable, however, that people 
> have left the compound unharmed and alive earier in the standoff.
> 
> And since their leader was preaching that they would have an apocalypse, you 
> can not say undeniably that there wouldn't have been a mass suicide if the 
> FBI had simply stayed outside and waited another 51 days.
> 

I'm not denying that at all.  But every day is another chance for a good  
ending, why push it?  Mr. Roby, you are going to die, anyway, why not today?   
Every moment of life is precious.

> >> My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
> >> the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
> >> to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious  
devotion 
> >> to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
> >> and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.
> >
> >My heart "bleeds" for no one.  You are the "bleeding heart".  And I'm sure  
> >beyond any possible doubt that you do not feel for those people as I do.   
You  
> >can not say the heartless things you have said if you did.
> 
> I am the heartless bleeding heart?  You are not making sense.

No, you are the heartless "bleeding heart".  A flaming liberal who "cares  
deeply", who "feels your pain".

> You seem to have no concern that someone would keep children inside this 
> compound when they had 51 days to let them out.  That sounds pretty heartless 
> to me.
> 

You have continually raised this issue, without any understanding of the bonds  
between parent and child.  It is not easy to say a final goodbye to your  
children, I do not think I could do it, either.  If that makes me heartless, so  
be it.  How many children do you have?  I have three.


> I just heard on the news that some of the survivors regret they hadn't 
> stayed in the inferno to prove their loyalty to Koresh.  This makes me 
> sad and sick.
> 

It just makes me sad.  I never claimed Koresh was an angel.

> >> >You seem to say  
> >> >they got what they deserved.
> >> 
> >> I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
> >> more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
> >> wanted and put into motion themselves.
> >
> >"they got what they wanted".  What kind of creature are you that you can  
> >believe this?
> 
> Have you ever heard of Jonestown?
> The sad thing is the people inside the compound were the authority 
> worshipers and their only authority was Koresh/Howell.   If these 
> people were able to think for themselves, there would likely be a lot 
> more survivors today.  Koresh preached a fiery apocalypse as early as 
> last year.
> 

I made the same authority worshiper point about you a few lines back.  And once  
again, Jonestown, however sick it was, was doing OK, until "the Authorities"  
showed up and pushed a fragile person over the edge.  

A bull in a china shop.

> >> I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
> >> by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the  
affair 
> >> from the start.
> >
> >We agree on this.  Now lets have your God, the FBI, investigated, too.
> 
> By all means, the FBI should be investigated, too.  
> BTW, I thought the second ammendment was God.  :-)
> 

Nope, the constitution in total is, for me.  If you think the RKBA is all I'm  
about, you misjudge me.

> >> >Jim
> >> >--
> >> >jmd@handheld.com
> >>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54667
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
:What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
:had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
:
:With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
:more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
:
:With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
:mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few

I hope this is a joke... if not, here's my response:

The BATF has a history of no-knock raids with poor evidence, often resulting in
innocent people being killed or suffering injury to person or property.  I will
NOT support the BATF until they clean up their act... Maybe...  As to equipment,
the BATF has damn near anything it wants...  Their faults were in intelligence
(military and civilian definitions apply), tactics (attacking during DAYLIGHT??), methodology (the FBI stated that it is against government policy to assault
a position where there are non-combatants/potential hostages without attempting
negotiations first), and legality.  The BATF's jurisdiction is TAXES on firearms
and tobacco.  They are a branch of the department of the treasury.  They have
very curiously backed away from their claims of illegal weaponry to push the
child-abuse charges... The BATF has no jurisdiction over non-firearms/tobacco
issues! And the charges of child-abuse had been investigated in the past with
no violence and no validation.  This was a clear case of first the BATF, then
the FBI, having watched too many Rambo movies...  My opinion is that the agent
in charge should be charged with executing an illegal raid, criminal negligence,
murder, civil rights violations, and breaking his/her oath to uphold and defend
the Constitution of the US.  The warrant should be unsealed to reveal to the 
public what justification the BATF thought it had in committing an armed assault
on American citizens.  And while on the issue of investigating this issue,
the Randy Weaver case and the Johnny Lawmaster case should be investigated for
BATF wrongdoing.

James

btw, if the BATF came busting in my windows with concussion grenades, you could damn well bet I would return fire to the utmost of my ability.



-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54668
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno


In a previous article, gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) says:

>
>Fact:  Both Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have admitted responsibility,
>       even grief, over the deaths in Waco.
>
>Fact:  Regardless of who started the fire, there are more than enough
>       things on tape to make a civil rights case against these two.
>       Cruel and unusual punishment (dying tortured rabbits on tape?)
>       come to mind.  
>
>Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of
>       law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty
>       of life in prison.
>
>Fact:  Impeachment is allowable for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
>       Anything that's a federal felony should qualify.
>
>Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to 
>             impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.


     I HEARTILY agree.  Now that the BATF warrant has been 
     unsealed, it is CLEAR that Clinton and Reno supported an
     ILLEGAL raid.  Did they not KNOW this?



     NO authority for a 'no-knock" raid
     NO authority to use helicopters.
     NO authority to search for a "drug lab"

    And, apparently, not even any authority to search for "automatic
    weapons".

     51 days of GOVERNMENT LIES.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54669
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <dusek.735489223@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>>or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>>interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>>started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>>knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.
>
>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>burning building?

Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about
by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good)
perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the
fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and
rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses)
overcame and enveloped them?

In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?

Does that sound plausable?  Not as dramatic as Korash forcing them to
stay, or shooting them (no shot victims found yet), but plausable...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54670
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Street stories

In article <1993Apr23.050442.149681@zeus.calpoly.edu>, sparker@tuba.calpoly.edu (Sean Lawrence Parker) writes:
> 
> I just caught the last bit of the street stories segment on 
> woman and guns.What caught my eye was that two woman were
> shown on the program in mass. and both were carrying 
> concealed. Can you obtain a CCW in mass.?( for the ordinary citizen )

CCW's are issued at the discretion of the police chief, so it varies
town by town.

In my town, forget about anything more than "target and sport" (carry to
and from the gun club / hunting area only) unless you're Mr. Moneybags
with Large Daily Deposits.  ("Your life isn't worth shit, but your money --
now, that's important.")  In other towns, they treat law abiding citizens
like adults.  

Secret game hint: you never know when the rules will be changed -- a change 
in police chief can throw a town from either side of the board to the other
-- fun for the whole family!

Some chiefs will grant you a "personal protection" permit if you have been
attacked or threatened.  Some other blue-suited assholes have been known to 
count this as a NEGATIVE against applicants.

It's a crap shoot, and your rights are the stakes.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54671
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Subject: Waco

Cross-posted to talk.politics.guns from can.politics:

Mark G. Salyzyn (mark@ve6mgs.ampr.org) wrote:
# cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
# >been to Waco, Texas lately? yes, the government takes care of us
# >all, doesn't it? as long as you belong to a government-sanctioned
# >religion.
#
# Excuse me, but didn't these gun-ladden cult members threaten, shoot and kill
# some people?

They threatened no one.  Their neighbours thought they were a little
strange but all in all the kind of people you would want to live
next door to.

One version has the BATF serving a *search* warrant by jumping out
of a horse trailer with guns and tossing concussion grenades.  If
this is the true order of events then the 'cult' could not know
that a search warrant was being served and since there was no proof
that these guys were police,  the 'cult' had every right to defend
themselves.

: Torching themselves shows briliant tactics, and convinces me
: they *realy* belong in society ...

If you watch actual footage of the fire from start to finish it
is not at all clear that fire wasn't started by the tanks.  The
people who survived are claiming that the fire was started by
the tanks knocking over some kerosene lanterns.  The FBI is
claiming that the 'cult' started the fire.

'they *realy* belong in society' is a catchy phrase but
I'm personally waiting to see what the Texas Rangers have to say
about it all before I pass judgment.   Why don't you do the same.

Some more interesting facts about the Waco incident:

1)  The original assault was conducted by BATF officers wearing
    an assorted types of camouflage.  I saw, on CNN, at least
    three different types.   I would be hard pressed to identify
    a bunch of guys in 'bring-your-own' battle fatigues as
    uniformed officers of the law even if they were claiming to
    be police.
    
2)  The BATF has been lying from the beginning:
    + "We only had handguns" - the original footage showed 4 BATF
      officers on a roof top getting shot at,  one had an MP-5
      assault sub-machine gun.
    + "We were out gunned" - sub-machine guns and shotguns are the
      BEST in quarters weapon,  you can't be out gunned when you
      have the best guns available for the job.
    + "We didn't know they had guns that would shoot through doors!" -
      this one is the best,  there are very few guns that won't shoot
      through a household door,  or through a house WALL for that
      matter.  Since officers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
      *Firearms* should know that,  they are either lying or incredibly
      incompetent.  Not to mention criminally negligent if they are
      shooting bullets that they think will stop when the encounter
      plywood.
    + "We had a search warrant.  Actually, we had an arrest warrant.
       No, wait,  we had both.  Yeah, that's the ticket.
       Oh, and they're child molesters too.  And they make *drugs*.
       Did we mention we think they have rocket launchers."
      - The story from BATF and FBI spokespeople has changed daily
      and their claims were getting increasingly outrageous.
      
3)  Throughout the siege the FBI and BATF have be claiming that one
    of their biggest concerns was that Koresh and his followers would
    mass suicide.   Now they are claiming that that's what he did
    AND that they are surprised that he did.  Huh?

All in all I think that anything the FBI and BATF say should be
taken with a grain or two of salt.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54672
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <1r2cat$5a9@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:

> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> :mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
> :
> :> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
> :> in Texas. 
> :
> :Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious to people who so clearly missed it.
> I can't stand it when people's first reaction is to defend the aggressor.

  Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
not break out for several hours.  I find it highly unlikely that the BD would
be cooking lunch while armored vehicles punch holes in their house and are
pumping in tear gas.  The lantern story makes more sense, except the fire 
seemed to spread too quickly, even given the nature of the buildings and the
very high winds.  And it was daylight, but I guess in the innner recesses it
could be dark--shutters probably closed as well.

  Which puts us back to the FBI did it, or the BD did it, or some other screw-
up occured, which is quite possible.

  The problem with the FBI as a monolithic entity doing it is that it requires
*everybody* involved to keep their mouths shut.  While they tended to behave 
like total idiots, that does not make them homocidal maniacs, either.  And if
it was one nutcase agent, then it serves no purpose to blame the whole agency.

  I can believe that a real nut-case like a Koresh would start such a fire,
but I'm far from convinced he actually did so.

  Then again, I rarely go off making blanket condemnations and pronouncments
within 2 hours of a very confusing incident over 175 miles away...

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54674
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: BATF/FBI revenge


Jason Kratz writing:

...
JK>If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why
JK>shouldn't they have done something?  What possible use would a religious cult
JK>have for a rocket launcher?  Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of
JK>Rights?
...

This is taken a little out of context and I'm not flaming Jason...it's just
that this was the proverbial straw....

I grow a little weary of the allegations (here, the media, people on the
street) that the BD's had all these "horrible illegal weapons and other
paraphenalia of destruction capable of blowing tanks 50 feet into the air..."
and then, without missing a beat, discuss how the BD's willfully commited
mass suicide, or killed their own less fanatical and *then* commited mass
suicide, etc., etc.

If the BD's had all these things and intended to "blow up their abode, blow up
Waco, blow up the entire country, or whatever suits your fancy, what happened
to all the violence they were supposed to unleash? Why wouldn't they have "gone
out in the proverbial blaze of glory" and "come out shooting" with an attitude
of "let's take as many of those dogs as possible with us"?

Instead, they seemed to have preferred death to whatever they thought was in
store for them at the government's hands.

It's totally immaterial whether they were all crazy, all fanatics, all followers
of the antichrist, haters of the government, practicers of weird lifestyles, or
whatever...they must have felt that they were being pressured into renouncing
their beliefs, however how strange or lunatic those beliefs might appear to "you
and me". There is much precedent for such devotion to cause.

My conclusion at this point is that the "authorities" seriously misread their
danger to society (else why did the BD's not do as suggested above) and/or chose
this incident to make some heinous point or satisfy some internal agenda, up to
and including AG J. Renbo using this as an opportunity to assert her manhood.

Some people really do believe it is better to die than be subjected to what
they perceive as the godless government. When I force myself to not judge
others by my own personal standards and beliefs, I can almost admire their
stand.

I surely believe in the Constitution but I don't know that I have such strength
of conviction as evidenced by the BD's.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Obesa non cantatis!
                          
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54675
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)



Chemical weapons are not concidered a *very* effectiv weapon against
millitary forces. On civillians on the other hand....

That's one GOOD reason for banning it.

You need VAST amounts of chemicals to be affective, so the best reason
to have/use it is price. (that's why it's called The Poor Mans A-bomb)

Any thoughts on Bio-weapons ??	

If this discusion is about civillians having chem-weapons;
What should they use them on?? Rob a bank ??



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54676
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

In article <1r1ito$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
 writes:
>> It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from
>> the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search
>> warrant AND an arrest warrant.
>
>Check again.  You may find that the arrest warrant was issued AFTER the
>first firefight.

The letter implies that both warrants were issued before the Feb 28th
shootout but doesn't say so exlicitly.  ACK!

    don


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54677
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <1r3efjINN3jj@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu writes:

> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> >I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......
> 
> In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.

  Currently, there is a bill before the Texas legislature that would make it
legal for some ordinary folks to carry concealed weapons.  I don't have the
details, sorry.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54678
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <3876@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:
> If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are
> true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for
> the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the
> US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no
> exceptions. 

Well, we're not.  Which goes to prove you still don't understand what
we're saying here.

> Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive
> in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?

I've lived through the bombing of Cambodia; My Lai; inflated body counts
in VietNam; the funding of Noreiga; Watergate; Contragate; Chappaquiddick;
Kent State; domestic spying by the CIA; Edwin Meese's Pornography 
Commission; the War on Drugs; civil seizure; the MOVE disaster; the LA 
disaster; and now Waco.

Do you really believe that government always does what is right?

> Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather
> than stupidity?

Watch the news for the next couple of months.  Watch how this whole
government-initiated debacle turns into shouting for "more gun control."
It's already started.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54681
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: WI and IL firearms law Questions


|Question #2

|As I understand it, in Evanston, IL, they have a ordinance banning handguns.
|Is there any way to get around this provision?

Why don't you call the City and ask? Oak Park also has an illegal handgun
ban as well, but does allow those with a "collectors FFL" to possess
("collectible?") handguns.

|What would the penalty if you were found out be?

Probably a fine in practical terms.

|What if you used said handgun in a defensive shooting in your apartment 
|there?  How would the city law apply to your impending 
|trial for the shooting?

It wouldn't impede your defense at all. There was an actual incident
in Oak Park where a gas station owner engaged in a shootout with a
handgun; the grand jury decided not to presecute. On the other hand,
a black man used an illegally owned handgun in Oak Park to defend
himself, and the Village tried to make an example out of him. An NRA
Director who lived there made a stink about this, and it was decided
not to charge the guy. Of course, pissing off anti-gun police thugs
has it's own drawbacks, like when the Oak Park Police Chief came to his
house, and told him: "this is stepping over the line; this could get
dangerous for you." Whereupon the few black Oak Park police officers
watched over his house to ensure that the white anti-gun police chief
and his anti-gun cronies wouldn't f*ck with him, his home or family.

|Also, what is IL state law concerning short barreled weapons?  Short barreled
|shotgun is what I would be interested in if a handgun were not available, 
|either that or a shortened 9mm carbine (ie Colt, Marlin).  

L.V. Cipriani states that the "Any other weapon" category is allowed,
but the exact relationship between an Ithaca Auto-burgular, which I
believe is in the "Any other weapon" category and a chopped barrel
H&K HK-94 (Class 3 for sure) is not clear to me...

|One more thing, what is the chance of getting a CCW permit in IL without being
|rich or famous or related to the mayor?

In your dreams, buddy. As long as Democrats reign in Chicago, Illinois
residents will always be disarmed and helpless in the streets. Politicians
get around this by provisions in the law that allow them to carry
concealed weapons. Voters in Chicago are too stupid to vote these a**holes
out of office; because the Dems are always in power, the Illinois 
Supreme Court is always tilted to the Democratic Party's views on guns.
[All candidates supported by political consultant David Axelrod are
anti-gun, which explains anti-RKBA Crook County States Attorney 
Jack(ass) O'Malley being a so-called "Republican."]

Get rid of the Chicago Democrats, get rid of their members on the IL
Judiciary, and you got a fighting chance of a preemption law and a CCW
law...

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54682
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <C5y9x7.7v0@well.sf.ca.us>, seelowe@well.sf.ca.us (Hudson H Luce) writes:

>  I suggest another name change:

>    Thomas Parsli .... to .... Vidkun Quisling

This is really uncalled for.

You cannot expect a European, growing up in a culture of "rulers" and 
"subjects," to immediately grasp the concepts of individual independence
and citizen sovereignity in the US.

He's less at fault than the countrymen we have here who also can't grasp 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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54683
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Once upon a time ...

In article <1993Apr23.184027.4401@swan.pyr>, cgwillme@pyr.swan.ac.uk (r b willmersdorf) writes:
> american and european universities were full of Angry Young People(tm)
> that wanted to overthrow the government, and wouldn't think twice
> about lobbing a molotov cocktail at the national guard (military police
> in Europe.)

> Certainly, it would have been very bad form to take anything
> the System(tm) said at face value.

> This was in the end of the sixties and the begining of the seventies,
> I'm told. I was too young to remember.

> Something wrong happened along the way, I'm afraid.  Maybe the west
> became just too comfortable, or maybe I was born too late :(

> Yours, disappointed with with the youth of today,

Isn't it ironic.  I'm of that generation, and I remember the lesson.  I
cry to see all the postings from domestic .edu sites that have naively
swallowed everything the government has seen fit to feed to them.
Especially contrasted to such a post from the .uk yet.

>     2) There *is* a difference between lining up 90 people against the
>        wall and executing them, and causing their deaths through negligence/
>        imcompetence.  I honestly hope we witnessed the latter.  As they say,
>        the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

I suspect we saw the latter.  However, the injustice implied in letting
those involved escape without investigation and/or prosecution is also
horrible to contemplate.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54684
From: mjp@watson.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers


Try the firearms archive.  Larry Cipriani's instructions follow.  By
the way, thanks for the archive Larry..

This year is the 103rd congress directory.

----------------------------
From
watson!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!howland.r
reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!mimsy!cbvox1.
.att.com!lvc Thu Apr  8 19:41:01 1993
Article: 40039 of talk.politics.guns
Path:
watson!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!howland.r
reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!mimsy!cbvox1.
.att.com!lvc
From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Information about the anonymous ftp RKBA archive
Message-ID: <1993Apr8.182924.7274@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 8 Apr 93 22:50:09 GMT
Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Lines: 1795

This is the INDEX file for the anonymous ftp RKBA archive.
The archive site has been moved and is now at:

	godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
	
in the directory

	/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba

This archive is accessible only via anonymous ftp; instructions for
anonymous ftp are at the end of this file.

An email server is available at another site, and as a result is
not completely in sync with this archive.  To get the index for
the rkba email-server send:

	get rkba index

as the body of a message to listserv@mainstream.com

For help send:

	help

If you have any additions or suggestions for improvement to the
RKBA archive please let me know.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l.v.cipriani@att.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: rkba82

Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second
Session, February, 1982
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HCR11

House Concurrent Resolution 11 by Mr. Crane, January 3, 1991

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all
Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or liberty and in
pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HJR438

House Joint Resolution 438 by Mr. Major Owens, March 11, 1992

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution; includes comments
by Owens entered into the Congressional Record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1133

House Bill 1133 by Mr. Goodling, February 27, 1991

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit transfer of firearm to,
or possession of a firearm by, a person convicted of a drug crime, and to
provide enhanced penalties for possession of a firearm during a drug crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1354

House Bill 1354 by Mr. Scheuer, March 7, 1991

To end the use of steel jaw leghold traps on animals in the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1412

House Bill 1412 by Mr. Staggers, March 13, 1991

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the establishment
of a national hotline which a Federal Firearms licensee may contact to
learn if receipt of a handgun by a prospective transferee is prohibited,
and to require such a licensee to contact the hotline before the transfer
of a handgun to a nonlicensee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1559

House Bill 1559 by Mr. Gibbons, March 21, 1991

To prohibit the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and certain accessories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1770

House Bill 1770 by Mr. Smith of Florida, April 15, 1991

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain handguns
which are unsuitable for lawful sporting purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR19

House Bill 19 by Mr. Hughes January 3, 1991

To prohibit the possession, transfer, and certain exports of restricted
weapons, the manufacture of firearms capable of accepting a silencer or
bayonet without alteration, and the possession and transfer of large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR282

House Bill 282 by Mrs. Collins, January 3, 1991

To provide for the mandatory registration of handguns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR2922

House Bill 2922 by Mr. Cardin, July 17, 1991

To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an entitlement of
States
and certain political subdivisions of States to receive grants for the
abatement of health hazards associated with lead-based paint, and to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax and establish a
trust fund to satisfy the Federal obligations arising from such
entitlement.

[This bill would impose upto a $0.75/pound tax on all new lead, and
$0.37/pound tax on recycled lead.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR318

House Bill 318 by Mr. Dornan, January 3, 1991

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit dog racing and dog training
involving the use of live animals as visual lure and to make such Act
applicable to facilities that are used for dog racing or dog race training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR3371

House Bill 3371
			
"The Violent Crime Prevention Act of 1991"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR371

House Bill 371 by Mr. Marlenee, January 3, 1991

To protect persons engaged in a lawful hunt within a national forest;
establishing an administrative civil remedy against individuals or groups
intentionally obstructing, impeding, or interfering with the conduct of a
lawful hunt; and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/101st/HR4079

House Bill 4079 by Mr. Gingrich, February 22, 1990

To provide swift and certain punishment for criminals in order
to deter violent crime and rid America of illegal drug use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR436

House Bill 436 by Mr. Weiss, January 3, 1991

To prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber
and .32 caliber ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR465

House Bill 465 by Mr. Rangel, January 7, 1991

To prohibit certain exports of fully automatic or semiautomatic
assault weapons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR4897

House Bill 4897 by Mr. Cunningham, April 9, 1992

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
to deny grant funds to States unless law enforcement officers are permitted
to carry concealed firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR5633

House Bill 5633 by Mr. Schumer, July 21, 1992

To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of the multiple
firearms sales reporting requirement, and to require that persons comply
with State and local firearms licensing laws before receiving a Federal
license to deal in firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR5807

House Bill 5807 by Mr. Schumer, August 10, 1992

To impose criminal penalties upon the failure of a Federal firearms
licensee to report to appropriate authorities the loss or theft of a
firearm from the inventory or collection of the licensee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR7

House Bill 7 by Mr. Feighan

To require a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun;
also known as "The Brady Bill"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR750

House Bill 750 by Mr. Russo, January 30, 1991

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that the excise tax
on handguns will be transferred to a trust fund to be used for purposes of
providing compensation to victims of crime, and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S214

Senate Bill 214 by Mr. Hatch, January 15, 1991

To provide procedures for calling Federal constitutional 
conventions under article V for the purpose of proposing 
amendments to the United States Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S2304

Senate Bill 2304 by Mr. Lautenberg, March 3, 1992

To amend title 18, United States Code, to permanently prohibit the
possession of firearms by persons who have been convicted of a violent
felony, and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S257

Senate Bill 257

To require a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S2813

Senate Bill 2813 by Mr. Gore, June 4, 1992

To establish in the Government Printing Office an electronic
gateway to provide public access to a wide range of Federal
databases containing public information stored electronically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S2913

Senate Bill 2913 by Mr. Chafee, June 30 1992

To prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale,
purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of
handguns and ammunition, with certain exceptions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S3282

Senate Bill 3282 by Mr. Mitchell, September 28 1992

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a waiting period
before the purchase of a handgun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/101st/S386

Senate Bill 386 by Mr. Metzenbaum, February 8, 1989

To control the sale and use of assault weapons.                
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S51

Senate Bill 51 by Mr. Moynihan, January 14, 1991

To prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber
and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S634

Senate Bill 634 by Mr. Symms, March 13, 1991

To amend chapter 44, title 18, United States Code, to provide clarification
of limitations on controls of firearms, and to prohibit the use of Federal
funds to political subdivisions which implement certain gun control ordi-
nances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/101st/S747

Senate Bill 747 by Mr. DeConcini,

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, regarding
assault weapons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S789

Senate Bill 789, by Mr. Moynihan, April 9, 1991

To prohibit the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and certain accessories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S892

Senate Bill 892, By Mr. Metzenbaum, April 23, 1991

To amend title 15, United States Code, to authorize the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to regulate the risk of injury associated with firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S918

Senate Bill 918, by Mr. Packwood, April 24, 1991

The amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt small manufacturers,
producers, and importers from the firearms excise tax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HCR3

House Concurrent Resolution 3, by Mr. Crane, January 5, 1993
Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all
Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or liberty and in the
pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HJR81

House Joint Resolution, by Mr. Owens, January 27, 1993
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR277

House Bill 277, by Mr. Mazolli, January 5, 1993 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a waiting period 
before the purchase of a handgun. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR544

House Bill 544, by Mr. Torricelli, January 21, 1993

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the transfer of 2 or
more handguns to an individual in any 30-day period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR661

House Bill 661, by Mrs. Collins, January 27, 1993

To provide for the manufacturer, importer, or dealer of a handgun or an
assault weapon to be held strictly liable for damages that result from the
use of the handgun or assault weapon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR737

House Bill 737, by Mr. REYNOLDS, February 2, 1993

To provide for the manufacturer or importer of a handgun or an assault
weapon to be held strictly liable for damages that result from the use
of the handgun or assault weapon, and to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to increase the excise tax on firearms and use a portion
of the revenues from such tax to assist hospitals in urban areas to
provide medical care to gunshot victims who are not covered under any
health
plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR1025

House Bill 1025, by Mr. Schumer, February 22, 1993

To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a hadgun,
and for the establishment of a national instant criminal
background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers
before the transfer of any firearm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S108

Senate Bill 108, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To prohibit the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and certain accessories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S109

Senate Bill 109, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To amend section 923 of title 18, United States Code, to require the
keeping
of records with respect to dispositions of ammunition, and to require a
study
of the use and possible regulation of sales of ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S178

Senate Bill 178, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the
manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber and .32 caliber
and 9 millimeter ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S179

Senate Bill 179, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To tax 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S376

Senate Bill 376, by Mr. Lautenberg, February 16, 1993

To prohibit the transfer of 2 or more handguns to an individual in any
30-day period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S414

Senate Bill 414, by Mr. Metzenbaum, February 24, 1993 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a waiting period
before the purchase of a handgun. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-free-zones

Text of the GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 from PUBLIC LAW 101-647
NOV. 29, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aclu

A collection of articles on the ACLU's position on gun control.
Included is ACLU Policy Statement #47 which gives the ACLU interpretation
of the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dcm-info

A collection of articles explaining the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
In other words, "Why does the United States Department of Defense sell
battle rifles to civilians ? "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dial911

"Dial 911 and Die!"  By Aaron Zelman and Jay Simkin of Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fija-info

The Fully Informed Jury Amendment, and what it means to gun owners
and the right to keep and bear arms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: whitemanslaw

White Man's Law by William R. Tonso, from the December 1985
Reason magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: jefferson

The First Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson, 2nd president of the
United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: jewishistory

Jewish History Rufutes Gun Control Activists, by Elliot Rothenberg
from the February 1988 *American Rifleman*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: law-abiding

The Law-Abiding Gun Owner as Domestic and Acquaintance Murderer
from "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of
Gun Control," by Don B. Kates, February, 1990, pp.45-49.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: second-ideology

"The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection" by
Don B. Kates, Jr.  Reprinted from CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY,
Vol. 9. No. 1. Winter 1992, (c) 1992 by Constitutional Commentary,

Kates puts the Second Amendment and philosophies of self-protection
into a historical perspective
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: new-understa

Toward a New Understanding of the Second Amendment, by David T. Hardy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: to-bear-arms

"To Bear Arms for Self Defense: Our Second Amendment Heritage" by
Stephen P. Halbrook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: no-treason

No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: resistance

Excerpts from the study "Crime Control Through the Use of Armed Force",
by Associate Professor Dr. Gary Kleck, Florida State University School
of Criminology, published in the February 1988 issue of SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: waitper-qna

Waiting Period -- Questions and Answers by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)
and Citizens for Safe Government (CSG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: warsaw

"The Warsaw Ghetto; 10 Handguns Against Tyranny",
by Dr. David I Caplan from February, 1988 American Rifleman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: wethepeople

Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: sc-ftp

How to retreive Supreme Court decisions via anonymous ftp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: alternative-policy

ALTERNATIVE POLICY FUTURES by Franklin E. Zimring
from THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.
Volume 455, May 1981; published by The American Academy of Political
and Social Science; 1981.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: embarassing.2nd.amendment

The Embarassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson, Yale Law Journal
Volume 99, pp 637-659 (1989)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra800

Phone numbers for the NRA, many are toll-free 800 numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nradrugs

A collection of articles on the NRA's position on the War on Drugs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fl-aw-part1

Florida A.W. Commission - Exec Summary Part 1,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fl-aw-part2

Florida A.W. Commission - Exec Summary Part 2,
STOCKTON -- THE FACTS  by Martin L. Fackler, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: iwba

Information about the International Wound Ballistics Association,
Martin Fackler, president
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gunshyjudges

Gun-Shy Judges by Jacob Sullum, from the May 1991 issue of Reason Magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: heatofmoment

In the Heat of the Moment, By James D. Wright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: racist-soil

Article "Gun Control Sprouts from Racist Soil." by Roy Innis,
from the Wall Street Journal 11/21/91
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: core-policy

"Bearing Arms for Self-Defense -- A Human and Civil Right" by
Roy Innis, National Chairman, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: righttobear

The Right to Bear Arms By Sanford Levinson from the
Daily News, Ft Walton Beach, FL.  (1991)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: rock-island

United States of America v. Rock Island Armory, US District Court for
the Central District of IL; the court ruled that making a post '86
machine gun is not illegal -- believe it or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dalton

United States of America v. John William Dalton, US Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit, 91-1149; the court ruled that owning or transferring
a post '86 machine gun is not punishable under the NFA -- believe it
or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: waitdanger

Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety By David B. Kopel,
March 25, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aw-qna

Assault Weapon Questions & Answers
by Handgun Control, Inc. and Citizens for Safe Government (CSG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: ccw-survey

A state by state survey of Carrying Concealed Weapons laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: us-vs-miller

United States vs. Miller et al., Appeal from the District Court of the
United States for the Western District of Arkansas.

Argued March 30, 1939 -- Decided May 15, 1939
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: presser

The history of Presser v Illinois is a fascinating exercise of how
politically based decisions on our Constitutional rights have come back
to haunt us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cia-ncbh

A column by Neal Knox presenting evidence that former CIA agent
Edwin O. Welles played a major role in founding HCI and NCBH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: conphone

A list of voice and fax phone number for representatives and senators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: billofrights

The first 10 articles of amendment to the United States Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: decl-of-indp

The Declaration of Independence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dont-wait

"Criminals Don't Wait -- Why Should You ?" from the NRA.  Exposes the
fraudulent arguments made for waiting periods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: external

Positive Externalities of Gun Ownership, by John Kell, from
"The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, October 1991 "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: english-hist

Firearms Legislation in Great Britain, by Jan A. Stevenson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: simkin

"Control Criminals, Not Guns" by Jay Edward Simkin found in the
March, 25 1991 [or '92?] Wall Street Journal:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: unabridged

The Unabridged Second Amendment, by J. Neil Schulman

An interview with Roy Copperud, retired professor of journalism at
USC and author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus".  Copperud
offers his professional opinion on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: uzitruth

A letter from J. Harper Wilson, Director FBI Uniform Crime Reporting
Program to Paul H. Blackman, Research Coordinator of the NRA stating
that only one police officer, of Puerto Rico, was shot and killed with
a semi-automatic 9mm Model A Uzi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: maketheirday

"How to Make Their Day" by Don B. Kates Jr. and Patricia Terrell Harris
in the National Review, October 21, 1991

Kates and Harris debunk several myths about firearms, criminals, and
violence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: two-myths

Two myths of gun control from "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in
America" by Gary Kleck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aw-not-problem

"Assault Weapons Aren't the Problem", by Gary Kleck, published in
The New York Times Tuesday, September 1, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: oregon-study

1990 Oregon Study of Retail Firearm Sales and CHL Licensing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: children

Fighting for Children's Hearts and Minds by Robert Pew, American
Rifleman - April 1992

Discusses how HCI and it's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
have set out to use public schools as forums for their anti-gun
propaganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gunssputter

"Guns and Sputter" by James D. Wright, from July 1989 issue of REASON.
Wright exposes the flaws in the New England Journal of Medicine study
comparing the homicide rates of Seattle and Vancouver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm-info

A collection of articles and information on the New England Journal of
Medicine Vancouver/Seattle handgun crime comparison study.

See also the file gunssputter, authored by James Wright.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dcstudy.1

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1991 Dec 5. 325 (23).
pp 1647-1650.
Editorials: Firearms And The Killing Threshold.
Kassirer-Jerome-P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dcstudy.2

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1991 Dec 5. 325 (23).
pp 1615-1620.
Special Article: Effects Of Restrictive Licensing Of
Handguns On Homicide And Suicide In The District Of Columbia.
Loftin-Colin.  McDowall-David.  Wiersema-Brian.  Cottey-Talbert-J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm-editorial

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1988 Nov 10. 319 (19).
pp 1283-1285.
Editorial: Firearm Injuries: A Call For Science.
Mercy-James-A. Houk-Vernon-N.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm-letters

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1989 May 4. 320 (18).
pp 1214-1217.
Correspondence: Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, And
Homicide: A Tale Of Two Cities.
Blackman-Paul-H. Hagen-Tim.  Morris-David-C.
Stolinsky-David-C. Tirer-Samuel.  Gryder-John-W.
Kuziak-John-D. Sloan-John-H. Kellerman-Arthur-L-Kellermann.
Rivara-Fred-P. Koepsell-Thomas.  Reay-Donald-T.
LoGerfo-James-P. Rice-Charles.  Ferris-James-A. Gray-Laurel-
A. Mercy-James-A. Houk-Vernon-N.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: suicide.1

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1990 Feb 8. 322 (6).
pp 369-373.
Special Article: Firearm Regulations And Rates Of Suicide:
A Comparison of Two Metropolitan Areas.
Sloan-John-Henry.  Rivara-Frederick-P. Reay-Donald-T.
Ferris-James-A-J. Kellermann-Arthur-L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: suicide.2

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1990 Jul 12. 323 (2).
p 137.
Correspondence: Firearm Regulations and Rates of Suicide.
Blackman-Paul-H. Sloan-John-Henry.  Rivara-Frederick-P.
Kellermann-Arthur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: totc

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1988 Nov 10. 319 (19).
pp 1256-1262.
Special Article: Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, And
Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities.
Sloan-John-Henry.  Kellermann-Arthur-L. Reay-Donald-T.
Ferris-James-A. Koepsell-Thomas.  Rivara-Frederick-P.
Rice-Charles.  Gray-Laurel.  LoGerfo-James.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra.cdc

An open letter from Paul H. Blackman, of NRA to the Director, Office
of Scientific Integrity Review, U.S. Public Health Service, detailing
why they should evaluate the integrity and competency of firearms research
conducted by and for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.000

What the RKBA.nnn files are all about.

The RKBA.nnn series are set of small (60-100 lines typically) postings
that address common questions and myths about all aspects of firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.001

Accidental deaths by firearms and by other means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FILE: RKBA.002

Declining trend of accidental deaths by firearms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.003

Homicide per capita in the US
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.004

Children and firearms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.008

Annual firearm manufacture in the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.010

Declaration of Independence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.013

Trend in weapons use for robberies (1974-86)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.014

Reasons for homicide and non-negligent manslaughter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.015

Are firearms a leading cause of death of children?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.016

Is the United States the most violent nation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.999

Complete list of all sources used for the RKBA.nnn series.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cox-study

Analysis of the Cox Atlanta Journal Constitution, 21 May 1989 article
on Assault Weapons, by James J. Baker of NRA-ILA, before the Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, U.S. House of Representatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: feder11.txt

The Federalist Papers, as transcribed by Project Gutenberg 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: great-quotes

Thomas Jefferson quotes and more ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: civilian

Civilian Possession of Military Firearms, by Richard A. I. Munday,
from the January/February 1988 issue of the UK Handgunner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: good-go-bad

"When Good, Law-Abiding Citizens Go Bad", from UK Handgunner No. 46
Jan-Feb 1989.  Discusses how the rate of compliance of gun control
laws is always very low, even among otherwise law abiding citizens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: tory-national-socialism


"Tory National Socialism", by Richard A.I. Munday, UK Handgunner,
Jul-Aug 86.  Discusses the gun control leanings of socialists of
the right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: the-big-lie

" Gun Grabbers vs. Assault Rifles: The Big Lie" by Neal Knox,

Semi-auto military-styled "assault" rifles are not now nor have they
ever been a threat to society. These facts have been determined by
the government - but never released to the public!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: ff-47

"The Founding Fathers and the AK-47", by Sue Wimmershoff-Caplan
Discuss the question if the Founding Fathers would have approved of
the AK-47 for civilian ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hcikkk

"Handgun Control, Inc., & the KKK" by David Kopel, from the Oct 91
issue of Gun World magazine.  Discusses the parallels in the hate
campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan and Handgun Control, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: rkba-orgs

A list of organizations devoted to the preservation of the Second
Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: victoria

"The Gun Law Handbook" for the state of Victoria, Australia (Oct 1988).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra-purposes

A summary of the NRA's purposes and objectives, and positions on some
gun control issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: ktw

A collection of articles relating to teflon coated, armor piercing
bullets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: thompsoncenter

The Supreme Court decision in the case:

United States of America v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: DMN_Gratia_CCP

"Concealed weapons can prevent tragedies like Killeen's" by
Dr. Suzanna Gratia in the Dallas Morning News, Sunday April
29th, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: Knox_AW_lies

Neal Knox on how military style semi-auto's are not a threat
to public safety, how they are not fundamentally different
than ordinary hunting weapons, and how the gun grabbers are
exploiting the bad image this class of weapons has to enact
further gun control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: WSJ_Crimestrik

"The NRA Mounts a Militant Campaign Taking Aim at Criminal-Justice
System" by Alix M. Freedman staff reporter of The Wall Street Journal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: med-media

"Gun Prohibition in the Medical Literature - Telling the Truth?" by
Edgar A. Suter, MD ; discusses anti-gun bias in medical journals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: toy-guns

"Court Psychologist Says Toy Guns Are Good For Children" from Gun Week,
1989. 

Glen David Skoler, court psychologist for the Arlington County, VA,
claims "toys of violence" -- including toy guns are, in fact, good
for children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: awca89-appeal

Text of the 9th Circuit court of Appeals in the Fresno Rifle and Pistol
Club challenge to California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act
of 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: lp92-rkba

The right to keep and bear arms plank of the 1992 National Platform of
the Libertarian Party.

And a reproduction of the Libertarian Party brochure
"Responsible Gun Ownership: Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners"

The entire 1992 National Platform of the LP is available via anonymous
ftp on think.com in the file /pub/libernet/LP/libertarian-platform-1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: let-july91

An article from the July/August 1991 issue of Law Enforcement Technology
with a survey of police officers on their views of gun control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nacp-poll

A study conducted by the National Association of the Chiefs of
Police (NACP) through its American Law Enforcement Survey for 1989,
in which 16,259 chiefs of police, sheriffs and law-enforcement command
personnel were polled with a list of 30 questions, it was determined
the overwhelming majority of officers support the right of private
arms ownership, and agreed that gun bans had little effect on crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-advert

A example of the propaganda used by HCI in soliciting contributions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-transcript

A transcription of the HCI video tape "America Needs a National
Handgun Control Policy"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gartner

Michael Gartner, president of NBC News, calls for a ban on handguns
in this USA TODAY Thursday January 16th 1992 editorial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra-lp

A resolution passed by the voting membership of the NRA at its national
convention in Anaheim, CA stating the NRA will support third party
candidates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cooley

Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., General Principles of Constitutional Law in
the United States of America, 298-299 (3rd ed. 1898), a leading 
constitutional commentator discussed the rights protected by the Second
Amendment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: kilpatrick

"Gun Law Might Curb Rising Murder Rate" by James Kilpatrick, St. Louis
Post-Dispatch Tuesday June 23, 1992.  Kilpatrick expresses support for
a national firearms law as proposed by C. Everett Koop, that is, a
requirement that gun owners pass a competency test, among other things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: vanity-fair

A summary of the 10 page article on Jim and Sarah Brady which appeared
in the January '91 issue of Vanity Fair Magazine.

Question: "Was it true you wanted to get a gun to protect
	yourself against Hinckley?"

Answer Jim brady: "I had a gun"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: goldwin

"Gun Control Is Constitutional," by Robert A. Goldwin from the
Wall Street Journal edtorial page, Thrusday, December 12, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: anniston

Two articles on a murder averted in Anniston, Alabama by a man
with a CCW permit.  The importance of this event is that it closely
followed the murders by Hennard in Texas, but the media did not
cover Anniston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: staggers-brady

A survey of public support for the Staggers Instant Background
Check and the Brady Waiting Period.  The basic finding is that
once the public understands the advantages of the instant background
check vs. the problems with the Brady waiting period support for
the Brady waiting period diminishes greatly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: brady-vote

How Congress voted on the Staggers Instant Background Check and
the Brady Waiting period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: vs-vote

How Congress voted on the Volkmer-Sensenbrenner Amendment to
strike the new gun control sections from the administration
crime bill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dc-vote

How the U.S. Senate voted on S. 2113, the repeal of the District
of Columbia's anti-gun strict liability law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: covey

"Gun Control: Trying the Facts,  Weighing the Values" A monograph based
on "Crime, Inequality, Guns, & Equity" by Preston K. Covey, Ph.D.,
Director Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics, Carnegie Mellon
University.

Addresses the desirability of gun bans: ethical aspects, equity issues,
and other values at stake in the management of mortal risks, deadly
force and its instruments.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: assays-of-bias

"Assays of Bias on the Second Amendment: The Media Elite" by
Preston K. Covey, Director Center for the Advancement of Applied
Ethics [excerpts from a longer monograph]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cleveland

A critique of:

ACCIDENTAL FIREARM FATALITIES IN A METROPOLITAN COUNTY (1958-1973)
Rushforth, Hirsch, Ford, and Adelson
American Journal of Epidemiology #100, 1974, pp. 499-505.


This is THE study that lies at the heart of the gun control
claim that owning a firearm for self-defense is too dangerous.
The claims that a defensive gun is X (=6 in this study)
times more likely to be used against an innocent person than
in lawful self-defense originated with this report in 1974.

by Robert I. Kesten
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: tiananmen-lessons

"LESSONS FROM TIANANMEN SQUARE" by Neal Knox reprinted from
Guns & Ammo, September 1989

Why the Second Amendment is so important, even in todays more
"progressive" era.  Included is a description of the 1932
Bonus March in Washington, DC in which Gen. Douglas MacArthur
opposed unemployed WWI veterans lobbying for the government to
immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: forward-trace

"California FFL Dealer Defies "Forward Trace"" by Neal Talbot in
The New Gun Week, March 1, 1991.

Details how the BATF bullies FFL holders into giving BATF copies
of 4473's in violation of federal law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: justice-stats

"Handgun Crime Victims", by Michael R. Rand, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Statistician, U.S. Department of Justice.

This Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report describes the key findings
from an analysis of handgun crimes reported in the National Crime Survey
for 1979-87.  It describes the victims of hand-gun [sic] crime, how the
handgun was used during the crime, and the nature and extent of handgun
crime injury.  It also provides information on handgun offenders, the
location of handgun crimes, and whether the crime was reported to the
police.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: chafee

Included are:

1) Transcript of press conference with Senator John Chafee, and former
Supreme Court justice Warren Burger on S. 2913, Chafee's, handgun ban.
Also speaking was Vernon Jordan, former member of the Jimmy Carter
White House; Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly; Michael Beard of National
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Michael Casserly (executive director,
Council of the Great City Schools); Dr. Carden Johnston representing
the American Academy of Pediatrics;

2) An article by Neal Knox in which he describes how Sarah Brady kicked
out HCI president Charles Orasin because of a disagreement on Chafee's
handgun ban.

3) An article on Burger's support for S. 2913.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: alarmist-view

"Gun Registration: An 'Alarmist' View" by Jon vanWormer; reprinted
from the December 1985 Guns & Ammo.  How an rkba moderate became a
radical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fackler-papers

A list of articles by "Col. Martin L. Fackler, M.D., F.A.C.S."
Wound Ballistics Lab, and where to write for copies of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-war

"THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN WAR" by Barry Bruce-Briggs,
_The_Public_Interest_  No. 45, Fall 1976, pp 37-62
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: george-will

"Repeal Second Amendment and Save Lives", by George Will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: reeves

"Drastic Steps to End the War at Home" by Richard Reeves, no date
nor publication available; placed in rkba archive 9/2/92

"Studies _Prove_ Gun Control Works" by Richard Reeves, from the
Kansas City Star, 9/28/92.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: canada-ban-list

A reproduction of a brochure from the Canadian Department of Justice
listing newly prohibited and restricted firearms (as of June 1992).

Also included is the "point system" used to determine if a firearm
should be reviewed for possible banning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: copkiller

Lyrics to the rock song "Cop Killer" by Ice-T on the album Body Count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cva.1

A letter from the California Voters Alliance, asking for support in
their effort to defeat anti-gun California Assemblyman Terry Friedman,
co-author of California's waiting period law for rifles and shotguns. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: astrology

"CRIMINOLOGY'S ASTROLOGY: The CDC Approach to Public Health Research
on Firearms and Violence" by PAUL H. BLACKMAN, Ph.D., Institute for
Legislative Action, National Rifle Association, 1990

A paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of
Criminology, Baltimore, Maryland, November 7-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aw-panic

The Assault Weapon Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim,
at the Constitution, by Eric Morgan and David Kopel

Published by The Independence Institute, October 10, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: state-rkba

A collection of RKBA provisions from State constitutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: too-late

Chapter 13 "But then it was too Late" of "THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE
FREE: The Germans, 1933 - 1945", by: Milton Mayer, University of
Chicago Press
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: militia-code

The legal definition of the militia of the United States of America
taken from:

United Stated Code (USC), TITLE 10, Section 311 and Section 312.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: legal-mg-crime

Report No. 32 of the Firearms Coalition of Silver Spring, MD. 11/29/89
by Neal Knox.  Knox reports that a legally registered machine gun was
used in a drug hit.  Subsequent reports said charges were dropped for
lack of evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-cash

HCI donation records to US Senators and Congressmen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: paulreverenet

Information about the "Paul Revere Net", a network of 2nd Amendment
Bulletin Boards

The Paul Revere Network (PRN) is a coast-to-coast network of
committed grass-roots gun rights activists who rely upon computer
bulletin board systems for their primary mode of communication.
Leroy Pyle (NRA Director and 27-year San Jose police veteran)
is Founder and Director of the PRN.  Based in San Jose, CA,
Pyle's BBS (1:143/223) currently hubs all network message
traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-talk

Information about the NRA-ILA Bulletin Board "Gun Talk"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congressgrades

A grading of congressmen based their votes on 1) the Brady Bill
(HR7), 2) Staggers (HR1412) and 3) the Volkmer-Sensenbrenner amendment
to strike the anti-gun provisions from the house crime bill (HR3371).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: lawmaster

"FEDS TRASH LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER'S HOME", NRA official journal March
1992, by Richard E. Gardiner.  Details how the BATF raided the home of
Johnny Lawmaster in search of a non-existent unregistered M-16 auto-sear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: point-blank

The concluding chapter to "Point Blank" by Gary Kleck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: purdy-rapsheet

Patrick Purdy's criminal record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: progundocs

Statement of purpose and contact information for "Doctors for Integrity
in Research & Public Policy"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: orlando

A summary of the effects of the highly publicized Orlando training
program in which over 6000 women were trained in basic pistol
marksmanship and the law of self-defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: form4signoff

A letter from Wayne Miller, Chief National Firearms Act Branch of
BATF stating that local law enforcement signoff on the ATF Form 4,
application for Taxpaid Transfer and Registration of Firearm [i.e.,
machine gun], is completely discretionary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: badlands.txt

New Zealand Firearms Control by Robert Badlands.

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: danto.txt

Issues Regarding Gun Control in America by Bruce L. Danto

A paper was presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fine.txt

Impediments to the Purposeful Reform of (Australian) Firearms Laws by J. D.
Fine

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: greenwd.txt

Untitled paper by Colin Greenwood

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: kates.txt

Gun Control: Recent Research on the American Experience by Don B. Kates,
Jr.

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: marsden.txt

Gun Control: A Banker's Perspective, by ??? Marsden

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.

Note, this paper is almost impossible to read currently as the original
would not scan well.  A more readable copy will be supplied later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: backdoor

Back Door Gun Control by Peter Alan Kasler from the January 1993
issue of American Survival Guide magazine.

Kasler discusses four examples of innocent people whose firearms
are confiscated, and/or charged with a crime when none was committed,
as examples of how gun control is implemented in the real world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: armed-citizen

"The Armed Citizen" feature from "The American Rifleman" and "The
American Hunter"; these stories show how firearms are indeed useful
for self-defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: botsford

The Case Against Gun Control by David Botsford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: academia-bias

"Fighting Anti-Gun Bias in Academia -- an article downloaded from the
NRA-ILA BBS "Gun Talk"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: story-of-gun

"The Story of a Gun" by Erik Larson, from "The Atlantic", January 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hcr**

Reports to the Firearms Coalition, by Neal Knox.

All these files are named hcr then two numbers, e.g., hcr51 for
"Report No. 51 to the Firearms Coalition"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: whose.txt

"Whose Side Are They On ?"

"Freedom From War: The United States Program For General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful World." an official publication of the United
States of America government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nccfa

Contact information for the "National Collegiate Coalition for Firearms
Awareness"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: canada

Some facts about Canadian gun control laws, gun ownership and violent
crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: time-letter

Time magazine's form letter response to criticism of their
"Death By Gun" issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-in-school

"Health Objectives for the Nation: Weapon-Carrying Among High School
Students -- United States, 1990" edited by David Dodell, D.M.D.

Proposes ways to reduce carrying of firearms by high school students.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress-cover

"Congress Covers Itself But Not Public" by Paul Craig Roberts, printed
in the Cleveland Plain Dealer October 2nd, 1992.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hamper

"Restrictions hamper law abiding folks, not criminals." by
David B. Kopel, printed in the Columbus OH Dispatch, January 16th.

Points out how waiting periods can cause a great deal of harm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: schumer-gripe

A "Washington Post" letter to the editor by Congessman Charles E. Schumer
discussing his bill, H.R. 5633, which requires law enforcement sign-off
on FFL applications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: sof

A UPI article on a lawsuit against "Soldier of Fortune" which forced
them out of business.

This article is copyright by UPI, and archived with permission; please
respect the re-distribution prohibition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fl-stats

A summary of CCW permit statistics for the state of Florida, e.g.,
the number of permits issued, number revoked, number denied, etc.
This proves that people obtaining CCW permits are law abiding
citizens and are not wreckless with their firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: knox-on-ruger

"Knox Replies To Comment From Ruger Counsel's" from
The New Gun Week, December 1, 1989.

Neal Knox discusses how Sturm, Ruger Inc. are willing to sacrifice the
RKBA for the benefit of their business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: american-blacks

"Gun Control and American Blacks" by Raymond G. Kessler (pp. 476-478)

In the United States, the experience of blacks from slavery 
through the 1960's was one of the clearest and best-documented 
examples of the political functions of gun control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nraction*

The NRA-ILAs little known newsletter "NRAction"; names will have the
month and year at the end, e.g., nraction0291.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: americamilitia

"America's Militia" by David B. Kopel, appeared in "Gun World" magazine
December 1992.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci93agenda

The "Action Agenda for a National Gun Policy" by HCI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-newsletter

The Handgun Control Semi-Annual Progress Report for December 1992.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hattoripetition

A petition written by the host family of Japanese exchange student
Yoshihiro Hattori, who was killed when he went to the wrong home for
a Halloween party:

"To protest the easy availability of firearms in the United States"

which will be presented to President Clinton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-election

"What the Election Means for Our Gun Control Movement" by Sarah Brady.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: centerwall

University of Washington Pyschiatrist Dr. Brandon Centerwall writing
in the April 1989 American Journal of Epidemiology says that television 
exposure is related to half of the homicides in the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: va-outrage

"An Outrage in Virginia" by Neal Knox.  Describes how BATF used a
Virginia gun dealer to general strawman sales and then later "traced"
those guns back to VA so they could claim 40% of guns they traced
came from VA.  When the dealer stopped cooperating they were convicted
of conducting strawman sales, one of the owners committed suicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: factcard93

The 1993 Firearms Fact Card published by the NRA-ILA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm43

A letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal by Preston Covey
on the factoid "You are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know
with a gun than a criminal."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gifford

An op-ed piece by Dan Gifford which appeared in the March 8 1993 issue
of the Cleveland Plain Dealer; it discusses the issue of police abuses
and citizen self defense against such abuses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: reynolds

An editorial "Gun Makers Must Pay the Price" by Mel Reynolds (D-IL),
member US House of Representatives, which appeared in the 02/15/93
issue of the Chicago Tribune.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: pozner

"Gun Control" with Vladamir Pozner (yes, the commie) and Phil Donahue
from a Feb. 25 1993 broadcast on CNBC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: trustpeople

CATO Institute Policy Analysis No. 109, July 11, 1988
"TRUST THE PEOPLE: THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL," by David B. Kopel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: bitterprice

The British Shooter Pays A Bitter Price, by Keith G. N. Nicholson
from the American Rifleman, March 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: batman

"Cartoon Campaign for Gun Control" from the March 8th 1993 issue
of "New American"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: batfss

"Waco Shootout Evokes Memory of Warsaw '43" from the Wall Street
Journal, Monday, March 15, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: academics

Contact information for "Academics for the Second Amendment"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: propaganda

Anti-Gun-Ownership Propaganda, by Doan Boal in the March, '92 issue
of Survival Guide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: media-fairness

Media Fairness Action Plan Is Continuing, by James H. Warner, NRA Ass't
General Counsel, from American Rifleman, March 1993, page 54.

This describes the FCC's "personal attack" rule and how the NRA may
take advantage of this rule against broadcasters who attack the NRA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: artconf

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, Proposed by Congress November 15, 1777,
Ratified and effective March 1, 1781
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: pending-bills

A list of the currently pending gun control bills in the US Seante and
House of Representatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: noduty

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
by Peter Kasler
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: leftout

The Second Amendment: A Right Left Out, by Doctor Linda Karen Miller
appearing in The American Rifleman, February 1993, p. 33.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: copsnguns

WHAT COPS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE GUN ISSUE! by Leroy Pyle,
from the May 1992 issue of Guns&Ammo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: crossfire

A transcript of the Wednesday, March 3 1993 edition of the CNN
show CROSSFIRE.  The participants are Michael Kinsley, John Sununu,
Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Criminal Justice Subcmte.,
and J.F. = Rep. Jack Fields (R-TX) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: naziconnection

The WAR ON GUN OWNERSHIP STILL GOES ON! -- GUN CONTROL'S NAZI CONNECTION!
by Craig Peterson from the May 1993 issue of Guns & Ammo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: armedcriminal

The Armed Criminal in America, by James Wright, 1986.  A Research in
Brief published by the National Institute of Justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: bigotry

"BIGOTRY, SYMBOLISM AND IDEOLOGY IN THE BATTLE OVER GUN CONTROL" by
Don Kates, from the 1992 "Public Interest Law Review"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: flmurd.ps
File: gamurd.ps
File: idmurd.ps
File: mtmurd.ps
File: nodiscr.ps
File: ormurd.ps
File: pamurd.ps
File: philmurd.ps
File: utmurd.ps
File: vamurd.ps
File: wamurd.ps
File: wvmurd.ps

CCW laws and murder rates in several states, by Clayton Cramer.  These
are all PostScript files and require the use of PostScript printer to
print.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hammer

Marion Hammer on the Failure of Gun Control, downloaded from Gun Talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: threechiefs

The views of Police Chiefs Daryl Gates (LA), Lee Brown (NYC), LeRoy Martin
(Chicago) on gun control and other civil rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

RKBA archive: general information and anonymous ftp instructions.

The moderator of the firearms-politics mailing list, Karl Kleinpaste,
has agreed to set up an anonymous ftp archive directory for RKBA
related information.  This directory can be used for things like
articles by Kates, Wright, Tonso, Levinson, Supreme Court Decisions,
the RIA vs US decision, copies of legislation, and so on.  It's not
meant to be for the discussions that normally appear here.

So, in the future if you're looking for something check there first
and then ask here.

Instructions:

Short version for techies:

The site is godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu.  Place contributions into the
directory /usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba.  The ftp commands
get, put, mget, or mput should work.  Give the command "type binary"
to be sure files are transferred correctly.  Your files will be moved
to the rkba directory.  To get a file use the commands get or mget.

I will maintain an index which you should get first to check if
the file you want to read or write already is archived.

Long version for non-techies:

In order for you to use this archive your computer must be on
the Internet.  To connect to the archive site run the command:

	ftp godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu

If that doesn't work you cannot use this archive.  If the ftp
command is successful you'll get this prompt asking you for a
login:
	Name (godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu:lvc):

Instead of lvc your initials will appear.  Answer this prompt with:

	ftp

Next you'll get this prompt asking your for your e-mail address:

	Guest login ok, send e-mail address as password:

I would enter:

	l.v.cipriani@att.com

You'll enter your own e-mail address.  You'll get these lines
or similar as output:

	Remote system is UNIX.
	Using binary mode to transfer files.

Next, the command prompt is printed:

	ftp> 

If you do not get the line "Using binary mode to transfer files."
Run the command:

	type binary

Now you're logged in to the archive machine.  There are many
directories on this machine  but the two you are concerned with are

	/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba
and
	/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/incoming

There are subdirectories to the rkba directory, those are discussed below.

When you login to the system your directory is /usr0/anon.  To retreive
files change your current directory to the rkba directory with the command:

	cd /usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba
or
	cd pub/firearms/politics/rkba

To submit files change your directory to the incoming directory with
the command:

	cd /usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/incoming
or
	cd pub/firearms/politics/incoming

Once you do this you'll get another ftp> prompt asking you to enter
another command.

To find the names of the existing files in the directory you are
in run the command:

	ls -l

This will produce something like:

total 6021
-r--r--r--  1 karl          6932 Jun 16  1992 DMN_Gratia_CCP
-r--r--r--  1 karl         69149 Apr  5 19:20 INDEX
-r--r--r--  1 karl         18965 Jun 16  1992 Knox_AW_lies
-r--r--r--  1 karl         10930 Apr 30  1992 S361
-r--r--r--  1 karl          8958 Jun 16  1992 WSJ_Crimestrike
-r--r--r--  1 karl          2649 Jan 13 18:33 academia-bias
-r--r--r--  1 karl           935 Mar 22 22:38 academics
-r--r--r--  1 karl         36079 Aug  4  1992 aclu
... and so on ...

Each line corresponds to one file.  Reading right to left, the fields
are the file name, the last modification date of the file, the size of
the file in bytes, and some permission fields which you do not need
to be concerned with.

To get a file run the command "get" followed by the name of the file
you want, for example:

	get INDEX
or
	get noduty

After the file is transfered to your machine a message like this:

	Transfer complete.
	19580 bytes received in 5 seconds (4 Kbytes/s)

You can repeat the get command for every file you want to retreive.
You can use the mget command to retreive multiple files.  If the
file you want is in a subdirectory, for example, congress/103rd/HR1025
you should change your directory to the appropriate subdirectory first
and then retrieve it:

	cd congress/103rd
	get HR1025

Once you're finished you can log off with the command:

	quit

If you have a file you want to contribute the procedure is a little
different.  First of all you should find out if the file already
exists, so get a copy of the index file with the procedure above
and look it over to make sure you wouldn't repeat an entry.  The
index will have a description of each of the files in the rkba
directory.  For example:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: whitemanslaw

White Man's Law by William R. Tonso, from the December 1985
Reason magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Once you've determined you won't be duplicating an entry, login
and change to the incoming directory command (see above).  Once
you are in the incoming directory use the command:

	put file_name

In this case:

	put whitemanslaw

Again there'll be a "Transfer complete, so many bytes transfered
in so many seconds" message.  Now your file is on the archive
machine.

Another thing to watch out for is duplicate file /names/.  Be sure
there isn't a file in the incoming directory that is called the same
as the file you want to write.  If you use the same name you'll
overwrite the previous file [or you'll get an error message].

Your file may have to be renamed if there is a conflict with a
file by the same name in the rkba directory.

Once your file is in the incoming directory send me an entry for
the INDEX file and I will add it to the file.

If you cannot use anonymous ftp and would still like to contribute
a file email the file to me and I'll take care of the rest.

If you submit a file and do not notify me it may be removed, so
be sure to let me know first.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com





-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54685
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun Talk -- State legislative update

In article <lairdb.735523285@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>In <C5sGG3.Bnv@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>As William O. Douglas noted, "If a powerful sponsor is lacking,
>>individual liberty withers -- in spite of glowing opinions and
>>resounding constitutional phrases."
>
>An excellent quote.
...
>I looked under 'C' and 'K' for Kalifornia; has the NRA given up on us?

One might well ask if CA gun owners have given up on the NRA/CRPA.

The national NRA doesn't march in and get things passed.  They provide
a convenient label for local activities/activists.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54686
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to
tear gas, the first thing that came to mind was the location of the exit.  If
there had been anything in the way, corners to negotiate, doors to open, or 
any other obstacles to movement, I would have had a difficult time exiting the
chamber.  And any concentration of tear gas is hazardous to individuals with
respiratory problems, and the wearing of soft contact lenses in a tear gas 
contaminated area is considered a REAL BAD IDEA.  So hoping the BD's would
peaceably come strolling out the door after being gassed is a bit unrealistic.
If they could have found the door, having them staggering out retching wouldn't
be too far fetched.  Throw in the factor of 50-51 days of being under siege and
subject to psychological warfare, and all bets on functional abilities are off.
Anybody tried to get Amnesty International to jump in on this one?

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54687
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Analysis of Second Amendment (Was: Re: Some more about gun control...)

In article <1993Apr21.042608.26086@ra.msstate.edu> dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:
>First, I would like to say how much I appreciate having so literate and
>erudite an individual as Mr. Rutledge with whom to discuss this topic.
>Frankly, most anti-RKBA posters refuse even to approach the topic of
>the original understanding of the Bill of Rights as detailed in the
>writings of the era. This  is most refreshing.
>
>Second, I must apologize for leaving the discussion for several days.
>My brigade's quarterly drill was this weekend and I needed to attend
>to several matters pertaining to the State Militia.
>
>Some people seem to feel that the concept of the Militia is an anachro-
>nism that is out of place in the 20th century. I'm not sure the Swiss
>would agree and I think perhaps a discussion of how the Militia, both
>organized and unorganized, fits into the defense plans of my State,
>Mississippi. Please do not assume that this describes something peculiar
>to one southern state. For instance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>has a well organized Militia which, members report, maintains stocks
>of both riot guns and machine guns. The laws of other States will vary
>but are probably similar.

It appears it is time that this article (originally posted by Larry
Cipriani last year, and which I saved) gets posted again.  It offers
as good an analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment, especially
regarding the militia clause, as I have seen.  I have not seen any
rebuttles with similar bone fides...

Enjoy.  (Flames to /dev/null)

--------- Begin Enclosed Article -----------

			THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

			      by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan,
right ?  And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call
would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it.  But who would you call
if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning
of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los
Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton
Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the
foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system.  Mr.
Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor
journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of
"American Usage and Style: The Consensus."

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's
expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades
before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at
USC.  Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the
professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly
magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam
Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.  Copperud's
fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in
continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner
of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent
the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in
English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect
to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted
entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent.  Further,
since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation
regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever
analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to
stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under
oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment,
then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task
with this letter.  I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is
vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment.
While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of
its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for
his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our
opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political
subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have
inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your
letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause.  It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall').  The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear
arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by
others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect
to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted
by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a
preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state
that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence
is assumed.  The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be
preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact
necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not
existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied.  The right to
keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence
of a militia.  No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the
right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated
militia as a requisite to the security of a free state.  The right to keep
and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place
conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such
right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as
previously stated.  It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the
militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,'
'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior
authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian
control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the
changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200
years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the
intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the
meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
amendment.  If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also
appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second
Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way
the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people
to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for
example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the
amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the
possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his
cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative
efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach
any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what
many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally
protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all
governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the
Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that
part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the
old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed
officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States
ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely.
American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning
arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements
regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an
abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms,
guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the
rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to
preserve that right.  no one else will.  No one else can.  Will we beg our
elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding
them as representing us if they do?  Will we continue obeying judges who
decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but
means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution
of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend
that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are
credited.  All other rights reserved.

			About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony
Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight
Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK
assassination.  He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing,
the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal
computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second
Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to
keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those
afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore,
24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud).  Mail address: PO Box 94, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0094.  GEnie address: SOFTSERV

--------- End Enclosed Article -------------
-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54688
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

>> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
>> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. 

With one exception, that's a pretty good description of many of the
Baptists I know.  The exception is that they know the difference
between an M-16 and an AR-15.  Heck - they even know that "it looks
like Richard Petty's stock car" doesn't mean "it's a racing stock
car".  They may be uncouth, but they've figured out that appearance
isn't function.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54689
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <23APR199302461670@zeus.tamu.edu> djh4484@zeus.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH) writes:
> "  A well regulated militia, being necessarry to the security of a free state,
>   the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
>  What is regulated? Regulated means "controlled"! How about security?

While it may mean that in 1993, the relevant meaning comes from 1789.
Moreover, "controlled" doesn't tell you WHO's doing the controllling.

Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in 1749, defines a "well-regulated
militia", that being the relevant phrase, as being an armed people NOT
under the control of govt.  The wigged gents who argued about the
constituion used it in that way.

Feel free to provide a 1790s-era reference showing a usage other than
"individual right, not to be interfered with by govt".

Note that the first clause has a meaning - it is a restriction on
govt military power.  See Scarry's University of Penn law review
article for an extended discussion.  The existence of a well-regulated
militia is a necessary part of that restriction, but it is not sufficient.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54690
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Gun clubs:
>If you are a member you CAN borrow weapons....(Suprised??)
>You are supposed to train with a .22 for the 6 months, THEN
>you can start with anything bigger.
>
>Drivers licence:
>Forgot that USA is THE land of cars.....
>Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy.
>Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......
>But we think this is acceptable because a car is NOT a toy, and
>bad drivers tend to hurt OTHERS.
>(If you are really bad, you WON'T get a lincence!)
>
>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

Unfortunately, elections can, and are, bought.  Promise the voters money, and
they will vote for you.

>
>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.

Same here.  Convicted felons may not legally purchase firearms.

>And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe),
>we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.

That you know of.

While I lived in the DBR, a gang robbed a joint US Army/Bundewehr armoury and
got several hundred M-16s, ammunition, handguns and some explosives.  When I
left two years later, there were no clues.

>
>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!
>Someone said that if we 'ban' guns we'd have to ban cars to, because they 'kill' to...
>I don't think we should argue on this one..... ;)
>
>The issue (I hope..):
>I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem.
>Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)

Who uses them is the problem.  Crime, in the U.S., is "no big deal" if you are
the criminal.  How about 5 years for murder.  Credit for time served (in jail,
waiting for trial) and you are out in 12 months, worst case.  If we would put
criminals, especially violent ones, in the slam for true sentences, crime would
drop.  Instead, we reward them for being good and let them out early, very
early.

>
>I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia:
>They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them
>to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.

Serbs, Croats and Muslims have been killing each other almost since before the
invention of guns.  Old women are throwing stones at UN trucks.  This is a
hatred that goes beyond reason.
>
>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??
>(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)

Yes, the problem is the user.  Question back (since you are one of the rational
ones):  If all gun crime were to stop, would you support dropping all gun
controls?

>
>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

They did not believe, from experience, that the "police" (including National
Guard) could/would protect them.  Unless you want to argue that a human being
does not have a right to protect him/herself, they did the right thing.  What
would you suggest as a defense against a mob throwing bottles and rocks, and
also likely armed with stolen firearms?

>
>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

Criminals would move to Scandinavia??? :-)  The average criminal would look for
a less hazardous job, and the rest would likely be buried at county expense.

>
>Don't flame the Englishmen because of Northern Irland, they have gun control that works
>(in England) and fonds from USA are one of the reasons why IRA can bomb innocents...
>(Something about throwing stones in glass houses...)

Personally, I criticize the fools who send money to the IRA to "make Ireland
free".  Of course, this is the last thing the IRA wants, because they lose
power if England pulls out.  But that's for another group.

>Don't flame them because of what to (three?) children did either.

The U.S. has roughly 20 times the major sporting events as the U.K..  How many
riots did we have at sporting events last year (off the playing field)? 
Hooligan is a word never used when reffering to sports fans here.  I guess
that's where the different cultures thing comes in.

>(Can an Jugoslav have an oppinion on guns or even peace??) (YES!)

Yes.  The question is, is the problem one of too many guns (mostly from the
army) or not enough (nonSerbians can not defend themselves.

>
>(My numbers about crime rates after restrictions on shot-guns are from the police
>and the Statistisk Sentralbyraa) (understood that one Sorenson??)
>
>LAST WORD:
>Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if you want to protect 
>your citicens.

But disarming responsible gun owners is not the solution.  Yet, that is exactly
what HCI is proposing.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54691
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

In article <C5ME6D.Iy0@cs.uiuc.edu> kratz@cs.uiuc.edu (Jason Kratz) writes:
>In <1993Apr16.202441.16032@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear
>>>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapo{s
>>>that are being confiscated.
>
>>Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16
>>from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and
>>a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various
>>versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?
>
>Well, let me see.  UZI, no.  M-11/9, no.

I see that I misphrased my question.  I should have asked WHICH
full-autos Kratz can accurately distinguish from semi-auto
look-alikes.  I should have also included some semi-auto only guns in
my list to see if he'd ask how to distinguish them from their
non-existent full-auto "relatives".

Let's do the former now.  Kratz has claimed that he can visually
distinguish full-autos from semi-autos.  For which full-autos is he
making that claim?  How does he do it?  Let's get specific, and as
exhaustive as possible.

>M-16/AR-15, maybe.  I remember there
>being a selector swtich on the AR-15.  If I remember correctly (please correct
>me if I'm wrong) the switch would set to an "off" position or an "on" position
>because the gun (AR-15) is semi-automatic.  Wouldn't the M-16 have a position
>for semi-auto fire and full-auto fire (or maybe 3 round bursts)?

Maybe?  Why is Kratz asking about what he told us that he knows?

Is Kratz certain that he can distinguish a three position switch from
a two position switch via TV inspection?  (Does he even get to see the
switch in the typical police display of guns?)  Note that one might
well be able to see this sort of thing in a hands on visual inspection
even though it won't be seen on TV.  And to think that Kratz was
telling us that seeing it on TV was just as accurate as being
there....

>How about the other guns?  Do they also have selector switch to switch between
>semi-auto and fully-auto fire?

Why all the questions?  Kratz assured us that he could make this distinction
and now he's asking us how he did it....

>Well, what about what I said above?  If that is correct I guess TV would be
>acceptable (if you had a good enough picture and a picture of the lower 
>receiver of the AR-15/M-16).

What about it?  It only demonstrates that, as I predicted, Kratz
was blowing smoke on this.

>>-andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private
>>--
>Jason Kratz <- didn't take andy's offer to back down in private

-andy wonders what Kratz is learning from this
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54693
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (I am an android..)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.113723.10103@synapse.bms.com> hambidge@bms.com writes:
]In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
]>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
]>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
]>>
]>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
]>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
]>>> in Texas. 
]>>
]>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
]>
]>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
]>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
]
]Ever hear about cutting off the electricity? That was done.
]How effective is an electric stove then?

Didn't the Branch Davidans have an emergency generator? Oh well, I don't think
Brent thought of that anyway.


-- 
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester   (aka: claypigeon)         wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|The Earth is our cradle, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever... |
|People's organizations rarely stay that way... or even begin as such. |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54694
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>In <1r3efjINN3jj@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu writes:

>> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>> >I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......
>> 
>> In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.

>  Currently, there is a bill before the Texas legislature that would make it
>legal for some ordinary folks to carry concealed weapons.  I don't have the
>details, sorry.

>semper fi,

>Jammer Jim Miller 
>Texas A&M University '89 and '91
>________________________________________________________________________________
> I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
>"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
> "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
>      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

If I recall correctly, the bill would provide for concealed carry if
the person takes a 15-hr DPS safety course in firearms and pays a $150
fee for the license.  The bill is apparently veto-proof in the House,
but LtGov Bullock has said it will never come to the floor of the
Senate and Dreamboat Annie has vowed to veto it if it comes to her
desk.  *shrug*

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54695
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: news says BATF indictment/warrant unsealed...


|QUESTION:
|What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald
|denny trial?

The Wall Street Journal had an article on how the police were whining
about all the new guns; excuse me, but police are EMPLOYEES of the
government. Rather like having your janitor complain about job
conditions.

I say Californians should form armed block clubs that would engage
in coordinated strategies should BATF attempt to disarm them based
on the "nefarious tipster" theory of law enforcement. Unlike Waco, 
Californians should be able to destroy armored vehicles in city
streets with incendiary weapons, acetylene after slowing them down
with abandoned car blockades. M-1 Garands should easily outclass
BATF shock troops with their H&K MP-5 SMGs, and there should be
enough Sony Walkmans and Boom Boxes to overwhelm any FBI psy-war
operation... yes, a good time would be had by all. Billary Clinton
would get what he wanted, a War on Gunowners, the BATF would attempt
to show the anti-gun press they they really, REALLY were in charge
with a 500-man "Charge of the Light Brigade," and the FBI would attempt 
to show how _THEY_ really were in charge by asking the Californian 
National Guard to level the area with artillary!

:-) :-) :-)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54696
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu

In article <1r6qqcINN8j4@clem.handheld.com>
jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
 
>
>In article <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>> In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
>> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>>
>> >
>> >In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
>writes:
>> >>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
>> >>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
>> >>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
>> >>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
>> >>crime.
>> >
>> >What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
>> >any of these things?  Evidence, please?
>> >
>> > Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point
>tha
>> there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
>> there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
>> of common incidents.
>>
>> >If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps
>> >you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the
>> >rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps
>> >with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners
>> >spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death
>> >among children in the U.S. is a serious problem.
>> >
>>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
>> ages 14 and under.  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
>> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
>> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
>> I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
>> justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
>> gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
>> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
>> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
>>
>
>Any death is serious.  Wanna discuss match control?  Firearms related
>unintentional deaths among children ages 14 and under are the fault of one or
>more negligent persons, not the gun.
>
   Did I say that a child who unintentionally shoots someone is not negligent?
 NO.  I hate to repeat myself Jim, but like I told Joe, I was not attempting
in any way to justify gun control.  You're right, any death is serious.
THAT was my point to Joe who said that "anti-gunners" try to convinve
the country that accidental gun deaths related to children are a serious
problem.  I guess I assumed everyone thought that it was a problem.
No, I don't want to discuss match control.  I don't equate a book of matches
to a loaded 9 millimeter either.  Don't confuse the issue.  And please don't
say that tired old NRA line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Sure, people can kill people without guns.  But easy access to guns makes it
a lot more convenient.  "Guns don't kill people, People with easy access to
guns kill people".
 
>> >>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the
>> >>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good.
>> >
>> >Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
>> >
>>  My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
>> departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
>> giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
>> to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
>> had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
>> useful.
>>
>
>Providing false hope, then, is the intent?
>
    Jim, I'm just saying how it is.  I'm not saying if that is a good thing
or not. From the police who I have talked with who run some of these gun
buyback programs, I get the impression that they really think they are
having an impact on the community.  When I ask them if they have an evaluatory
component to the program, they say "well no..."  So, in answer to your
question, no, false hope is not the intent.  I think the intent is to
show folks that police are attempting to do something to curb interpersonal
gun violence whether its effective or not.  Look, if you can't measure
the impact of these programs using some sort of pre-test and post-test
evaluation, what is the point?  It must be symbolic in nature.  The police are
essentially saying "look, if you have a gun lying around and you don't
want it, we'll give you $50 for it...because we care about the community".
If you, I and Joe could think of a way to measure the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of these programs we could become rich and famous.
 
>>
>> >>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or
>> >>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are
>> >>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often
>> >>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge.
>> >
>> >I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
>> >suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
>> >students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
>> >to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
>> >who carry a gun to school daily.
>> >
>>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
>> or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see
>> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
>> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
>> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
>> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
>> in 1990.  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
>> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
>> to guns in their home.  California schools reported a 200% increase in
>> student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
>> 1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
>> schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".
>>
>
>200% increase in California schools, eh?  Gun control is working fine, there!
>>
>>  I didn't anything about gun control, what are you talking about?
 
>> >>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news
>> >>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours
>> >>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they
>> >>were in danger).
>> >
>> >"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the
>> >children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were
>> >outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door
>> >if you believed as they did?
>> >
>>  Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
>> situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
>> act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
>> these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
>> would not let innocent children die.
>> If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
>> did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
>> burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.
>>
>So your religion is different.  Does that make it his wrong?  Even assuming
>Koresh actually made that decision, and the verdict is still out on that.
>
> Jim, listen to me, I said I'M NOT RELIGIOUS WHATSOEVER, do you understand?
  Religion has nothing to do with this.  I could care less what religion
they were okay?  To put children in that situation is wrong, pure and
simple.  Difference is good Jim, I am the most progressive and diverse
person in the world.  But, if different is allowing kids to be exposed
to tanks and tear-gas, then yes Jim, DIFFERENT IS WRONG.
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54697
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek)

ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.

	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
burning building?

James Dusek

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54698
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
|> Thank you for remembering Matzada.  Matzada was not an insane act. It was
|> a sanctification of G_D's name and the most extreme denial of tyranny
|> possible. To this day the officers of the Tzahal (Isreal Defense Force)
|> take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will
|> not fall again!
|> 

Not anymore!  Recent archaeological inspection of the site presents pretty
compelling evidence that the "mass suicide" at Masada never occured.  This
evidence was so compelling tha the Tzahal no long hold their secret ceremony
at the fortress.


-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54699
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Waco Questions


Folks,

It's time to start building some precise questions to send to our
federal elected officials and to investigative reporters in our
local TV, radio and newprint media.  Ideally, these questions could be
asked at any investigation into the BATF's and FBI's participation
at the WACO fiasco in hopes of being resolved and, hopefully, wake
up the local news media that they are not getting the entire truth
from the BATF and FBI.  My list is up to 13 that are really nagging 
at my gut.  The list will probably grow. 

1.   What were the contents of the original warrant, now sealed, that
     the BATF obtained?

2.   It is reasonable to believe that illegal firearms and/or ammunition
     could not be flushed down the toilet.  Therefore, a "no-knock"
     raid could be ruled out.  Prior to the initial assault on the 
     complex, did a single BATF agent and accompanying witness (without 
     a contingent of assault and news media personnel) attempt to knock 
     on the door of the Branch Davidian's complex and serve the warrant 
     in a manner prescribed by law?

3.   On the day of the initial assault on the complex, BATF agents
     were aware that several small children were inside the buildings.
     In the ensueing gun battle, BATF agents fired into a building
     known to contain children, killing at least one two-year old child.
     Knowing children were present, why didn't the BATF have an
     alternate plan and immediately retreat from the area close to
     the complex and implement the alternate plan rather than opening
     fire and jeopardizing the lives of the children in the building? 

4.   The FBI spokesman states that paper evidence indicates that
     David Koresh and members of the Branch Davidians possessed over
     $200,000 in firearms and ammunition.  Did David Koresh and the
     members of the Branch Davidians have a valid Federal Firearms
     License, were they actively participating in the legal business
     of selling/buying firearms and ammunition, and were any of the
     weapons they had illegally possessed?  Does this paper evidence
     consist only of weapons purchased or does it include legally
     dispossessed weapons.

5.   After the original assault on the compound tragically failed,
     a BATF spokeswoman stated "We were outgunned!".  Yet, TV newscasts
     of video tape filmed at the time of the incident show BATF agents
     armed with MP-5 and AR-15/M16 rifles.  Although unclear on the
     video tape because of obstruction from full view by agent's
     bodies, they also may have had AK-47 and SKS rifles.  What type(s)
     of firearms did the BATF agents have immediate access to at the 
     scene of the original assault on the complex?

6.   Since there is no evidence to confirm anyone was inside the
     complex involuntarily, why did the FBI treat it as a "hostage"
     situation? 

7.   Along the same lines, why did the FBI use "psychological warfare"
     techniques, including sensory overload, sleep deprivation, and
     other disruptive techniques that would test the sanity of any 
     normal person rather than using techniques aimed at placing the 
     complex occupants into a calmer frame of mind?

8.   Reports indicate several of the children inside the complex
     were accompanied by their mothers.  Since it is reasonable
     to expect these mothers would have their children taken away
     from them if they came out, why did the FBI expect the mothers
     to just walk out and surrender themselves to the authorities?

9.   Agents at the scene claim to have seen members of the Branch
     Davidians setting fire to the complex.  Branch Davidian members
     who survived the inferno claim the fire was started when an 
     armored vehicle punched through the wall and knocked over a 
     lantern which was setting on a table.  Video tape of the incident 
     does show an armored vehicle punching a hole in the wall and the 
     fire erupted almost immediately from the same general location.  
     Was the source of the fire the same room where the armored vehicle 
     penetrated?

10.  FBI spokesmen are voicing the opinion that the David Koresh and
     the members of the Branch Davidians committed mass suicide.  Yet,
     bodies are being discovered throughout the house and other areas
     within the building complex.  This seems to be counter to any
     known mass suicides through history.  What evidence does the FBI
     have that a mass suicide pact existed?

11.  FBI Director Sessions stated that the massive fireball shown on
     the video tape was caused by the Branch Davidian's ammunition
     and/or powder cache exploding.  Yet, the fireball seems to be
     more characteristic of the type created when compressed gas
     or other highly volatile fuel source explodes.  Was any evidence 
     found which would indicate the Branch Davidians had an ammunition 
     and/or powder cache which exploded to create this fireball?  If so,
     and if David Koresh and members of the Branch Davidians were 
     engaged in the legal business of selling/buying firearms, was the
     amount determined to be excessively greater than one would expect
     for someone engaged in such a legal business?

12.  It is rumored that one FBI agent was extremely upset about critical
     news media coverage and intentionally used an armored vehicle to
     crush a reporter's car which had been left at the compound.  Is 
     there any factual basis to this rumor and, if so, what charges will 
     be brought against the FBI agent who performed the act?

13.  FBI Director Sessions states that, during the final assault on the
     complex, "over 80 shots were fired at the vehicles."  On the video
     tape of the incident, you can hear the drone of the armored vehicles
     engines.  Yet, there is no sound of the sharp reports that one
     would expect to hear if shots were fired.  Also, there are no 
     indications of smoke and/or muzzle flashes appearing from the windows,
     buildings or other structures in the video.  Surely, these should be 
     evident if the Branch Davidians had fired on the armored vehicles.  
     Finally, the video tape does not show any indication of paint splatter, 
     sparks or other characteristic spray of material which should be 
     apparent if the Branch Davidians had fired upon the vehicles.  Do 
     any of the armored vehicles which were brought in to pump tear gas 
     into the compound show evidence of fresh damage due to being hit by 
     shots from high-power rifles?

14.  CS gas is considered to be a chemical warfare agent.  The United
     States has signed international treaties which prevent the use
     of CS gas in warfare.  If the United States could not morally use
     CS gas against Saddam Hussein and his troops, why is it morally
     acceptable to use the same agent against citizens of our own land?

15.  On April 21, FBI spokesmen state that at least 3 bodies discovered
     in the complex had bullet wounds to the head indicating they had
     been murdered or had committed suicide.  On April 22, the county
     coroner claims he knows nothing about any bodies found with bullet
     wounds to the head.  Were any of the victims bodies found within
     the burned out complex have bullet wounds to the head?
-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54701
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5y36B.8MG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with
>how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the
>compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter. 
	Lots of house fires give off black sooty smoke.  And as far as
	the speed of the fire the winds were gusting to 30mph at least
	that day.  I guess you're forgetting the way Oakland and Berkeley
	looked back in 91.  Did those folks use accelerants?

						smg

	



 I doubt the Feds
>did that as they were more interested in arresting Vernon.  The real
>unbalanced one (at least the one that lost his cool) was Vernon, so
>I figured that he was more likely to do it (after all he was Jesus 
>being persecuted by the authorities, and had followers to hold onto,
>so made the decision.  He and his followers also probably felt that they
>were rocketing to heaven by doing this stuff).  Thsi conclusion, I came
>to after umpteen million hours of listening to NPR and other radio
>shows (I always have the radio going when I am in my office on some
>innocuous talk-show or news program as background noise).
>
>
>-- 
><><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
><><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54702
From: porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges)
Subject: Re: JFFO has gone a bit too far


Having read the posted long article by JPFO, I have some observations:

1.  This article does NOT claim that the GCA of 1968 is a "verbatim 
translation" of a Nazi law.  What it says is that in another place --
the book they're talking about -- they compare the two things section
by section.  The implication is that the similarities are devastating.
In the next sentence, they talk about how in that book they reproduce 
the German text of the Nazi law, together with its translation.  Not 
surprisingly, a reader could easily conflate these two things into a 
single idea:  that the American GCA is a literal translation of the Nazi
law; and sure enough, that's what the whole thing has mutated into, 
urban-folklore style.

2.  The article goes to great pains to establish that Senator Dodd had a 
copy of the Nazi law, either from his time on the Nurnberg prosecution 
team or later.  This fact is considered highly incriminating, but I don't 
understand why.  The author repeats several times that he is simply unable 
to imagine how anyone could come into possession of the original text; and 
yet in a paragraph towards the end, he explains it perfectly:

"If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons
Law during his time at Nurnberg, it likely was part of a collection of
documents, for example, issues of the Reichsgesetzblatt [the German
law registry]."

Bingo.  Exactly.  

Dodd had a *book*, with a series of Nazi laws in it, including the one
under discussion.  All of the stuff about "Why would a U.S. congressman
have a copy of a Nazi law?" melts away, by the author's admission.  He
then continues:  "But if he acquired the original German text of the 
Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nurnberg, he must have done so 
for a very specific reason..."  But there's absolutely no reason to 
think that this is the case.  In fact, as a "senior member of the U.S. 
team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals", it seems to me that
he would have *had* to have a copy.  All arguments about whether 
the Nazi Weapon Law is really of historical interest (as it obviously
is, certainly according to the author here), or whether Dodd personally
prosecuted the Interior Minister who signed it, can be put aside as red 
herrings.

3.  Having established that Dodd owned a copy of the original German text, the
JPFO article then tries to draw sinister implications from the fact that he 
asked to have it translated.  The problem is, in the context of the charge 
levelled at Dodd, these two things work *against* each other.  People ask 
to have things translated when they *don't know what they mean*.  If Dodd 
took it upon himself to preserve the Nazi law with idea of someday introducing 
it into American law, surely by 1968 he would have know what it *meant*, 
wouldn't he?
    Anyway, this precise charge -- the main one that I questioned in an earlier
posting -- is just silly.  Why would Dodd need the exact translation for this
purpose?  Is the idea that the gun controllers, despite being presumably bent
on disarming the populace with the goal of eventually destroying all civil
liberties, needed a crib sheet?  Didn't they have any idea how to do it
on their own?
    Once again, the author provides a perfectly acceptable answer to his
own question: "Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law
to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the 
Nazi law."  In fact, since the law and its translation *were* entered
into the Congressional Record, under the heading of documents "concerning
the history of Nazism and gun confiscation", Dodd's motivation isn't a 
mystery:  he asked for the translation in order to put it in the CR.

4.  Even this article makes it clear that the part of the Nazi law that
was added *by* the Nazi regime is only a small part of that law.  
Registration of guns, for instance, was begun in 1928, and thus NOT
a "Nazi-inspired" idea.  The parts of the Nazi law that parallel the 
1968 GCA include handgun control of some sort, and the identification 
of certain weapons as sporting weapons.  The JPFO then goes on to list 
other parts of the Nazi law, forbidding ownership of weapons by Jews;
of course, there are no such provisions in the American GCA.  Nevertheless,
in a rhetorical move guaranteed to muddy the waters, immediately after the 
discussion of the anti-Jewish parts of the law, the JPFO article continues, 
"Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA'68..." -- so 
as to get maximum emotional mileage out of that aspect of the law.
-- 
					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54703
From: gress@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (GRESS  JOSEPH JOHN  )
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith

In article <C5D05G.6xw@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>In article <1993Apr10.155819.18237@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
>>Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from
>>bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be
>>for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.
>
>Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.
>
>Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
>die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as
>long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few
>shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One
>assumes they are moving!)
>
>
First of all let's assume that you are right that fewer guns would make it 
in to the country, that sounds great (to those that see guns as inherently
evil) except then every one  of those guns would be in the hands  of someone
who obviously couldn't care less about following the law, after all they 
got the gun illegally, so is more likely to commit a crime with that gun.
Great then everyone with a gun is likely to use it in a crime, nice system.

Now  as to reducing the number of guns  coming into society by making it 
illegal to manufacture, sell, or import them in this coutry,  let me use
a parallel for empiric evidence.  The amount of cocaine in this country is
far less since its manufacture, sale, and importation was out lawwed.    If
that last statement is true then perhaps we should consider your plan.  This 
could also apply to drugs in general.

PLAIN OLD  JOE
>



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54704
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
>>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.

>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?

According to an AP report (from Texas, written by Jaime Aron) this morning,
in addtion to the gas pumped in by hoses from CS generators, canisters of
tear gas were thrown into the building from armored vehicles, one of the
canisters hitting a man inside in the face.

This was in the part of the article *before* going into differences in
the stories told by BD survivors and the gov't.

Tear gas canisters *used* to be able to start fires...





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54706
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: The Holocaust Revisited

The U.S. Government's campaign of persecution and genocide against the
Branch Davidians was a resounding success.

Heil Clinton!  Heil Reno!  The Gestapo is alive and well and living in
Washington, D.C.

-- 
Kevin, who agrees that David Koresh was probably a first-rate nutcase
       but who firmly believes that the Bill of Rights guaranteed his
       his right to be a religious fanatic and that the government is
       guilty of violating his civil rights and of 1st degree murder.

       OK, which small, under-represented-in-congress religious group
       are we going to persecute next and are we going to torch their
       church with a rolled up copy of the Constitution?

       I think I'm going to be sick now. . .

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54707
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption

In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
>a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
>in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.

What interpretations?  Just read it as it's written.
   "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Where does it say "The right of the people to be members of a militia shall
not be infringed" or "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed?"  NOWHERE.


"Well-educated businessmen being necessary to the ability of the nation to
compete in the international marketplace, the right of the people to attend
schools shall not be infringed."

Would you "interpret" this to mean that only businessmen should have a
protected right to attend schools?  Why or why not?

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54708
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: S414 (Brady bill) loopholes?


In article <shepardC5p2y6.GC1@netcom.com>, shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard) writes:
>Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about
>the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).

Good!
>
>1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?
>     What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".
>     How close is that to being made law?

Not very.  Thanks to the filibuster in the Senate, things are backing up.  The
House judiciary  is going to start looking at our friends from the ATF, so that
bill will be held up a little, too.  NOTE: Things can change quickly.

>
>2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important
>   differences I missed?
>
>3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:
>  A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during
>     the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals
>     process once the required instant background check system is established,
>     but not before).

I thought there was a correction process in both bills for both parts.

>  B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving
>     using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an
>     inaccurate record corrected?)

Very correct.

>  C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person
>     can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an
>     immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.
>     But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does
>     it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception
>     statement.

Welcome to the world of "the privileged".

>True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?

How about no compulsion to allow purchase if there is no evidence against?

>
>4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from
>   buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?
>   At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?

It is already illegal to do this.

>
>   'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed
>   (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised
>   to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun
>   registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.

This is the "health" card.  Or so some "paranoids" claim.  I say that just
because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.   :-) 1/2

>
>Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current
>legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits
>of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54709
From: fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot)
Subject: FBI is not stupid

hello,

I just want to make 2 points:

1) The FBI is not stupid. These people are chosen for their intelligence,
education, loyalty to the government, etc. They are given much intensive
training. So, to all of you who refuse to believe there could be any
conspiracy here, and say that the FBI was just stupid, I say I don't
believe it.

2) The FBI has acces to the latest in audio and video technology -- the
latest digital systems. The FBI can manufacture evidence. Need a tape of
Koresh saying, "light the fire", and you can have one. Need a thermal
imaging video of three people lighting fires, and through the magic of
computer graphics, you can have one. The thing is, manufacturing these
pieces of evidence takes time. So it may be a few more days before we
get to see them. Or maybe we just haven't heard any tapes or seen any
FBI video is because it is:
	1) classified
	2) too gruesome for our eyes
	3) lost/got coffee spilled on it

Dwayne Jacques Fontenot

BTW, I get my information from live video feeds. I read the papers too,
but almost everything in them contradicts what I have seen with my own eyes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54710
From: fbrown@seaway.ssd.kodak.com (Frank Brown 726-0415)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r75n1INN97g@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <dusek.735489223@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>> ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>> >or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>> >interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>> >started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>> >knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.
>> 
>> 	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>> burning building?
>> 
>I don't know, why?
>
This is the AP story from Fri morning.

As the walls came tumbling down and tear gas filled the air, cult leader
David Koresh sprang into action. He left his third-floor bedroom and began
looking around the house, making sure women and children were secure and 
checking that everyone had their gas masks on properly. Within hours, the    
compound became an inferno. Nine Branch Davidians excaped.
   This is their story, gleaned from lawyers who spoke with six of them
who are jailed on charges that include conspiracy and murder. That day the 
six said a portable radio offered the only contact with the outside world    
since Koresh's right-hand man, Steve Schneider, ripped out the compounds's 
phone line after FBI agents called before dawn Monday saying this was the
cults last chance: Come out or prepare to get forced out.
    They kept their word. By dawn, tanks were battering the Mount Carmel
compound, punching for hours to creat holes for tear gas to enter. The BD
meanwhile proceeded with their daily routines. Strapped into gas masks, the
women did laundry. Others read Bibles in their rooms. The 17 children, all
under 10, remained by their mothers' sides. Still, it was hard to ignore what    
was happening around them. Each time a tank rammed the poorly-constructed building
it shook violently. Cult members dodges falling gypsum wallboard and doors.
Hundreds of gas canisters hurled in from the armored vehicles were filling
the air with noxious fumes. The flying canisters were more frightening than
the tanks. At least one man was hit in the face. The gas began filling the air,
driven by heavy gusts of wind coming through windows and the holes the tanks
made. Scattered throughout the house, the cult members made no efforts to
gather. Then the FBI sent in its biggest weapon -- a massive armored vehicle
headed for a chamber, lined with cinder blocks, where authorities hoped to 
find Koresh and Schneider and fire tear gas directly at them.
  Here the cult members' story diverges from the government's version. The
FBI says cult members set fires in three places. But each of the six cult
members, in separate discussions with lawyers, consistently gave versions
at odds with the FBI's account. They say the tank flattened a barrel of 
propane, spilling its contents. And as the tank thundered through the house,
it tipped over lit lanterns, spitting flames that ignited the propane and
other flammables. The home of used lumber, plywood, and wallboard tacked 
together with tar paper was vulnerable. The building erupted. Nine BD's
escaped jumping through windows and dashing through other openings. Others
died groping in the blackness.

Frank




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54711
From: malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu (ALEXANDER MICHAEL)
Subject: Re: BATF Acronym

In article <8110360@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> cunniff@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ross Cunniff) writes:
>diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich) writes:
>>B. arely
>>A. dequate,
>>T. otally
>>F. ***ed!
>
>The one I made up last night was:
>
>	Bureau of
>	Assault,
>	Theft, and
>	Frame-ups
>
Try this one, a favorite around here:

Bureau of Assholes, Tightwads, and Facists.

And remember, they were created by the Infernal Revenue Code.

			--msa


-- 
Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true.  Jerry Lee Lewis was the Devil.
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet.  All of a sudden,
I found myself in love with the world, so there was only one thing that I could
do was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54712
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr21.200151.4937@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
> >                                     A BILL 
> > To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
> >     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
> >     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

> In article <1qkshq$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
> writes:
> [ ... ]
> >Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
> >I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.

> Hey, guys.  You're absolutely correct, and well on the way to winning
> this battle ... and losing the war.  Yes, there are serious philosophical
> flaws in HR 1276.  Technical ones, too -- how'd you like to sue the Feds,
> lose, and have to pay _their_ "reasonable Attorney's fee" ... ?    :-)

> Still, I have one basic question:  compared to what we've _got_ is HR 1276
> (a) better, or (b) worse?  This one shouldn't even take you three guesses.

Compared to the Second Amendment?  I think it's worse.

The problem is, the devil is in the details.  You know, the Brady Bill
sounds like a "good idea" too, until you discover that there is NO check,
and that the police DON'T have to allow your purchase even if you check
out, and that you have NO recourse if they don't.

Are there any loopholes here?  I'm no lawyer, I can't be sure.  I
would have never noticed the second one mentioned above in the Brady
Bill, for example.

The more words involved, the more details.  What was that saying about
Abraham Lincoln requiring 200 words to free the slaves, and the modern
Congress requiring 3,000,000 words to describe price controls on rice?

> If there's a good enough show of support for HR 1276, maybe for a change
> _we_ could be the ones saying "it's a reasonable first step" ...

That only works with bad laws.  Good laws are like good computer programs.  
Quality has to be written in from the start, not added on later.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54713
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Photographers removed from compound

In article <C5wJFz.Bus@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> >> I find this disturbing. 

> >Good.  Keep thinking critically.

> Dont' patronize me and I won't patronize you.

Feel free to patronize me all you like; I need the tips. :-)
Seriously, if you were insulted, I apologize.

> The most tiresome thing about this group is that so many people 
> tell others they are sucking up to the government when ever they 
> decide that something the government says is plausible and praise 
> them as independent thinkers whenever they find something the government 
> says implausible.

People are sucking up to the government when they decide that ONLY the
things the government says are plausible.  Especially if they refuse to
consider reasonable alternatives.

However, from what I saw plastered all over the TV news last night, it's
no longer necessary to be an "independent thinker" to depart from the
government's party line.  It looks like our "independent press" may 
actually be starting to be earn its clothes allowance.  This, to me, is
a good sign.  I hope it continues.

> Here's a clue.  Independent thinkers are able to come to either conclusion 
> depending on the circumstances.  Non-critical thinkers are the ones who would 
> always come to the same type of conclusion regardless of the circumstances.

Independent thinkers question authority.  In a situation where only one
set of facts are being presented, "coming to a conclusion" is not the 
hallmark of an independent thinker unless it's coupled with the ability
to challenge those "facts" critically.  The scientific method consists
of more than choosing the popular hypothesis; it's even more than choosing
between two hypotheses that other people have proposed.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54714
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
> a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
> contrary.

Murderous, huh?  Yeah, there was all sorts of carnage going on there in
the 60 YEARS they were there -- BEFORE the government assaulted them.
Oh, I forgot -- you probably consider self-defense as murder.

> Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
> the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
> prefer to believe the cultists?

Damn right.  This is not a partisan thing; it's about individual 
liberties -- the right of a citizen to be left the hell alone.

> (No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

That's another indication that you don't understand the issue.

> So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
> people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
> one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
> to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

Maybe they said:

"Our appropriations are coming up soon.  We need a good PR boost.  Let's
find a socially unpopular group who happen to have a lot of guns, go in
like gangbusters, be heros, and have the local media get it all on video 
tape.  Then we won't have to worry about our budget until next year."

> Does [Bill Clinton] look good in a cape?

Why don't you knit one to match his jogging outfit?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54715
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.152549.8169@starbase.trincoll.edu>, () writes:
> In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu

> > Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
> > are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
> > that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
> > briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
> > go ahead.

> > Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?

> Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How
> in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking
> governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE
> reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't
> there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the
> sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens. 

Hey, joe -- assuming you're old enough to remember it -- how did you feel
about presidential responsibility every time Reagan said "I don't recall" 
about his arms-for-hostages meetings with the Ollie North gang?

How did you feel about it when Bush said he "was out of the loop on that
decision" when he was right there in the thick of it?

Oh, right.  "He was responsible in the sense that he was briefed, but so
what -- shit happens!"  Is that what you said?

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54718
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
>there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
>been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
>rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

The only folks claiming this are the ATF/FBI who have an interest in
putting the blame on the BD's. Wake up.


>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

Right and proper? How? It was FUBAR from day 1.

>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?
>
From all independent sources. Yes. 

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

It would have hurt nothing to wait and the result could hardly have been
worse.

>3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?

Sure, it you want to someone you claim is a dangerous paranoid even
more paranoid.

>And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
>general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
>
>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

And what makes you think that "waffle boy" didn't tell her to take the
wrap. It was job preservation not "balls".
-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54719
From: strait@cheetah.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait)
Subject: Re: NRA address?

In article <7307@pdxgate.UUCP>, barker@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (James Barker) writes:
> Could someone email me a USNail address for the NRA? I'd like to write them
> a letter encouraging them to see to it VERY EMPHATICALLY that the 2nd
> amendment is restored to the form that the founding fathers intended.

National Rifle Association
1600 Rhode Island Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-3268
1-800-368-5714 (membership)

-- 
| Jeff Strait                       | strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu        |
| University of Illinois            | PHONE: (217) 333-6444            |
| "If you ladies leave this island, if you survive basic recruit       |
| training, you will be a weapon, a minister of death praying for war" |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54720
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Question on Senate Bills

 I'm writting letters to my Congresscritters and was wondering if
 there is any reason(s) why I should NOT support the following
 Bills, other than the previous comments about S.458.  Just checking
 before I mail the letter to make sure I don't support something
 that I really shouldn't.

 -----------------
 I strongly SUPPORT the following laws currently being considered in Congress
 as they would either have a positive effect towards reducing crime, or re-
 enforce our Constitutional right under the 2nd amendment.

 * S. 441 (Campbell)	To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a
			mandatory minimum sentence for the unlawful possession
			of a firearm by a convicted felon, a fugitive from
			justice, a person who is addicted to, or an unlawful
			user of, a controlled substance, or a transferor or
			receiver of a stolen firearm, to increase the general
			penalty for violation of Federal firearms laws,
			and to increase the enhanced penalties provided for the 
			possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of 
			violence or drug trafficking crime, and for other
			purposes.

 * S.458  (Smith) 	To restore the second Amendment Rights of all Americans.

 * S.488  (Specter)	To provide Federal penalties for drive-by shootings.

 * S.504  (Kohl)	To amend section 924 of title 18, United States Code to
			make it a Federal crime to steal a firearm or explosives
			in interstate or foreign commerce.


                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Here's a story, bout a man named Brady, who took a .22 bullet
 in his head.  Even though he can act perfectly normal, he
 prefers to pretend he's brain dead.

 Here's a story, bout a woman named Brady, who had nothing to
 do but sit around all day.  Then her husband became a media
 martyr, now she wants to take all your guns away.

 The Brady Bunch, The Brady Bunch, This is how we got stuck
 with the Brady Bunch. . . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54721
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli 
<thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
> 	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY


Well, may I point out that paranoia is an IRRATIONAL fear, without basis
in reality.  As we've seen here in the US, there is nothing irrational
about it.  Perhaps you folks in Finland have been down on your knees
being good little boys and girls so that the former Soviet Union didn't
come across the border and stomp the snot out of you for so long that
you just figure everybody should be so accomodating to tyranny.


> 
> 	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
> 
> 	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup


If you don't like us talking about political issues involving attacks
on people for owning guns, don't read talk.politics.guns.


> 
> 	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
> 	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
> 	let's say 1000 people ????
> 	

Nobody's trying to save YOU from anything, so butt out.  I couldn't
care less about what somebody on the other side of the world thinks 
about this. Of course, you do have a right to an opinion...  but I've
always figured that opinons are like hemmorhoids.  Every asshole's
got them, I just don't care about yours. 



  **************************************************************************
*     I remember what I was doing         *    Bad boy, whatcha gonna do    * 
*  when I heard that JFK had been shot.   *        Whatcha gonna do         *
*  Will you remember the Battle of Waco?  *    when they come for you...    *
 ***************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54722
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

Could y'all PLEASE stop posting this stuff to tx.general.  tx.politics
is sufficient and is where this stuff belongs.  Thanks.

	Cathy
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54723
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
media-event brought to you by HCI.

Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
tacky, but hey, whatever works.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54724
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers

In article <C5u7Io.uMw@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>Try the firearms archive.  Larry Cipriani's instructions follow.  By
>the way, thanks for the archive Larry..

There are a few bills not yet in the archive, but these are the main ones
we need to fight.  And thanks to David Robinson for scanning so many of
them in for us!

The subdirectory bills are stored in was moved from "congress" to
"Congress", that is:

godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu:/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/Congress
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54725
From: j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr21.040839.20574@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>>That the gas was "not harmful", as the sensitive, caring Janet Reno described 
>>it?
>
>Is it? As far as I know, tear gas, especially in large concentrations,
>is very dangerous (even toxic) for small children. This makes the
>FBI's supposedconcern for the safety of the children seem rather 
>hypocritical.
>

Not to mention that the G-men believed the children didn't have gas masks.

But that was not, with respect to the children, the point of the gassing.
The feds *knew* that the children's health would be in danger and proceeded
under the assumption that the "motherly instinct" of the Davidian women
would remove them from harm's way. I busted a gut on that one.

Someone else on the net observed that the administration's appeal to a
woman's "motherly instinct" would never wash with feminists and liberals
if a republican were in the White House. I say that such an justification
could *only* come from a feminist mindset. 

BTW - I'd read in the paper yesterday that the type of gas used was CS2.
The paper didn't provide any specifics about it.

"Guess I'm still writing..."
Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick
malcolm@atlantic.cs.unb.ca or j979@jupiter.csd.unb.ca              }>:-/> --->
_____________ Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem ____________

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54726
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)

In article <C5wMp5.5u9@boi.hp.com> jeffw@boi.hp.com (jeff waldeck) writes:

>Where did you hear about the thermal imaging? I haven't heard this yet 
>(not that I doubt it, I'm just looking for sources...) 

This was reported in Canadian papers Thursday, 22 April - I _think_ the
source was UPI, but don't recall for certain.

>It seems to me that if they did have this kind of info, they could
>broadcast it and it would resolve (or at least help to resolve) alot
>of doubt in people's minds. 

>Personally, the way the (FBI/BATF/Reno/etc) is claiming all sorts of
>things without offering one shred of proof (other than their "good word")
>is very suspicious to me. A picture is worth a thousand words...

I understand that at least two goverment investigations have been ordered,
so we may learn more during their hearings. 

>I sincerely hope you are right and it turns out (with indisputable
>proof broadcast across our land) that the Government groups had nothing
>to do with the fire. But until I see such proof, I think it is just as
>likely that a tank did knock over a lantern as Koresh torching the place.
>The only "evidence" I have seen is a tank crashing through the front
>wall, withdrawing, and seconds later flames are seen (the first flames
>on the video) erupting from this very same spot. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Tough call without more investigation, but if the thermal imaging story
holds up, I think the government will be more credable... of course,
paranoia fans won't believe their results anyway, will they?

>If such proof exists, the Government should publish it and put all this
>speculation to rest.

Hear, hear! I'd also like to see the autopsy reports confirm news reports
that multiple victims were found shot (in the head), and in positions
inconsistent with fire victims. It is simply too early to draw conclusions
either way about this nasty incident, but I tend to believe the government
side.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher 
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
  Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island  
with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54727
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker bashes tpgers (was Re: Welcome to Police State USA)


In article <1993Apr22.041542.11054@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:

|>From article <C5t9IA.6F9@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):

|>> If anyone wants to understand the paranoid mindset of Koresh I offer you
|>> talk.politics.guns. There you can dredge the sewers of minds so hung
|>> up on power and ego trips that they bend reality arround their own
|>> particular set of beleifs.
|>
|>Just what the hell do you base that ludicrous claim on?  There are 
|>*plenty* of fine, decent people people who read/post to t.p.g.  If
|>any of these people are paranoid it is because of people like you.

Hey dude you are making me paranoid! What an argument!!!


|>> I long ago gave up arguing the case for arms control directly. Instead
|>> I invite people to ask themselves, would you want to be in a room full
|>> of the occupants of talk.politics.guns, their personal armouries and
|>> attempt to enter a discussion with them?
|>
|>I'd have a spot of tea with them. :)  You probably gave up on arguing the
|>case for arms control directly long ago because posters who *know*
|>what they are talking about (e.g., Frank Crary) disproved all your
|>arguments for why more gun control is needed.  So, you gave up because
|>you know they are right and you couldn't refute their answers.

No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people
are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners. USEnet as a whole
disproves it of humanity as a whole.

We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of
guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn
down your house. See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons
to support gun control.


Cuddles 'n kisses

Phill 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54728
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <9l15qxn@rpi.edu>, lswilfin@mercury.ral.rpi.edu (Lee S Wilfinger) writes:
> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> 
> >Obnly something like 12% of guns used in crime in the US are purchased 
> >from legitimate dealers (and not necessarily by the person who used them
> >in the crime).  So we already HAVE that much "gun control."
> 
> I've seen this mentioned a number of times. I'm curious; what is the
> source for this statistic? 

The number bounces between 2% and 18%, depending on the study quoted and
the type of gun being studied.

Some cites:

---------------------------------------

A recent BATF study (titled "Protecting America, Yes") surveyed 471 career 
criminals and found that only 7% of guns used in violent crimes were
purchased from retail dealers.

---------------------------------------

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

November 1986

                        The Armed Criminal in America
                              by James D. Wright

(1) Legitimate firearms retailers play only a minor role as direct
    sources of handguns for adult felony offenders.

Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most
recent handguns through a customary retail transaction involving a
licensed firearms dealer.  The remainder -- five out of six --
obtained them via informal, off-the-record transactions involving
friends and associates, family members, and various black market
outlets.  The means of acquisition from these informal sources
included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and
often theft.  The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated
by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.

---------------------------------------

INDEPENDENCE ISSUE PAPER No. 4- 91
Independence Institute
14142 Denver West Parkway #101
Golden, CO 80401 
(303) 279-6536

              WHY GUN WAITING PERIODS THREATEN PUBLIC SAFETY
                             By David B. Kopel

     The basic problem with waiting periods is shown by a Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms study of gun dealer sales in Des Moines and Greenville.
The study found that about one to two percent of sales were to dangerous
criminals.[51]  In short, waiting periods have no statistically noticeable
impact on any type of crime because only a tiny fraction of crime guns
are purchased at retail by ineligible buyers.

51. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Assistant Director of Criminal
Enforcement, Memorandum to Director, July 10, 1975 (Greenville survey; of
20,047 names submitted to FBI for record checks, 68 had felony convictions;
of those, 41 had not been represented by counsel at their conviction or who
committed crimes in the distant past; twenty-seven buyers were prosecuted)
(of the 1.3% of buyers selected for prosecution, .9% had non-violent felony
convictions, and .4% had violent convictions). Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, Assistant Director for Criminal Enforcement, memorandum to
Director, May 8, 1975 (of 374 records checked, 39 were purchasers with felony
records who were not appropriate for prosecution because of age or
non-violent nature of felony; six purchasers were prosecuted).

---------------------------------------

INDEPENDENCE ISSUE PAPER No. 12-91

                          THE ASSAULT WEAPON PANIC:
                      POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" TAKES AIM
                            AT THE CONSTITUTION

                      By Eric Morgan and David Kopel

     Testimony before Congress revealed that most "assault weapons" in the
hands of criminals were obtained through illegal channels.{97}  The testimony
is consistent with the National Institute of Justice's research findings
based on studies of felons in state prisons. The NU study, authored by
sociologists James D. Wright and Peter Rossi found that only sixteen percent
of criminals had obtained their most recent handgun from a gun store. (The
figures included purchases by legal surrogates, rather than directly by the
criminal.) Wright and Rossi, who had begun their research as firm proponents
of gun control, concluded that no set of controls on retail purchases, and
probably not even full scale gun prohibition, would reduce criminal use of
guns. Wright and Rossi suggested that lawmakers concerned about gun crime
directly target the black market in criminal guns, and
leave the legitimate retail market alone.{98}   Not surprisingly, Wright
believes that the consequences of current "assault weapon" legislation on
street violence are likely to be ineffective.{99}   He warns that gun
controls aimed at ordinary citizens are less likely to reduce the pool of
criminal guns than to provide organized crime with lucrative new
business.{100}

6.   _See, _e.g., The Anti-drug, Assault Weapons Limitation Act of 1989. S.
Rep. No. 160, 101st. Cong., 1st. Sess. 6-8 (1989) [hereinafter SENATE REPORT]
(introduced by Senator DeConcini to reduce semiautomatic firearms abuse by
drug traffickers and violent criminals); Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control
Act of 1989, CAL. PENAL CODE $$ 12275-12290 (West 1990) [hereinafter Roberti-
Roos]; MD. ANN. CODE art. 27 $$ 442,481E (1989) (placing greater restrictions
on 17 varieties of "assault weapons," and providing punishments for failure
to comply or attempts to evade).

97.  SENATE REPORT, _supra note 6, at 17.

98.  James Wright & Peter Rossi, ARMED AND CONSIDERED DANGEROUS: A SURVEY OF
FELONS AND THEIR FIREARMS (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

99.  _Lock _and _Load _for _the _Gunfight _of _'89, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP.,
March 27, 1989, at 9 [hereinafter _Gunfight]. Wright also said, "If criminals
can get all the drugs they want, they can get guns, too." _Id.

100. James Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," 91 _The _Public
_Interest (Spring 1988), at 30-3 1.

-- 
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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54729
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
>to defend the burning of the children.

    Actually all the liberals I've seen have deplored the burning of 
children. I would far preferred that the Davidians had not set the 
fire that burned themselves and their children to death, but I don't 
believe that the responsibility for the fire (or the almost complete 
absense of attempts to escape the blaze) can be placed at the door of 
the Federal authorities.

>Probably drooled all over themselves while watching the TV coverage.

    Not so. My wife got me a convenient plastic "drip pan" for Christmas...

>Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.

    Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis.

>Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
>a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.

    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54730
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Need info on 43: 1 and suicide for refutation

In article <1qmuv8INNl8s@dns1.NMSU.Edu> loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:

>The following is quoted from the tail end of a (rather condescending)
>article about Paxton Quigley, that appeared in US Snooze and World Lies,
>(sorry... i think it was in the wall street journal...)
>and was repeated in the Colorado (people's) Daily, a student newspaper
>at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
>
>"A study of residential gunsot deaths in King County, Wash., found that
>a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder.  

       The "used to kill" is the heart of the misinformation.  It's one
of those technically accurate phrasings that conveys the wrong impression.
What Mr. Quiqley is more than aware of, I'm sure, is that when people
read this they think violent arguments where one member of the family
grabs a gun and shoots another, thereby creating a tragic situation
which could easily have been avoided had the gun not been there, or
a tragic accident, especially involving a child.

       Unfortunately, that's not the way things stack up.  The majority
of that 43 "times" (37 I believe) are suicides.  That is, someone 
intentionally took a firearm and shot themselves intending to kill 
themselves.  And why it's popular to try and blame suicides on guns,
the evidence doesn't support this.  Internal studies, as well as
comparative studies with other countries, indicate that cultural
factors far outweigh whether a person will kill themselves or not.
(Japan, for instance, has a slightly higher rate than the U.S.  There
people jump off buildings.)

       According to the National Crime Survey, 40% of violent crime
is commited by "non-strangers," which mistakenly has been generalized
regarding the King County study to mean, "Friends and family."  That
is, Mr. Quigley, and others who quote this statistic, are banking on
the mental image that a "Friend, family member, or child," equates
to a loving relationship, and that it was cut short in a moment of
anger.  Unfortunately, all too often husbands beat and kill wives,
children assault parents, or vice-versa.  Most rapes are commited by 
someone known to the victim, for instance.  Essentially, that a gun
was used against a "friend" or family member doesn't mean they
weren't trying to hurt the other person.  Crime is highest among
poor urban families, and those are also the areas most "at risk"
for family problems, especially violent ones.  A son in a gang may
not be as loving toward his parents if they disapprove than a suburban
kid might.

       Finally, it hinges on the fallacy that a dead intruder is the
only value of a self-defense firearm.  Using the minimum figures I
worked out using the NCS I got about an 80:1 ratio between deadly
self-defenses (justifiable homicides) and with-gun self-defenses.
Between the FBI Uniform Crime report and the NCS there's an enormous
amount of data and anybody with the calculator can crunch the numbers.
As such it is incorrect to assume that a dead body is the only valid
means of determining the success of such a defense, since according
to the NCS (which has been considered by many to seriously under-report
defenses) there were far more successful with-gun defenses than intruders
killed.

       Not it also confines itself to the home, where attack by a "friend
or family member" is far, far more likely, and excludes any defense
which occurs outside the home.  (I believe a large number occur in
businesses.)

>Studies by the 
>Western Psychiatric Institute, in Pittsburgh, found that the mere presence
>of a gun in the home sharply incresases the likelihood a family member
>will commit suicide, even in the absence of psychiatric illness."

       I have not seen the exact data for this, so I can't comment.  I
will point out Canada's and Japan's suicide rate as indications that
culture far more than firearm availability affect suicide rates.

       There was also a comparative study between Canada (for what
it's worth, considering the difficulty of comparing across cultural
lines) published in the New England Journal of Medicine (I can get the
exact cite if you need it) that concluded that restrictive firearm laws 
would not significantly impact the over-all suicide rate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54731
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93105.165359U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>>
>>Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
>>do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
>>Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
>>outside.)
>
>Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.

Kratz comments above show otherwise.

>It's basic purpose - not to let the gun fire until you're ready.

Bingo - now the question is, does the Glock's qualify?  Let's see
the evidence that Kratz uses.

>Christ, I've known that since I had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't
>know me so don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know.

But first an aside.  Having an air gun proves nothing.  Moreover,
my comments are based on what Kratz writes.  He's free to argue that
he babbles in text but actually knows something off-line.

>>A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
>>what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
>>off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
>>it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
>
>From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the
>trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.

Harder than what?  I note that almost all revolvers work the same way,
so it can't be "harder than revolvers".

>Every article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.

Sure they can.  (Moreover, we know now that Kratz' sample is
unrepresentative.)  We can look at the reasoning.  It is basically
"these Glocks are dangerous because they're not like my 1911/S&W third
generation."  Part of that is true, but since those same people don't
claim that revolvers, which share the relevant property, are
dangerous, we see that the argument fails.

>me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or

Why would I care?  I'm not looking for more bogus reasoning.

>rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on
>here without someone getting right on your ass.

One can make hundreds of simple statements without having anyone
"getting right on your ass".  One merely has to make accurate simple
statements.  Then you get "attaboy"s by mail and publically.

Accuracy is a severe burden, but most of us manage it.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54732
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93105.215548U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>>I have been at a shooting range where
>>>gang members were "practicing" shooting.

>In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
>>or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
>
>"We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on
>the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.

So?  Kratz was there - does that mean that he's a gang member?

Even in the most gang-infested areas, most of the residents ARE NOT
gang-members.

>that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned
>it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.

How was it obvious?  Were they not trying to hit the target?  Or, does
Kratz confuse "marksmanship" with "trying to simulate a post"?  If so,
that excludes self-defense shooting, but the rest of us understand
that that exclusion would be an error.  (It excludes a lot of legit
"gun games" as well.)

>don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
>taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.

Sounds like practical pistol or maybe IPSC.  It also sounds like how a
self-defense shooter might well practice.  The only things that action
excludes are hunting and "like a post" shooting.  Kratz should get out
more often.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54733
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:
>Public health experts will tell you that you are far more likely
>have your gun stolen, use it yourself on a family member or
>have it used on you than you are to use it on an actual criminal.

Actually, they won't.  What they'll tell you is that if you add up the
number of suicides, murders of one drug dealer by another, legit
self-defenses of a battered spouse, and so on, you'll end up with a
number that is much larger than the number of self-defense killings
against strangers committed in the bedroom.  (BTW - they didn't
honestly count the latter either, but let's not quibble.)  They
try to claim that comparison is between the costs of self-defense
and the benefits, but they're wrong.

This comparison doesn't measure the costs of self-defense and it
doesn't measure the benefits either.  For example, the goal is not to
kill the attacker, whatever your relationship to him, but to stop him.
While the number of killings may be proportional to the number of
stops, it isn't equal.

Anyone who confuses that comparison with an honest evaluation
is either lying or....

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54734
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Government = biggest cult leader?

Look, folks, I don't know what happened in Waco.  I do not claim the BDs are  
angels, I never did.  Koresh may very well be the devil incarnate.  I just  
don't know.  But I do know that I must question any single source of  
information, such as we have here.  And I must question even harder given that  
it is single source at the insistance of that very government.  What ever else  
happened at WACO, that is perhaps the biggest evil done.  And even more so in  
light of the discrepencies turning up between the federal officials and the  
state officials.

But what I really don't understand is the hoards of devoted government  
worshipers who believe the government could not possibly do any wrong.  They  
are fanatic to the point of making things up, such as Brent's microwave oven  
disclaim of the BD's using fire for food heating.  

I am hard pressed to see any real difference between the claimed power Koresh  
held over the BDs, and the demonstrated power the government holds over those  
rapid apologists.


Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54735
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker bashes tpgers (was Re: Welcome to Police State USA)

In article <C5yypo.EI2@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

> No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people
> are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners. USEnet as a whole
> disproves it of humanity as a whole.

Heavens!  Everybody but Phill is out of step!

> We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of
> guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn
> down your house. See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons
> to support gun control.

Once again, Phill lets us all know that might makes right -- but ONLY for
the all-sacred government.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54736
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Letter in Colorado Daily


The Colorado Daily recently reprinted the Wall Street Journal's article
on Paxton Quigley, including the nefarious little paragraph the Journal
tacked onto the end.  After recieving much assistance from various T.P.G.
type folks, I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing this last paragraph,
and surprise, surprise, surprise, they published it.  The text follows.
The Colorado Daily, btw, is the University of Colorado (Boulder) student
(I think) newspaper... not exactly a big coup, but every little bit, i guess...

(The title was the only thing they changed/added)

"Gun Stats"

The Daily recently reprinted an article from the
Wall Street Journal, primarily concerned with Paxton
Quigley, author of "Armed and Female."  The article,
in turn, cites a misleading statistic that was originally
reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.  The
article states, "A study... found that a gun in the home
was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder."  This
is an often-quoted statistic, and it is misleading for sev-
eral reasons, outlined below:

The study gives the impression that, if you own a 
gun, the likelihood that you will successfully use it to 
defend yourself is less than that of the gun being turned
against you.  The study, however, fails to take into
account cases where a law-abiding citizen uses a gun 
to thwart a crime, without actually killing the perpe-
trator.

The study actually refers to 'acquaintances' rather
than 'friend'.  This would include the friendly neigh-
borhood thug who shows up like clockwork, every
month, the second your grandmother cashes her social
security check.  Possibly an acquaintance, but hardly a
friend.

The NEJM study is based on the immediate dis-
position of cases and fails to take into account cases
originally filed as homicides that were later ruled to be
self-defense.  Especially considering the small sample 
size (396), taking these events into account has a sub-
stantial effect on the 43:1 ratio quoted.

Criminologist Gary Kleck gives us a slightly dif-
erent statistic: a gun is 33 times more likely to be 
used, successfully, by a private citizen against an 
aggressor than it is to kill anyone at all.  Further, per-
sons defending themselves from aggression by using a 
gun fare better than those who resist vicimization by
some other means, or who offer no resistance at all.
Statistics available from the FBI and other agencies 
also show that a gun is 245 times more likely to be
used by a non-criminal to defend against criminal threat
than to be used to commit criminal homicide, 535 times
more likely to be used to defend against a criminal
threat than to accidentally kill anybody, and 50 times
more likely to defend against criminal threat than to be
used to commit suicide.

It is well to keep in mind that nearly anything can 
be proved by uncritical quotation of statistics.  One has
to consider carefully what questions were asked by
those gathering the data before one can draw an accu-
rate conclusion from them.

D.F. Taylor
CU Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry


--
Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54737
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: The Ballad of David Koresh

In article <C5w448.2np@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> pwithere@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (patricia anne withered) writes:
>                        The Ballad of David Koresh.
[ ... ]
>At Concord and at Waco
>the tyrant's minions failed.
>Though they all died in the fire
>Koresh's people have prevailed. 

Good irony.  The Waco finale was on April 19, Patriot's Day.
On that day 218 years earlier, the militias of Concord, Mass.,
and other nearby towns repelled a gun-control raid by the
then-current Colonial government ...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54738
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735383339.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>NOTE!!!
>My posting was in reply to those about FBI torching the plasce after
>filling it with napalm, and arrested people dissapering.
>
>[...]
>
>About Waco
>It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this.
>The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house
>in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)
>
>It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???

       I don't think we've got a conspiracy on our hands, or anything
vaugely similar.  I do think that the Feds showed a distinct lack of
both intelligence and disregard for others safety throughout this whole
mess.

       I do think the FBI and the BATF screwed up big.  What made me
really concerned was FBI director William Sessions being on CNN engaging
in what could only be called spin control before the place had even
cooled down.  Evertyhing had literally blown up in their faces and I felt
there had to be something more important he should have been doing...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54739
From: chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

In article <C5soMx.HMD@boi.hp.com> kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:
>If anyone is keeping a list of the potential contributors, 
>you can put me down for $1000.00 under the conditions above

Seems to me folks, that if you are so interested in acquiring CNN, just
buy your $1000 worth of stock today.  It's being traded everyday.  After you
own your piece, we can work on the proxy votes later.  It's probably even a
good investment.

Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
chuck@eng.umd.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54740
From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>shoot-to-kill directives.

You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.


-- 
                            REMEMBER WACO!
     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54741
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....

       How about "firearm related."

>This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!

       Texas is unusual in this regard.  It would be nice to reduce them
both, though.

       As Texas doesn't appear to have an murder rate that much higher than
the national average, I would expect it is a result of a much higher
suicide rate.

>*I* should not suffer because of others....

       Be nice if you didn't have to suffer at all.

>We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
>we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

       Here's where we run into a problem.  I am perfectly willing to
have government regulation on something which is likely to cause others
harm.  What we're discussing, though, is the extreme regulation of a large
group in order to target a small group, and I don't think that's
appropriate. 

>Do you have an insurance??
>Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...       
>
>Do you buy anything??
>YOU are paying for those who return goods, steal or even those who gets a bonus...
>
>Do you live with other people??
>Then you 'can't' do ererything you'd want (burping/farting playing music LOUD)

        Does this, then, justify anything?  At some point you have to draw
a line (at least to my way of thinking) where the government must have
something a little more substantial than a set of percentages with which
to punish an individual.

        Where do *you* draw the line?  Or is there one?

>One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
>only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

        Virginia.  It passed.

>I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
>other people.

        Does it?

>It seems like you all realize that you have a problem in America, the only
>problem is that you won't take the car away from the drunk driver, you 
>hope to cure him first.

        Cute analogy. 

        The U.S. doesn't treat drunk driving like a serious crime.  However,
we also don't confiscate cars of people who drink.  We also don't confiscate
*all* cars because some people drink and drive.  It's the core of the legal
system that in order to punish an individual (and I'd call property
confiscation a punishment) you must have evidence against that individual.
That is, it isn't enough to show that the majority of people convicted of
murder are white  in order to convict a particular white guy of murder.

>Hope life comfirms to the standard of Winnie the Poh.

        Huh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54742
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
> Arras) wrote:
> >  
> > I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group  
of  
> > devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
> > government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of  
thier
> > own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
> > 
> > Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
> > 
> > Jim
> 
> Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
> generalizations evince your own ignorance. 

Eloquently, if somewhat shrilly, put.  

> What were they supposed to do?  Just let him be? 

Well, why not?

> Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
> the first time.

You have a way with words.  And you sure get shrill on cue.
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54743
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r9bfc$bm1@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)  
writes:
> In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU> mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael  
Frederick Rhein) writes:
> >># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >
> >for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims 
> >that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.
> 
> This whole thread is rediculous.  Who cares if they had a stove going
> or not.  Does it matter if they had a stove burning, or lanterns
> burning, or candles burning, or someone smoking, etc, etc, etc.  The
> premise is that the FBI was filling the house with napalm so that it
> would catch fire.  This is crazy.  FBI was NOT PUMPING NAPALM into the
> Davidians home.  You will have to have pretty damn strong evidence to
> convince me of that.
> 
> I can believe mass suicide/murder by Koresh.  I can believe an
> accident by the Davidians.  I can believe an accident by the FBI.  I
> can easily believe mass stupidity on all sides but I can not believe
> that the FBI lit this fire intentionally.  No way.
> 

I tend to agree, but I would like a better explanation of why the FBI stopped  
the firetrucks at the gate.  I saw this in realtime.  It concerns me that the  
FBI "appeared" to not be too interested in stopping the fire after it started,  
and actually started flying hueys around the compound, which had to add in some  
small part to the winds driving the fire.

> -- 
> -- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54744
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno


 >   I HEARTILY agree.  Now that the BATF warrant has been 
  >   unsealed, it is CLEAR that Clinton and Reno supported an
   >  ILLEGAL raid.  Did they not KNOW this?



>     NO authority for a 'no-knock" raid
 >    NO authority to use helicopters.
>     NO authority to search for a "drug lab"

>    And, apparently, not even any authority to search for "automatic
>    weapons".

>     51 days of GOVERNMENT LIES.

	Sorry, I missed all this!  Can you please give an update on
	the warrant?  I hadn't heard that it was unsealed.  There
	was no authority for a "no-knock?"  This is news.  How about
	an OK for a wiretap?

	Please summarize!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54745
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

In <C5wI8x.Cqs@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov (Doug S. Caprette) writes:

>Can anyone cite an example in which this defense was successful?
>How about a source for this?

Please take this thread out of "tx.politics.talk.politics.guns" which does
not exist.  How about "tx.politics,talk.politics.guns" instead, eh?
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>

<1993Apr3.071631.9811jp@tygra.Michigan.COM>:  "I run an anonymous server and
it is STAYING FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, which should be about 55 years."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54746
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
><MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> says:
>>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.

>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?

This claim hasn't been retracted or contradicted yet, as many earlier
government claims have?  At least one clip showed a fire erupting
after a tank busted in a wall.  We have unsubstantiated claims by
the government about the FLIRs spotting "simultaneous" fires.

>And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
>to get out of the compound?

That's easy.  Six hours of CS gas, heavy smoke from a rapidly spreading
fire, confusion, panic.  Only 10% got out.  The building was collapsing
all around them and finding the way out was a matter of luck.

>And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.

The Davidians may have committed suicide, or some few zealots among
them might have started the fires -- that is possible.  But, given
the government's earlier inability to tell a straight story, I find
my above scenario equally possible.  I wait for some independent
investigation to look into the whole thing.

It would be one thing if the government spokespeople had been
consistent and forthright throughout.  Keeping the press far away
and ghettoized in "pools" was not conducive to building up trust.
Sealing the warrants was non-optimal, as well.  This operation
was out of control from the git-go.

>>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
>>the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.

>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
>a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
>contrary. Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
>the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
>prefer to believe the cultists?

Speaking only for myself, I think Bush and Reagan should have been
impeached over Iran-Contra.

In 1979, I would probably have given the benefit of the doubt to
the government.  No more.  Like I said, I'll wait to see the
results of an independent investigation -- if there is one --
before I choose whom to believe.

>(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

But you got one, anyway.

>>But then
>>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
>>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.

>Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?

I generally vote for the lesser of two evils.  This last time, it
was the least of three evils.

>>If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they
>>will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the
>>Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation.

>So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
>people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
>one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
>to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

It was a bureaucratic execution.  Out of control bureaucracies driven
by percieved self-interest and gross stupidity.

>And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? How is he
>on diabolical laughter? Does he look good in a cape? These things MUST be
>investigated. You first.

Clinton is just another statist.  My only problem with Clinton on this
is that he is apparently willing to blindly back the ATF and FBI.

>   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
>   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54747
From: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: Waco, they did it.    ( MASADA )

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Mike 'HK G3ZF Full-Auto' Newsome) writes:
>>> I'm sick to my stomach as I write this.  The BD compound
>>> is on fire, and will burn to the ground in minutes.
>I used exactly this one-word reply, to suggest a likely ending to
>the siege several weeks ago. But like Masada, this wasn't entirely
>a government action: The defenders held out as long as they could,
>and then killed themselves, their families and their children 
>rather than surrender. Israel calls the action of the Zelots
>"heroic", and trains their army to follow this example. Now that 
>someone has repeated this action in modern times, what do we call it?

Liberals and supporters of Clinton say that costs made the action 
necessary.

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54748
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>In article <1r2d2rINNa7e@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) says:
>>>NUT CASE PANICS!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF
>>>THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE
>>>MERCY ON HIM!!!!
>I thought we were discussing Koresh here, not President Clinton.
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

	Dave 1 Clinton 0

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54749
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

> Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
> generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed 
> to do? Just let him be?

once upon a time, that's exactly what they would have done & everyone
could have just gone on living a peaceful (if well armed) life. what
is it that makes people think they have the right -not- to just leave
others be?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "Innocence, joy, and squeezable fun for everyone" - TOYS       `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54750
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
> Arras) wrote:
> >   
> > You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal  
agencies  
> > you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from  
your  
> > Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious  
> > persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all?
> > 
> > Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.
> > 
> > Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the  
dictionary  
> > of "cult".
> > 
> 
> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. 

I don't recall saying Baptists do any of that.  Though I suppose some do.  And  
none of them are listed in the dictionary as characteristics of a cult.  My  
mother stockpiled Campbells soup when it was on sale.  

> You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.

You are an intolerent, foul-mouthed human.  You sound like you are ready to  
join the KKK or neo-nazis, with a narrow mind like yours.

> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.
> 

Far from it, I defend the rights of anyone to be different under our  
constitution, which was formed in part to protect religious cults which had  
been persecuted in England before migrating here to be free.  You are the one  
endangering our constitution.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54751
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: Feds Caught in Another Lie

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>Well, after 2 days of hearing that 3 of the BD bodies had
>been shot in the head (Horrors!  Another Jonestown! Crazed
>Cultists!  Child Abusers!  WHACKOS in Waco!), last night the 
>medical examiner was on TV and was pretty vehement in denying
>that ANY of them had bullet wounds...  he seemed just a tad upset 
>at the Feds for having spread that rumor.  

Funny, the medical examiner today stated that there was no
evidence ONE WAY or ANOTHER that there were bullet wounds --
not a single autopsy has been performed, so all reports are
deemed speculative.  INCLUDING reports that there were NO
bullet wounds.

>Before long, I think all the kneejerk government apologists
>are going to start getting pretty pissed off at how easily
>they were misled.

Before long, I think all the kneejerk conspiracy theorists
are going to start getting pretty pissed off at how easily
they mislead themselves.  Also, pretty disappointed at
being ignored by the coutnry.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54752
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: ABC Confirms Two Points of FBI's Version


Well, the question of why fire equipment took so long to reach the 
compound has been answered. ABC aired a report including the 911 tapes 
from Monday. The FBI called 911 within 4 minutes of the fire's breakout. 
Unfortunately, dispatch of vehicles outside the Waco city limits 
required approval of a deputy chief, who was not available (literally 
out to lunch?); the 911 operator desperately called around to local 
community volunteer fire departments to get something out there. By 
the time trucks arrived 27 minutes later, the whole complex was aflame 
and it was clearly too little, too late; there were just two pumpers 
and no water supply. The FBI made another call requesting a tank truck, 
but the Waco department apparently depended on hydrants and did not 
have one. Though clearly unwilling to risk firemen's lives in the 
line of fire, it seems they might have done so had there been sufficient 
equipment and water to make a difference.

They even aired a tape of a woman who called Waco 911 from Georgia 
asking if anything was being done. Civic-minded, but probably 
irresponsible; if everyone watching television did that, no local 
calls could get through.

ABC also aired the comments of an independent fire investigator who 
viewed tapes from more than one side of the compound (not just the 
standard "pool shot"), and agreed that the fire a) must have been 
started in at least 3 places, and b) must have had an accelerant 
to spread so fast.

Neither of these is conclusive proof that the Koresh crowd offed 
themselves more than the FBI offed them, but it's a heck of a lot 
stronger proof than some of the "theories" floating around the net.

Score 2 FBI, 0 Branch Davidians. Or is that -89 Branch Davidians?

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54753
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Medical Examiner Says No Evidence for Bullet Wounds EITHER WAY

Apparently needing to clarify his comments from Thursday, Dr. Nizam
Plawaby (spelling?), the Medical Examiner for Tarrant County, Texas,
who has authority in the Waco deaths, stated that since no autopsies
had been performed, there is no evidence for bullet wounds, or 
evidence against bullet wounds.

Janet Reno also stated that she had never been told of bullet wounds
by anyone in the Justice Department.  

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54754
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU (BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT) writes:
>>I doubt if Koresh had let the BATF have a look inside his place as they 
>>intended to do, "orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and
>>a holocaust" would never have come to pass.
>
>Do you know what a "no-knock search with grenades" is?

Once again, Koresh closed the door on an agent with a search warrant,
and the door was then perforated by a rain of bullets from the
inside.

They shot first.


-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54755
From: belansky@rtsg.mot.com (Steve P. Belansky)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

>In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>>
>>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>>themselves to death.

>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>of paranoia?

It is not a matter of dis-belief but a matter of which of their constantly
(and radically) changing stories we are to believe.

Steve B.

>-- 
><><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
><><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54769
From: hagerp@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn) writes:


>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>> Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>> by cult members.

>Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire
>was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away,
>we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's
>claims in this matter.

Indeed.  Larry King had the two attorneys (whose clients are now
dead) of Koresh and another Davidian on his show last night.  Their
discussions with the survivors differ from the FBI account.  The
attorneys say that they were told that the tanks knocked over lanterns
in the compound which started the fires.

Government spokespeople have lied and contradicted each other 
throughout this whole affair.  I'll wait for some better evidence before
I form an opinion.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54770
From: s5uapw@odysseus (Aaron Walker)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5toMp.24o@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
 
> And another survivor claims he heard someone shouting "The fire's  
started!".
> Odd terminology.  That's what one says when you know a fire is planned,  
not 
> when one occurs by accident.
> 

It's also what you say when you're waiting for the end to come in a 
"fiery apocalypse"...just a thought.

Personally, if the fire was set (by either side), I wonder about the
timing.  If Koresh & Co. set the fires, why wait through six hours of
wall-bashing and tear-gassing before starting; was there anything "new"
that happened just around that point?  Similarly, if the FBI were going
to torch the place (and fake it, of course), why wait so long, wouldn't
it be more "reasonable" to believe the BD's would set the fire early
after the assault began?  

The most plausible (to me) explaination is that of an accidental starting
of the fire by the tanks.  Among other things, I say that because I
was listening to the radio when the fire started and the reporter
(watching from a distance, of course) said that it looked like at least
one of the tanks had penetrated farther into the building than previously.
Specifically, he said that one tank apparently was halfway (half of
the tank's lenght) into the building where it previously had only been 
penetrating a few feet.

reserving judgement,
-Aaron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54771
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <C5rrot.MMM@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes:
>>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>>In article <1993Apr19.184303.6205@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>>>>
>>>  [...]
>>>> 5) Point out that even if the fire was set by someone inside of the
>>>>    building, it came as a direct result of the actions of the FBI/BATF.
>>>>    And the people inside (including 17 children) deserved a trial, instead
>>>>    of this.
>>>
>>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>>
>>Correction: The FBI says that the Davidians set fire to their buildings.

>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>hands up while national tv cameras watch.

Well the attorneys of the Davidians reported on Larry King that
the tanks had actually damaged the structure to the extent that
effectuating egress from the building was difficult at best.
With a rapidly spreading fire and large amounts of smoke and
tear gas, finding the right exits, or acceptible holes in the walls
were nearly impossible.  I find this explanation to be completely 
plausible.  Doesn't mean that it's true, but I don't find it
intrinsically less believable than the government stories.

>>The FBI also said that the Davidians had a methanphetamine lab in their
>>basement and that the Davidians had .50 cal machine guns.
>>
>>Do you believe everything the FBI says? 

>Do you disbelieve everything the FBI says?
>I balance my gut reaction to question authority together with the 
>independent facts as I see them on video.  I usually adopt the 
>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>scenarios.

I concur.

>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>ludicrous.

Indeed.  According to the lawyers, the Davidian survivors say that
lanterns were knocked over during the "probing" and that's how
the fire started.  A tragic accident, if true.

>>Do you trust that snivelling little
>>piece of sh*t special agent Ricks? He seems to think he is a comedian, and
>>the media who laugh at his sick jokes are just as guilty as he, IMHO.
>>
>>>Up until now the BATF had been making me sick.  Today the people inside 
>>>the compound who set the fire made me sick.  Keeping the children inside 
>>>the compund when they should have been released earlier with the other 
>>>people weeks ago is absolutely inexcuseable.  Not releasing them before 
>>>deciding to set the place afire is the work of madmen.
>>>
>>>Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>>>by cult members.
>>
>>Correction: The FBI says that two of the nine said the fire was deliberately
>>set by the sect members.

>If the fire were set by accident or by people outside the compound, I would 
>have expected far more cult members to flee the compound.  Or at least come 
>out shooting.

See above.  This one is going to be thoroughly investigated.  Maybe
we'll eventually get some idea of what happened.  My view is that,
from beginning to end, this operation was a botch and that it is
completely possible that nut cases who were otherwise law-abiding
citizens were victims of a bureaucratic execution.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54772
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>> Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people
>> leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the
>> press first?
>
>Oh, you mean something like moving the press back to a single
>location, 2 miles away from the "compound"?  The press was allowing

That doesn't count as getting rid of the press.  Getting rid of the press
would mean getting them far enough away so that they wouldn't be able to
see what is going on.

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54781
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes:
>wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the
>systemic effects of cumulative individual actions.  If you want fire
>insurance on your house that's prudent and it has no effect on me; but
>if you and a bunch of other paranoids are packing handguns in the
>backcountry it makes me, and anyone else who doesn't chose to protect
>himself in this manner, pretty f**king nervous. 

Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.

>I mean, take this to its logical conclusion, suppose we all carried
>handguns all the time, for protection from all the other people
>carrying handguns. Would we collectively be, or feel, safer? Hell no.
>We'd feel a lot more insecure.

Why?  I note that the available psych info says that feelings of
security INCREASE.  The victimization stats say that that increase
is rational.

>Another systemic effect of all the "good" people protecting themselves
>is that the "bad" people are going to modify their behavior in
>response:

Yes, they are, but how?

>they're going to be much itchier and much more willing to
>kill people in the course of routine muggings if they think their

Nope - that doesn't happen.  Instead the switch (among those who
change behaviors) to property crimes.  That's an improvement even if
the economic take is unchanged.  Sure - not everyone switches, but
they were killing before.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54782
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Backcountry Confidence

In article <C5L02E.8GH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>	The rest of us fall in the middle.  There IS too much violent
>crime in the U.S., but turning the whole country into an old-time
>Dodge City (ref. to American Old West) is not the way.

That's an interesting statement.  There's quite a difference between
Hollywood's "Old West" and the real one.  Yes, there were drunks,
saloons, mining camps, and thugs.  However, as McGrath showed, the
thugs preyed almost exclusively on one another.  McGrath claims that
this was due to the fact that no one much cared if someone who
insisted on getting into a fight got his way, even if he lost, while
they really did care when thugs preyed on others.

>citizens should be able to own weapons, but we see no sense in some
>types.

We haven't figured out that those distinctions don't actually work.
Machine guns have been strictly regulated since 1934.  Said regulation
is both perfect (legally owned machine guns aren't ever used
criminally) and a complete waste of time (the criminal use of machine
guns hasn't change at all).  The result - we're now arguing about
guns that LOOK like machine guns, but are no different than other
guns.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54815
From: jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman)
Subject: Re: Dillon puts foot in mouth, film at 11


I have also heard about HCI claiming thant anyone they  get an address
from is a member.  If this is the case their membership rolls are
grossly inflated and we should not call them and give them a name
and address to add to their already false rolls.  Perhaps
if you could get a copy of their existing membership, then pretend to
be an existing member, do that several thousand times, you could
hurt HCI.  But names are power.  Remeber the NRA uses the fact
that it has 3 million paid members in order to flex its muscles.

Perhaps politicians don't realize the lying tactics of HCI, wait a
minute, HCI learned it from politicians....

Later,
Josh



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54816
From: clochmul@nrambr.chem.duke.edu (C. H. Lochmuller)
Subject: Re: Dillon puts foot in mouth...

# So the Blue PRess suggests that we bankrupt HCI by requesting information
# and the concern by list members is that HCI will claim everyone that calls
# as a new member.  I think they will. I also think they will claim a new
# MANDATE to ban all firearms from the solar system wheter we call and ask for
# information or not!
# 
# On the other hand, with due respect to the Editor of the Blue PRess, just
# becaue Mike makes damned good presses, dies, powder scales, and got tired of
# Lee's atacks DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY DILLON FAN FOLLOWS WHAT MIKE CALLS FOR
# LIKE HE WAS KARESH AND WE WERE TRANSDILLIDIANS! 
# 
# Our local State Assemblyman has called for a complete ban on all non-bolt
# action military rifles and all assault weapons, a 7 day wait for purchase
# permits { it currently takes 10 to 14 working days here in NC } and one
# permit/year. The flood of calls he got was 7 for and 3 against. Guess who
# called supporting his move? Guess what ILA is doing? Right?
# 
# CHL
# 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54817
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Dillon puts foot in mouth, film at 11

In article <199304160443.AA25231@sun.Panix.Com> justice@Panix.Com (Michael Justice) writes:
}Dillon has published a letter in the Blue Press telling people
}"How to Bankrupt HCI" by requesting information from them.
}
}Last time this idea went around in rec.guns, a couple of people
}said that HCI counts all information requestors as "members".
}
}Can anyone confirm or deny this?
}
}If true, what's the impact of HCI getting a few thousand new
}members?

Last I heard, HCI had something like 250K members to the NRA's 3 million.
If true, and they want to play duelling mandates, well ...

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                      Laws define crime.
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483       Police enforce laws.
Santa Monica, CA  90405                            Citizens prevent crime.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54818
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: JFFO has gone a bit too far

rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:


>|>Would somebody please post evidence that the gun control act of
>|>1968 is "a verbatim transcription" of a nazi law?

>|The "evidence" is that the two laws are basically identical.
>|However, that's not evidence that one is a copy of the other.

>|There's no evidence that the 68 GCA's authors used the nazi law as a
>|guide.  Yes, they ended up with roughly the same thing, but that comes
>|from their shared goal, disarming those menacing minorities.

>I thought the same thing too, until JPFO's RKBA article 
>in the latest Guns & Ammo
>at the newstands. This article makes it certain that Sen. Thomas Dodd
>(D-MD?) back before 1968 definitely asked for a translation of the 
>German weapons laws back then. Read the article, and see what you think
>of JPFO's argument. They note that Ted Kennedy and John Dingell are
>among the three of the originals left from the 1968 stuff, and they
>are asking that folks request of John Dingell that he introduce 
>legislation to lift GCA '68, something which I would support whole-
>heartedly!

>|-andy

Can someone post a general idea of what GCA '68 does?
Thanks.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54819
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:

>You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make 
>sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.

>Say U.S.C. 922 :

>(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
>any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

> Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person" 
>might also be an artificial entity that is created by government 
>and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
>don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
>an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
>me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
>does not make it LAW. Everyone knows that laws are constitional
>until it goes to court. So, has it ever gone to court, not
>just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"

>Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
>by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?



>-- 
>Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
>Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'    	 
>Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
>brians@atlastele.com           U

I'm not a lawyer but to the best of my understanding, the Congress has no
more rights than what is enumerated in the constitution.  That is the 
prime reason why the National Firearms Act is based on collecting revenue.
Since the Congress has the authority to levy taxes, the NFA is a tax act and
the registration requirement within it is to assist in that tax collection.
U.S.C 922, in order to be constitutional, must have a basis on a particular
authority granted to the Congress by the Constitution.  Congress can not
arbitrarily ban a substance or product.  That is why prohibition came into
effect, only by passing an ammendment.   What you said about constitutionality
of law needs to be clarified.  I believe that an unconstitutional law was 
never constitutional.  When a law is determined by the Supreme Court, to be
unconstitutional, that law was never really a law.  The very nature of the law
being unconstitutional invalidates the law at it's inception.  Please correct
me if I'm wrong, but when a law is deemed to be unconstitutional, anyone
convicted of breaking that law is absolved.
   I don't believe U.S.C 922 has ever been challenged in court.  NFA has been
invalidated in two Federal District Court cases( one may have been appellate
level{ U.S. vs Rock Island Armory  and U.S. vs Dalton}).


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54820
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>Perhaps you consider that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust 
>since the allies could have done more to stop him?

Attention please!

According to the rules of usenet flame wars, once a discussion degenerates
to the point where Hitler is mentioned, that flame war may be declared
ended.  I would like to take this opportunity to do that now.  Clearly
further discussion is not useful with the current set of facts, and the
current name calling and invocation of Hitler's name is not productive even
by the standards of usenet talk groups.

If you must continue, please don't discuss this in misc.legal.  It's not
about the law.  If you would like to discuss the law as it applies to the
Waco incident, please ask questions of the form: "if the FBI started the
fire accidentally, who would be legally responsible for the deaths".

Note that followups are set not to include misc.legal.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54821
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Has the Pronpane Tank Been Found?

Much of the dispute about the origin of the fire that destroyed the
BD compound could be settled by examining the propane tank supposedly
crushed by one of the army tanks when they breached the walls of the
compound. If the the propane tank is flattened and has tread marks on it,
then the BD's version of the cause of the fire would seem to be
verified.

-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54822
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1993Apr23.162517.14029@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:

>That's another sad thing.  I'd expect this sort of shit from the BATF.
>But I'm goddamn disappointed in the FBI.  They used to be professionals.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the history of the FBI. You might
try looking up articles from the 70's on the FBI's Cointelpro
operation for starters.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54823
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Waco Questions

16. What is the condition of the propane tank mentioned by the BD
survivors? I.e. is it crushed and does it have tread marks on it?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54824
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: What if the Dividians were black?

In article <C5yEAB.HAC@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1993Apr9.134525.21567@medtron.medtronic.com>  
rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls) writes:
> >Kenneth D. Whitehead (kdw@icd.ab.com) wrote:
> >: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
> >
> >: > Questions for the media and the politically correct:
> >: > 
>   [...]
> >: > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits
> 
> Some of the Davidians *are* black.
> 
> Next question?
> 

Still thinking you have all the answers, eh?

> 
> -- 
> 

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54825
From: ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Lord, I hope you don't Hoover was a pro! He was monstrous.

Dan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54826
From: dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer)
Subject: Re: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

Rick Bressler (bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com) wrote:
<forgot to leave in his quote source>
: >What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
: >had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
: >compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
The BATF is a part of the dept. of treasury, not justice.  If they needed
to assault a place they could just do like the IRS does...call in the
federal marshalls service, their fugitive collection teams do similar type
assaults all the time.  And they are very, very good about it, in both the
tactical and legal parts of it.  But I suspect that the marshalls would
not have touched it, because the search warrant (which is still sealed I
believe) was so bogus.  

Besides the BATF also could have gotton SWAT teams from: federal marshalls
service; FBI; secret service; national park service; texas rangers; nearby
large city police forces; the military.  But they had to use their own
guys, nobody elses SWAT team was good enough for the holy cause of gun
control.   

	I also find the timing of the raid to be extremely interesting. 
Initial raid: two days before the NJ senate was going to overturn their
"assault weapon" confiscation law; a couple weeks before the BATF's budget
was going to come up in congress for review;  shortly after Reno got
confirmed as AG (I don't need to remind you about her anti-gun line);
right around the presidents 100th day in office.   As a wise man once
said: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy
action.    I don't believe that these four things are conincidental.  Do
you?  


food for thought...

--Dale Farmer


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54827
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull) writes:

>Mr. Nice Guy (rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start
>: violence.
>:  
>: When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back.
>: But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for
>: their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It
>: is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical
>: attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.

>  This is the first I've heard of the BD capturing and releasing ATF agents.
>Is there any more info about this?

>Rob P.
           
It was filmed the day of the first assault.  The BDs clearly allowed the
BATF agents who were shot and wounded to leave the compound.  The
lesson, I suppose is that you should keep shooting untill ALL the pigs
are dead and then get the fuck outa dodge. Never give a pig an even
break.  

Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   FUCK THE POLICE!!!!



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54828
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:

>Then post what the press has said, not what you wished they said.
>The Medical Examiner has refuted the FBI "facts" and if you don't
>believe someone who has a LOT more reason to be impartial then 
>what do you have to say for yourself.

In the interest of accuracy (seems a liitle late to start
that, I know) the medical examiner has *not* contradicted
the FBI.

The FBI said they found some folks who had been shot in
the head, and the medical examiner said "we have not seen
evidence of this".

At the time the medical examiner said that, they were dealing
with charred bodies in the compound - this sounds like
typical medical examiner not releasing details until
a thorough investigation.  The medical examiner saying
he hasn't seen something is *not* the same thing as saying
that it isn't there.

While it might end up being true that the FBI had spoken
falsely, it isn't clear yet that they have.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54829
From: allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !


jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:

   Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.  It would not
   be economic to smuggle them in.  All production would have to be
   local.  There are not all that many people who have both the skill
   AND motivation to assemble worthwhile firearms from scratch.
   High-ranking crime figures could obtain imported Uzis and such, but
   the average person, and average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun
   - and would pay through the nose for it.

Good point you make.  However, a zip gun, by definition, is a crude,
homemade gun--certainly not something capable of sustained, accurate
fire, but it would be useful as a means of getting a normal gun.  Recall
the tiny, single-shot pistols made by the Allies during World War II for
use by partisans.  They were essentially well-made zipguns, incapable of
effective fire beyond a few feet.  But they were useful as a means of
killing German soldiers for their guns.

Also note that the crowd-pleasin' favorite, the Sten gun, was
specifically designed to require as little machine work as possible.
The point's been made here that one could make a Sten clone with steel
tubing, hand tools and a welder.

I still think that while the point is good, I think there's a difference
between marijuana and firearms, in that quality marijuana can be grown
locally; there's no need to import the stuff.  If guns are banned, I
think the demand for "real" guns will be sufficient to make smuggling
economically feasible, thus rendering a ban moot.  In any case, the
result would be the same--people who aren't criminals won't have
firearms, and "bad guys" will continue to have access to them, one way
or another.  And I don't see that as a necessary situation.
-- 
Allan J. Heim   allanh@sco.COM   ...!uunet!sco!allanh   +1 408 427 7813

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54830
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

In article <C5L480.K7u@elite.intel.com> dgw@elite.intel.com (Dennis Willson)  
writes:
[..]
> 
> On February 28, 1993, the special agents attempting to serve the
> Federal search warrant were all dressed in apparel clearly identified
> with the letters "ATF" and a highly visible police-type badge.
> Additionally, the special agents announced who they were and their
> purpose for being at the compound.
> 
> Immediately following this announcement, gunfire erupted from the
> compound, resulting in the deaths of four ATF special agents and the
> wounding of several others.  Through no fault of ATF, the element of
> surprise was lost, which caused the tragedy.  

This statement simply amazes me!  "Through no fault of ATF, the element of  
surprise was lost"!  What element of surprise?  In the paragraph preceding this  
one, he said "... the special agents announced who they were and their purpose  
for being at the compound", which was to serve the federal warrant.  No element  
of surprise was even needed for that.  

No, the element of surprise that they lost was that needed for a preemptive  
first strike, without warning.  

> Inasmuch as the warrants
> remain sealed by a U.S. magistrate, and the investigation remains in an
> active ongoung status, we are prohibited from disclosing any further
> information at this time.
> 

Read: They need to wait until they see how it comes out before they fabricate  
anymore, which could get disproven.

> We hope we have been responsive to your letter.  Please let us know
> whenever we may be of service.
> 
>                           Sincerely yours,
> 
>                           Daniel M. H??l??tt  [can't make out signature]
>                           Deputy Director

As always, no facts, just my opinions/observations.

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54831
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Re: Need info on 43:1 and suicide for refutation

Entropic Destroyer (loki@acca.nmsu.edu) wrote:

: I have seen these numbers quoted before, and I have seen very specific
: refutation of them quoted as well.  If someone will be so kind as to
: email the relevant information, I will write a letter to the editor of
: the Co. Daily (which might get published) and send a copy to USN&WR as
: well.

Thanks to all who responded.  The letter has been written (making liberal
use of info provided by various net.folks) and handed to the paper.  I'll
post if it gets into the paper!

--Dan

--
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.1

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54832
From: guy@idacom.hp.com (Guy M. Trotter)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks


Hi,

In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a
small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is
that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the
National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances
of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions.

I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer
to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with
nature on it's own terms.

Guy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54833
From: thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

In article <1993Apr23.181301.8500@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>Flash over is a frequent occurrence with indoor fires.  A fire will
>start small and in one location and heat the air.  The temperature in
>the room builds up and then everything inflammable in the room catches
>fire at once.
> 
>This may have occurred in the BD compound, I have heard reports that
>the windows were covered which would permit a fire to start unnoticed
>by those outside the compound.  When the fire got big enough, and
>broke through the walls, it appeared to be started in two places but
>was really one big fire.

The Houston Chronicle last Thursday (maybe Wednesday) said that
the interior of walls had been covered with hay bales to help
protect against bullets.  Many of you know how fast dry hay
burns.

>Because of the large quantities of tear gas inserted into the building
>it is possible that many of the women and children were in a room free
>of tear gas they would try to seal the door to keep out the tear gas.
>When they learned that a fire had broken out it was too late for them
>to escape.  They were trapped by the flames in their safe room.

In addition, the gas is specifically designed to force eyes
closed and the victim to vomit.  How fast could you leave your
burning office or home if your eyes were closed and you were
retching violently?

>I find it hard to believe that the FBI was not recording the final
>assault.  I think that they would have wanted to have tapes to show
>their agents of the the FBI overcoming the "forces of evil", aka
>the Branch Davidians.  The tapes would also allow the FBI to prove
>that they were not using excessive force.


-- 

thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
Candidate for MISD (Magnolia, Texas) School Board Seat 5, May 1, 1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54834
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Quotes requested

I need quotes from Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, or any of the other founders,
that support the idea that the Second Amendment was written into the
Constitution so that the populace could protect itself it the government
began to degenerate into tyrrany. If you have any (with sources), please
mail them to me. Thanks.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP 2.2 key   | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54835
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BATF initiating violence sources?

In article <1r49aj$98c@hpchase.rose.hp.com> k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:

>I've long since lost any newspaper or magazine article that mentions how
>the BATF said they tossed a grenade instead of knocked on the door to
>serve the search warrant on the BD compound.  Does anyone have any
>references?  I'm just looking for periodicals/newspapers and dates.  A
>copy of the article is not needed, but I wouldn't mind seeing it.
>Posting here or e-mail is fine.

       The Associated Press had an article on Monday March 1, I believe,
which quoted witnesses as describing BATF agents throwing grenades prior
to any gunfire on the part of the Davidians.

       It was among the first of a crop of different, mutually exclusive
descriptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54836
From: cknox@sedona.intel.com (Christopher W. Knox~)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)


Has anyone considered how to prosecute a city holding a "no
questions asked" buy-back for receiving stolen property?
-- 
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54837
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

>>We all know what a quisling is, right?
>Obviously we don't.....
>Vidkun Quisling is known to be a traitor in Norway, not a 'censor'.
>If I have betrayed my country (Norway) bescause I implied that som of 
>you jumped to conclusions/sound a little paranoid then I think there
>is a LOT of quislings in Norway.......

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.  I was NOT accusing YOU of being
a quisling.  The quislings are in our own U.S. government, throwing
away the people's right to keep and bear arms -- at least, that's
where the ones that I INTENDED to refer to are.  I figured that people
on this newsgroup would interpret that as intended, but obviously
something of my intent got lost.
	-Steve

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54838
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

In article <1993Apr21.223541.2353@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have
>become that way because WE have desired them to be so. We get to
>vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. 
	I keep hearing people say this.  It assumes that we, at some point,
	had a choice at the ballot box: "Vote yes or no I want the FBI
	and BATF to become latter-day Gestapos".  That just isn't so.
	The process is far more complex.  We do not have direct control over
	the bureaucracy.  When we evaluate our representatives we don't often
	know what their contribution is to the wayward direction of the
	federal law enforcement bureacracy.  To assert that we got what
	we wanted is absurd.  

>Waco was an encapsulation of the All-American experience - religious
>fanaticism, militaristic thinking and overwhelming violence. Don't
>blame it on 'them', the FBI and BATF. They were just acting within
>the parameters we have set over the years. We made 'them'. We ARE 'them'.
	Oh, good I feel much better now. ;-)  

	By the way do you have a plan for getting us out of this mess we
	are in?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54839
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr23.194834.24072@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes...
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
>>	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?

>From what I saw of the videotape, there was an explosion which looked
>more like one due to propane rather than (official version)
>ammunition.

	I would agree that a propane explosion is as likely as an
	ammunition/explosives blast. My question was directed to the
	person who claimed that the propane tank was likely ruptured
	by the tank before, or just as, the fire started. If that were 
	true, shouldn't the explosion have happened very soon after 
	the fires started?	


>>	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
>>	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
>>	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

>If only we could be certain that the hard evidence will be released.

	The FBI has made such a fuss over the videotapes and other
	evidence that they have to release something sooner or
	later. It's going to happen, and we'll get to see for
	ourselves.

	Often law enforcement agencies will withold evidence from
	public view until the investigation is over.  

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54840
Subject: New Hampshire and Maine non-resident carry permit application
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)


for those who live near or plan to vacation in New Hampshire
and Maine, I am posting the basic info of how to
apply for a LTC (CCW) in those states for non-residents.

post will be in rec.guns
-J. Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54841
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: AP rifles?

I just read a clari article about how, among the other weapons
the BD had purched, they had two "Barrett 50-caliber armor-piercing
rifles."  How the hell do you use an armor-piercing rifle?  Run
up to a tank and try to stab it?

Once again, ignorance prevails amongst the media . . .

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54842
From: tip@lead.tmc.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Subject: Slick Rushie tries to have it both ways, again


Today Rush was criticizing Clinton for not claiming responsibility for the
actions and decisions of Janet Reno and the  FBI  early enough to suit
Rush.

About 2 months ago Rush was chortling over the fact that Reagan has stumped
"special persecutor Walsh" with his croaking of "I don't remember" when
asked about Ollie North.

If Rush's criticism of Clinton were to be applied to Reagan and North... 
Reagan would have been impeached while North was convicted (and overturned on
a technicality).

Gosh, Rush sure wants to have it both ways... Clinton MUST be held 
responsible, but Reagan was clever by using the "amnesia defense".

Maybe that's waht Clinton should say about campaign promises and such
"Well, there you go again Rush...  but to tell the truth, I wasn't in the
loop and I just don't remember."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54843
Subject: Waco headlines and editorial in Boston Globe
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)


Boston Globe, Wednesday April 21 1993

col. 4  "Bodies found in ruins as FBI defends raid on cult ranch"
col. 5 "Clinton blames Koresh, orders probe of siege"
col. 2 "The children: panws in a horrifying game"

pg. 18, col. 1, Editorial page  
	"Judgment at Waco"

	Now the scientific and political scrutiny of the
horror show in Waco begins, though nothing can
undo the tragedy that might have been prevented 
there.
	Forensic experts will study the rubble and
ashes of the Branch Davidian compound, where at
least 85 people, including 24 children, perished in
smoke and fire caused by theapocalyptic visions of
a manipulative madman AND A STUNNING LAPSE IN
JUDGMENT BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
   [emphasis added by me]
	Investigators will re-create conditions at the
compound and identify accelerants and other fac-
tors fueling the inferno.  That is their strong suit.
	But the public must question why agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation lacked the oper-
ational skill and teh behavioral insight to resolve
the 51-day standoff free of flames and fury.
	The loss of life most clearly reflects the demen-
tia of cult leader David Koresh, whose personal
delusiosn are now seared on the public conscious-
ness.  His assembly of Davidians had stockpiles of
arms--and had used them.  LIttle in the way of
rationality could be expected from Koresh, a self-
confsesed "sinner without equal."
	What continues to mystify are th eactions of
federal agents, who bungled the case from the
start.  The misadventure began on Feb. 28 when
100 agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, To-
bacco and Firearms storemd the compound, intent
on seizing Koresh and a cache of automatic weap-
ons.  Four agents and an estimated  six cult mem-
bers died inteh ensuing gun battle.  Earlier
oppor-tunities to isolate and arrest Koresh outside the
complex had not been adequately explored.
	Authorities prepared a siege and resolved that
those deaths would be the last.  Fifty-one days into 
the siege there was no public outcry to storm the
compound.
	It had been correctly perceived that the chil-
dren inside "Rancho Apocalypse" were essentially 
hostages.  With their lives at stake, there was no
reason for the government to be impatient.  The
government's superior firepower, control of water
and utilities and freedom of movement created the
conditions for a belated but bloodless resolution.
	Neither Attorney General Janet Reno nor the
FBI has provided a sigle compelling reason for
abandondoning the course of patience.
	If intelligence was accurate and Koresh was
growing increasingly violent and bizarre, it is diffi-
cult to see how a tear-gas attack launched by an
M-60 combat vehicle would clear his mind.  If re-
ports of escalating child abuse were accurate, they
would have to be weighted against the potential for
eve ngreated hamr.


etc etc tec....
[paragraphs, 2.5 paragraphs deleted]

But some of the responsibility rests with Clinton,
and inexperienced president who did not pay
enough attention to the life-and -death decisions
being made on WAco.
	If Reno is to be faulted for anything, ti would
be for her overreliance on the judgment of law en-
forcement officers--a common problem among
prosecutors.
	Full investigations into th eWaco tragedy must
be conducted by both the executive and legislative
branches.  The first step is to verify how the blaze 
started.  Though apportioning blame will play a 
role, it is of greater importnace to find strategies
to elude the fire next time.

[end of editorial]
-J. Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54845
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>>burning building?
>
>Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about
>by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good)
>perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the
>fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and
>rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses)
>overcame and enveloped them?

>In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?

Wait a minute.  The story being pushed here is that the fire started
in ONE PLACE.  This is not consistent with the story that they were
TRAPPED by the fire (particularly in a building that all of a sudden
had many more exits).

Choose one, please.

>Does that sound plausable?  Not as dramatic as Korash forcing them to
>stay, or shooting them (no shot victims found yet), but plausable...

Well, for everyone besides Koresh and his blood children, we can 
assume independent choice: Ah, they chose to stay in the face of
an assault which clearly endangered their lives.  Or, alternatively,
they were not permitted to leave.  Choose one.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54846
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Waco "Inside Story" (AP) (Was Re: ATF BURNS....)

fbrown@seaway.ssd.kodak.com (Frank Brown 726-0415) writes:
>This is the AP story from Fri morning.
>
>As the walls came tumbling down and tear gas filled the air, cult leader
>David Koresh sprang into action. He left his third-floor bedroom and began
>looking around the house, making sure women and children were secure and 
>checking that everyone had their gas masks on properly. Within hours, the    
>compound became an inferno. Nine Branch Davidians excaped.
>   This is their story, gleaned from lawyers who spoke with six of them
>who are jailed on charges that include conspiracy and murder. That day the 
>six said a portable radio offered the only contact with the outside world    
>since Koresh's right-hand man, Steve Schneider, ripped out the compounds's 
>phone line after FBI agents called before dawn Monday saying this was the
>cults last chance: Come out or prepare to get forced out.

Aw, gee, and whose fault is THAT?

>    They kept their word. By dawn, tanks were battering the Mount Carmel
>compound, punching for hours to creat holes for tear gas to enter. The BD
>meanwhile proceeded with their daily routines. Strapped into gas masks, the
>women did laundry. Others read Bibles in their rooms. The 17 children, all
>under 10, remained by their mothers' sides. Still, it was hard to ignore 
>what was happening around them. Each time a tank rammed the 
>poorly-constructed building it shook violently. Cult members dodges 
>falling gypsum wallboard and doors.

Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.

>Hundreds of gas canisters hurled in from the armored vehicles were filling
>the air with noxious fumes. The flying canisters were more frightening than
>the tanks. At least one man was hit in the face.

Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.

 The gas began filling the air,
>driven by heavy gusts of wind coming through windows and the holes the tanks
>made. 

It couldn't have gotten too heavy with all that wind blowing through.

Scattered throughout the house, the cult members made no efforts to
>gather. Then the FBI sent in its biggest weapon -- a massive armored vehicle
>headed for a chamber, lined with cinder blocks, where authorities hoped to 
>find Koresh and Schneider and fire tear gas directly at them.
>  Here the cult members' story diverges from the government's version. The
>FBI says cult members set fires in three places. But each of the six cult
>members, in separate discussions with lawyers, consistently gave versions
>at odds with the FBI's account. They say the tank flattened a barrel of 
>propane, spilling its contents. And as the tank thundered through the house,
>it tipped over lit lanterns, spitting flames that ignited the propane and
>other flammables. The home of used lumber, plywood, and wallboard tacked 
>together with tar paper was vulnerable. The building erupted. Nine BD's
>escaped jumping through windows and dashing through other openings. Others
>died groping in the blackness.

Sad, but they COULD HAVE COME OUT.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54847
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Take the WACO QUIZ!  Impress your friends!  Win valuable cash prizes!

The Waco Quiz

What would you do in the following hypothetical situations?

You have committed no crime.  The BATF conducts a "no-knock" raid.
a) Hands in air. Say "Do you have a warrant?" Think of hefty suit settlement.
b) Say "You have 1 second to identify yourself as a cop or I shoot."
c) Shoot.  Heck, at least in federal prison you might get to have sex.

You have killed federal agents. They blast strange music at you.
a) Come out with hands up. "I wish to turn state's evidence." Hope deal's good.
b) Wait, figuring other federal agents will get bored and go on vacation.
c) Wait. If they come after you there will be a chance to kill MORE g-men.

The FBI has you surrounded, asks you to come out immediately.
a) Come out, figuring long prison term is chance to catch up on some writing.
b) Stall. You just can't concentrate when you're on trial for some reason.
c) Decide to write novel-length prophecy now while ideas are fresh in mind.

FBI calls and says they will use tear gas if you don't come out.
a) Come out with hands up. Your radical bro-in-law hated getting gassed at UC.
b) Get out your gas mask. Really, these feds will have to give up eventually.
c) Shoot at vehicles delivering tear gas. It's rude to break down a man's door!

FBI calls and says they will use tanks to break down your walls.
a) Come out with your hands up. Flimsy cardboard construction won't last long.
b) With presence of mind, move flammable devices away from tinder-dry haybales.
c) Spread some kerosene around and hit a match. Big Schwarzenegger ending.

Points are awarded in the following manner: 0 points for every (a) answer,
-1 points for every (b) answer, and -2 points for every (c) answer.
Count 'em up and compare with your friends!

If you answered (a) all the time, you are probably in jail, but alive.
If you answered (b) all the time, you may still be holed up in your compound.
If you answered (c) all the time, you are probably dead.

(Feel free to copy this and distribute to your friends.)

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54848
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Nothing could at this point.  What WOULD have gone a long way toward 
>convincing me would have been media video, particularly from diverse
>sources.  IMHO, if the government didn't have anything to hide, they
>would have allowed cameras near the compound from the beginning.

I agree, I saw no reason they could not have had "close in" pool
cameras manned by volunteers and protected by sandbags or whatever.

[Points made by Dick DeGueran, Koresh's lawyer]
>*	The tanks were NOT pumping CS gas but were ejecting exploding 
>	canisters from the tank booms that penetrated multiple walls
>	before exploding.

Okay, their word against the FBI's at this point.  See ya in court!

>*	The tanks were collapsing interior walls and ceilings putting people
>	at great risk.

Dear, dear. They could have COME OUT.

>*	The construction of the coupound used almost all used materials that
>	were very dry and bails of hay were stacked against the walls as 
>	shields against the government's bullets.

Okay, they were living in a fire hazard. That they built.

>*	Said that previous to the invasion there were no military drills
>	and that the supplies they had on hand were for survival.

No crime, irrelevant either way.

>*	Their gas masks worked so well that many members were having bible
>	study and some were sleeping when the fire was set.

Ah yes, that is exactly what I would do.  Hold Bible study. Take a nap.
Always a wise course of action when you're being gassed.

>*	There was no group instruction of any kind from Koresh or his 
>	aids after the tank invasion (referring to any kind of suicide
>	pact or counter-assault efforts.)

I don't believe there was a "suicide pact".  I believe that Koresh
wanted a fiery conflagration ... which he may not have told his followers.
In fact, this hypothesis is CONFIRMED by the survivors' stories.

>*	Everyone had moved to the center of the compound in order to escape
>	the falling debris from the tank invasion when the fire was set. 

Yes, that's right.  And once the whole compound was demolished, where
did they expect to go?

>*	Women and children who has sought shelter on the second floor from
>	the tanks were trapped by doors jammed by the tanks ramming the 
>	building and distorting the frames.

The building is being RAMMED and they are going UPSTAIRS?  That's almost
as bad as running into a fire.

>*	Hallways ran the length of the buildings that acted as conduits for
>	the fire and trapped almost everyone in place.  His experts have told
>	him that this horizonal chimney effect is what made the fire appear
>	to have started at several places at once.

Hm, an interesting notion.  We'll see.

>*	Koresh was not seen the last hour before the fire and was assumed to
>	be in his 4th floor room with some of his children.

More Bible study, no doubt.  Hey, it's a *priority*.

>*	The texas medical examiner has stated flatly that none of the bodies
>	recovered so far had bullet wounds, directly contradicting the FBI's
>	lies.

Actually, on Friday he stated that there was no evidence either way and
he could not flatly contradict the federal agents' claims.  We'll know
more later.  In any event, it's irrelevant.

>*	The survivors unanimously stated that if the victims could have gotten
>	out they would have, that they were trapped by the tank-destroyed 
>	building and the speed of the fire.

For six hours they were trapped?  The building was not "destroyed" 
immediately.  They COULD HAVE LEFT AT ANY TIME.

>*	The underground bunker cited by the FBI as the place Koresh could have
>	put the children had he not been a cold blooded killer had been blocked
>	by the tanks crashing down debris on top of the access door.

Six hours to move it away.  Or COME OUT.

>*	Dick said that he had sat in Koresh's bedroom talking to him and 
>	had observed that his room was furnished like all the rest and without
>	air condition or other luxuries, directly contradicting the FBI's claim 
>	that he lived in splendor.

Irrelevant, anyway.  PR one way or the other, but no crime or innocence
indicated.

>*	Dick saw bullet holes in Koresh's room made from the outside-in
>	which indicates the BATF was indiscriminately shooting down through
>	the roof.  

No word on whether they were being fired back at, which is an operative
question here.

>*  The fire was probably started by the tanks knocking over Coleman Lanterns 
>	that were lit and sitting on a piano next to the wall the tanks busted 
>	through, though none of the survivors saw the fire start.

Right.  For six hours you know that a tank could come thru the wall at 
any point, and you leave a COLEMAN LANTERN BURNING.  Near BALES OF HAY.

>*	Every one of the survivors strongly denies ever saying anything to the 
>	FBI about starting the fire, hearing someone say the fire was lit
>	or any of the other stuff attributed to them by the FBI.

It's ultimately irrelevant who "lit" the fire.  They had ample opportunity
to LEAVE.

>*	He said when he first met Koresh in the compound he expected to find 
>	a raving lunatic but instead found a rational, charming and intelligent 
>	young man and was very surprised by that fact.  

Most charismatic leaders are extremely intelligent, actually.  They tend
to be excellent actors and skilled manipulators.  (Ex.: Ted Bundy.)

>*	Koresh had no drugs stronger than aspirin to use against pain.

Medical assistance was jsut a phone call away.  Gee, all he had to do
was COME OUT.

>*	Women with children had their own bedrooms for them and their kids
>	that were appointed as nicely as Koresh's.

Not relevant to any crimes.

>*	Dick said he saw signs of home schooling for the kids and at no time 
>	did he ever see any signs of abuse.

While he was there.  Anyway, outsiders RARELY see abuse.  It's a secretive
thing.  All we have to go on are the court documents in the Jewell case
and the mistrial in California.

>*	No one was ever held against their wills and could have left at any
>	time.  The people who were murdered in the fire were there by their
>	own choices.

EXACTLY.  By their OWN CHOICE.

>*	He called for an independent prosecutor.  If ever there were a need
>	for one, this is it.

Looks like there will be several investigations, starting with Congressional
committee hearings next week....

>His closing comments were "They don't look upon themselves as a cult.
>They view themselves as highly religious people.  They sincerely believe
>what they believe.  And who am you or I to judge that as wrong?"
>
>His last sentence says it all.  Who the hell ARE we (or the government)
>to judge their religion as wrong.  This event, I hope, will be recorded
>in history as the American Holocaust.  These people were murdered 
>by the US government just as surely as the jews were by the Nazis.
>I hang my head in shame for what I've allowed my government to become.

I have NEVER judged them by their religion, but by their ACTIONS.

If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

Just as we don't blame a cop who shoots a kid who had pointed a toy
weapon at him, I don't think the FBI deserves blame in this case.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54849
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption

In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

> Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
> a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
> in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Though David Sternlight pushes the envelope of credibility by claiming that
talk.politics.guns is not the place to discuss guns, or the meaning of the
Second Amendment, it seems he would rather post to millions of people out 
of relative ignorance of the subject than to follow the currently active 
threads discussing EXACTLY this topic which at least explore the fallacies 
of his erroneous claim, and at most explode them.

Basic fact #1, Mr. Sternlight:  The RIGHT described is a "right of the people
to keep and bear arms;" not a "right of the people to form a militia," a
"right of a militia to keep and bear arms," or a "right of well-regulated
people to keep and bear arms."  This should be apparent from a simple
reading of the sentence.

For the other arguments, I suggest you check out the thread, "Some more
about gun control," playing now in an alt.politics.usa.constitution
near you.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54850
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:01:03 GMT, Larry Cipriani (lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com) wrote:
> According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
> gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
> They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
> some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
> media-event brought to you by HCI.

> Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
> to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
> tacky, but hey, whatever works.

How about a gun buy-back/charity?  Get some sponsors to fund the
purchase of used firearms, have a gunsmith check them over, and give
or sell them at a low price to poor persons wishing to own firearms. ;-)
[OK, you guys can work out the details of who is "needy", etc...]

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54852
From: gdnikoli@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will
>not fall again!

     These zealots. Holy fuck.

     Israel. Armenia. Turkey. Greece. Croatia. Serbia. Bosnia. Russia. Germany.
Iran. The Arab World.

     War.


-- 
     "Please allow me to introduce myself.               SYMPATHY 
      I'm a man of wealth and taste.                   FOR THE DEVIL
      I've been around for long, long years.            the Laibach  
      Stolen many a man's soul, and faith."               remixes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54853
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco

OK... quick scenario... you're at home, not bothering anybody... next thing you
know, somebody comes crashing in the upstairs window and you hear an explosion.
You see that this individual has a submachinegun, and that more similarly armed
individuals are rushing your front door.  Will you a) defend yourself and family
against this attack b) realize "oh, only the BATF would enter like that, so I 
better surrender" or c) roll over and let whoever is attacking your home do
what they would like?  You have chosen a), and discover that the people you 
defended yourself against are federal agents, who now are camped outside your
door waiting for you to surrender.  You have learned that they intend to 
charge you with murder, and are further defaming your name, while claiming that
you can safely surrender at any time.  Then they start using psychological 
warfare techniques against you, while still claiming that you can safely give up
and will receive a fair trial.  Some weeks into this standoff, you are still
holding out, when they begin a new ploy to induce your surrender, namely using
tear gas to annoy you, and ramming your home with tanks.  Yet they claim that
you can safely surrender at any time.  While you patiently wait out this latest
round of attacks, your house catches fire and the bales of hay you were using as
cover spread the fire rapidly through the house, and you try to escape through
the fortifications you had raised for your own defense and the rubble created
by the tanks.  Only 9 of your followers make it.

I am not claiming that the above scenario is accurate.  I am disagreeing with
the notion that it is their own fault for dying because they refused to 
surrender to agents of the Federal government after another federal agency
committed an armed assault of their home on the basis of a flimsily concocted
search warrant.  

Look at how the Texas Rangers view the BATF.  Look at the FBI statements
regarding the BATF actions.  From all apparent sources, the FBI blundered
trying to clean up the mess made by the BATF, resulting in an accidental fire
which killed most of the BD's who were still in the compound, and are now 
playing CYA.  The BATF committed an illegal assault, obtained the use of 
Texas NG resources with fabricated allegations, and compounded their abuses
by accusing the BD's of crimes outside their jurisdiction once they had been
held off in their assault.

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54854
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <C59BIE.4zL@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr8.193321.12753@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|> 
|> >They were driving down a heavily used street in the middle of the day,
|> >when a car with 5 young black males pulled up behind them, and one
|> >of the occupants fired 8 9mm rounds into the rear of their truck. Both
|> >the man and his fiancee pulled their pistols and returned fire, driving
|> >off the attackers. Their child suffered a flesh wound to his arm, and
|> >the parents sustained grazes from the incident.
|> 
|> What a beautiful country you people have built for yourselves.  Enjoy it.
==========================================================================
  Yes, we do have a beautiful country. And I enjoy it.  Most of all, I
  enjoy the thought that I have the means and can exercise my rights
  to defend me and mine. 
 
  And I want to thank all of you good folks, like Prescod, who remind me
  of what I have.  Along this line, I watched a documentary on one of the
  Nazi concentration camps.  Stacks and stacks of bodies.  There were scenes
  of Hitler speechifying, and what struck me, was the reverence and adoration
  on the faces of the people in the crowds.  I guess they were happy that
  Hitler had implemented full gun control and was taking care of the Jewish
  problem all at the same time.

---lee  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54855
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C603oD.AvC@chinet.chi.il.us>, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> >>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
> >>burning building?
> >
> >Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about
> >by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good)
> >perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the
> >fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and
> >rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses)
> >overcame and enveloped them?
> 
> >In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?
> 
> Wait a minute.  The story being pushed here is that the fire started
> in ONE PLACE.  This is not consistent with the story that they were
> TRAPPED by the fire (particularly in a building that all of a sudden
> had many more exits).
> 
> Choose one, please.
> 

What if.......

What if the FBI thought that tear gas would force the Davidians out;
at least the mothers and the children, so they (the FBI) did not
bother to think about the effect of tear gas on young children......

What if the FBI knew they killed several of the children by using
tear gas......(let`s assume the FBI knew via their listening devices)

What if the FBI saw fire accidently break out at one end of the
building, e.g. by an upset oil lamp.......

What if the FBI thought they could finally force the rest of the
Davidians out AND also destroy the evidence that they (the FBI) had
killed the children by starting a fire at the other end......

What if the FBI miscalculated and not many of the rest of the Davidians
made it out.......?????

Answer:  What happened.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54856
From: diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

In article (Dan Hartung) writes:

  <Endless remarks of how the Davidians could have surrendered deleted.>
 
>If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
>have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
>of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
>IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
>shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

  If they had been quiet there would have been no deaths??  I thought thier
neighbors said that the Davidians never bothered them.  Oh, well, that couldn't
have been your point, then.  

  If they hadn't been stockpiling weapons, then the ATF wouldn't have felt 
threatened and had to move in.  Here's a newsflash:  It isn't illegal to
own more than one firearm.  It isn't even illegal to own *lots* of firearms.
 
  They shot federales?  The feds shot them, too.  

  How about that staying inside thing?  Here's another newsflash:  sometimes
the government does nasty things to you that you don't deserve.  Since
they were so nice to the Davidians the first time round, I can see why
the Davidians didn't surrender so easily, especially because they were
expecting the end of the world.

-- 
Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu

These opinions are only mine when they wave that watch infront of my eyes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54857
From: jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1


In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu>, blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:
> >In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> >>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
> >>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
> >>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
> >>shoot-to-kill directives.
> >
> >You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.
> >
> >-- 
> >                            REMEMBER WACO!
> >     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
> >[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]
> 
> Well, it seems we don't learn the lessons of history do we?
> 
> I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.
> 

Hmm... For more recent lesson what about that little square in China?

Another lesson might be the one repeated every year in Tibet...

And of course there's always El Salvador...

And the beat goes on and on...     :^(

MESSAGES FROM GOD:  GET OFF YOUR ASS!  DON'T TRUST THE
GOVERNMENT!  AT ANY TIME!  FOR ANY REASON!  -THE SCREAMING MAN
     
CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!!!  Ministry, TV Song

-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54858
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer) writes:

>Rick Bressler (bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com) wrote:
><forgot to leave in his quote source>
>: >What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>: >had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>: >compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>The BATF is a part of the dept. of treasury, not justice.  If they needed
>to assault a place they could just do like the IRS does...call in the
>federal marshalls service,

The IRS doesn't need to rely on the Federal Marshall's Services; the
IRS has its own Swat teams. I saw a picture of one in an article on
the IRS in some magazine or other.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54859
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks


In a previous article,  () says:

>"Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
>arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
>as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.


        Interesting that Janet Reno has publically announced that
        we need steal ourselves for more Wacos.  I wonder if I can
        get the gasoline concession.


>I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
>he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
>supporters helped inflate his ego.


     Yup.  Kill that bastard!

>
>This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound



     Ah, yes.  The ILLEGAL helicopter, searchign for the non-existent
     PCP lab.  I remember it well, even if the media ( and y'all ) tell
     me I don't.  Call me Winston.

>that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
>There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the


      Ahhh, yes.  The "non-existent" canisters.  Call me Winston again.


>stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
>but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
>expected this to happen.

     I did too, but for different reasons.  The FBI has a habit of burning
     up people in fortified areas.


>Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
>coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
>the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
>to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
>to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
>attract some of the more rootless members of our society.


      Yup.  Good.  Dead.  YEAH!   Maybe Janet will do some more, just
      like she's promis, er, WARNED us about.

      Like I told y'all before.  I would SERIOUSLY consider the following:

        Get your passport in order now.
        Consider overseas options for your savings.

 




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54860
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Waco "Inside Story" (AP) (Was Re: ATF BURNS....)


In a previous article, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) says:

>
>Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.


     So could the defenders in the Alamo.  You're clearly missing the
     point here.  Typically, I might add.

     If it were me, I doubt that *I* would have come out.

     BATF show up, start shooting at me, etc.  Then they paint me
     a child-molesting murdering fanatic, call up TANKS, hundreds
     of automatic-armed goons.  Restrict press access to two miles
     away.  

     Come on.  If I can watch pictures of burned women and children
     in Bosnia on CNN, why am I being limited to a two-mile-away
     replay of a fire in Waco?  Huh?  Answer me that.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54861
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker bashes tpgers (was Re: Welcome to Police State USA)

In article <C5yypo.EI2@dscomsa.desy.de>
hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
 
>In article <1993Apr22.041542.11054@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>
>|>From article <C5t9IA.6F9@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
>|>Just what the hell do you base that ludicrous claim on?  There are
>|>*plenty* of fine, decent people people who read/post to t.p.g.  If
>|>any of these people are paranoid it is because of people like you.
>
>Hey dude you are making me paranoid! What an argument!!!
 
 
       While I wouldn't be too terribly impressed with anybody who got
to be paranoid based on either Usenet in general or Phill Hallam-Baker's
comments in general, you'd be surprised.
 
       For most people, if you accuse them of something long enough and
loud enough, to enough people, they start to ask why they're bothering
to fight it.
 
       If nothing you do will be considered right, why bother to do right?
It's pretty basic human nature.
 
>|>I'd have a spot of tea with them. :)  You probably gave up on arguing the
>|>case for arms control directly long ago because posters who *know*
>|>what they are talking about (e.g., Frank Crary) disproved all your
>|>arguments for why more gun control is needed.  So, you gave up because
>|>you know they are right and you couldn't refute their answers.
>
>No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people
>are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners.
 
       What an amazing thing.  I didn't realize that over a hundred million
gun owners all posted to tpg.
 
       Even if *all* the posts in talk.politics.guns illustrated what
you say they illustrate, it would still only reflect the written
personas (which is often different from face-to-face) of a very, very
small and select group.
 
       Anybody who seriously generalizes any attitudes or positions on
Usenet to the general population of any country either doesn't care
about accuracy or needs to have a few realities explained to them.
 
>USEnet as a whole
>disproves it of humanity as a whole.
 
        Speaking of which...
 
      Most of the "readership" posts I've seen put the most read
newsgroups at about 160,000 readers, a number I have a feeling is
fairly inflated.  The posters, rare and regular, are themseleves a
very tiny minority of that group.  And the whole of Usenet readers
are themselves a very distorted sample of humanity.
 
       If anything, the only real thing you can get out of the relative
sample of Usenet readers is that we've got too much equipment and too
much time available to us.
 
>We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of
>guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn
>down your house.
 
        Proof that guns don't make you safer is that if you buy one the
government will show up and kill you?
 
        Tell me, if the government took away the voting rights of
everybody who exercised their free speech, would that then be proof
that free speech squelches political activity?
 
        You are equating two things with each other that don't.
 
>See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons
>to support gun control.
 
        Phill, if you really believe that the various posts on
computer nets represents *either* most of the poster's in person
personalities *or* the general public's general opinions, then
I have some serious reservations about your grasp on reality.
 
        But don't expect you really do believe that.  It's simply
a convenient way to make your point, and hopefully make those
people you don't like look bad.
 
>Cuddles 'n kisses
>
>Phill
 
        Have a nice day, Phill.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54863
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: RE: the truth starts to come out

In article <C5uA7r.DAD@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>, pprun@august.it.uswc.uswest.com writes:
> 
> 
> I have just one thing to say about this: WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPERSON!
> The FBI and BATF storm troopers must not be allowed to get away with
> this.  Demand a full investigation of the Waco survivor's story of
> the lantern being knocked over by the tank.  We can't bring anybody
> back from the dead, but we may be able to send a few of them to
> political hell.

I heard over NPR yesterday morning that Arlan Specter, Senator from
Pennsylvania, has already called for a Congressional investigation.
The problem is that Specter was one of the key government attorneys several
years ago who did what he could to coverup facts in the assassinations
of JFK and others.  That is to say, the Chief Fox wants to check out
the hen house.  Writing your representatives is a great idea.  When
you do ask that they keep Specter and his cronies far away from 
any investigation.
> 
> Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and 
> Senate so that we can all write letters?
-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
 Red-neck and proud of it.   |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
                             |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
					Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54864
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <66767@mimsy.umd.edu>, tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
|> johnston@cyberia.win.net (Robert Johnston) writes:
|> >>
|> >>How 'bout we embed the `card` in the forhead of everyones skull ? 
|> >>Can't lose it without being already dead (ergo, no need for treatment).
|> >>
|> >Close, at birth we implant a smart chip just behind the ear under the skin but
|> >above the skull.  We incase it in a hypo-allergenic high carbon content
|> >glass.  This chip would be reprogrammed as we age with the pertinent
|> >medical, correctional, taxational data.  Behave yourself or we'll 
|> >input it into your permenant record.
|> 
|>      You forgot the part about encasing it in a small shaped charge so that
|> if anyone tries to tamper with it, it explodes and kills you.
|> 
|>      Oh, and the shaped charge can be set off by remote control...but only
|> if you get out of line. Properly patriotic citizens have nothing to fear.

At Algor's insistance, the shaped charge will automatically detonate after
thirty years, a la "Logan's Run," in order to maintain population control.

--
// John Townsend                 Reduce,           Reuse Engineering & Modeling
// Mead Data Central             Reuse,                ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// 9595 Springboro Pike          Recycle...                  johnt@meaddata.com
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            software!                    (513) 865-7250 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54865
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1


In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>shoot-to-kill directives.

And done in SECRET ... :-)

Did anybody notice it is the TREASURY DEPT (The FBI and BATF, in other words)
that Clinton wants to do the investigation?  In other words, investigating
themselves?

He sure didn't seem very enthusiastic about Congress doing the investigation,
I notice:  "... well, they can do what they want..."  (Probably insert
a pout here...)

Does anybody smell the attempt for a WHITEWASH?  Betcha the Justice
Dept investigation will, AT MOST say "Possible Poor Judjement.  Too bad..."

Grrr.

>-- 
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
>
>I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
>to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
>federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.


-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54866
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Civil Rights Violations


I'm putting together a list of the civil rights violations perpetrated against
the Davidians by the FBI/BATF. Here is what I've got so far. Care to add
any or provide more backup info?

First Amendment:
1) FBI/BATF violated Davidians right to free exercise of religion from the 
	start. We now have a de facto precident against any minority religion.
2) FBI/BATF violated BD right to free speach by:
	a> preventing them to speak to media
	b> preventing them from practicing their beliefs
3) FBI/BATF violated the freedom of the press by:
	a> keeping them 2 miles from the Davidians
	b> preventing the media to cover the FBI/BATF actions close-up
	c> censoring media reports
4) FBI/BATF violated the BD's right to peaceable assemble
	a> proven by initial baseless assault

Second Amendment:
1) The BATF went after them because they had too many guns and guns that the
	FBI/BATF didn't approve of. 'Nuff Said.

Fourth Amendment:
1) The right of the BD's to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
   effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" was violated by:
	a> Initial baseless assault

Fifth Amendment:
1) The Davidians were "held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous
   crime" without a "presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury."
2) The Davidians were "deprived of life, liberty, and property without due 
   process of law.

Sixth Amendment:
1) The accused were denied the right to "a speedy and public trial by an
   impartial jury" when the FBI became judge, jury and executioner.
2) The BD's were never informed of the specific "nature anad cause of the
   accusation."

Eighth Amendment:
1) The Davidians suffered cruel and unusual punishment when:
	a> The FBI cut off the water to the ranch
	b> The FBI used Psy-War (loudspeakers broacasting the screams of
	   dying rabbits and Tibetian Chants)
	c> The FBI prevented family members from contacting their family
	   inside the ranch.
	d> The FBI used tear-gas against them (especially the children)
	e> The FBI burned the ranch down.
	f> Thoes who escaped were imprisoned without bail without a hearing.

Anything I miss?

--PV

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54868
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.143857.5484@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

	[...deleted...]
> 
> Hear, hear! I'd also like to see the autopsy reports confirm news reports
> that multiple victims were found shot (in the head), and in positions
> inconsistent with fire victims. It is simply too early to draw conclusions
> either way about this nasty incident, but I tend to believe the government
> side.                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^
> -- 

At least you're consistent.  I'm sure the highly propagandized Germans
tended to believe their government's version too in the thirties and
forties as those "different" highly demonized Jewish "cultists" met
their fate.  Always trust your government.

> The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher 
>      (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
>   Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island  
> with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac

-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54869
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1ra073INNcgu@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
> 
> I tend to agree, but I would like a better explanation of why the FBI stopped  
> the firetrucks at the gate.  I saw this in realtime.  It concerns me that the  
> FBI "appeared" to not be too interested in stopping the fire after it started,  
> and actually started flying hueys around the compound, which had to add in some  
> small part to the winds driving the fire.
> 
> Jim
> --
I understand fire trucks had been at the site for several weeks but were
sent home three or four days before the assault.  Can anyone confirm this?

-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54870
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:

> > Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.
> > You sick bastard.

> Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said 
> that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  

Let's go to the videotape.  Here's exactly what you posted:

> > THIS IS MURDER!
> > ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!

> Flame on!!
> Is this guy serious????
> If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media
>    for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts 
>    are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe). 
>    Any ways one of Koresh's DEVOTED followers that DID I REPEAT DID survive this
>    "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine 
>    survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David
> -> was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of 
> -> these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
> -> this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also
>    someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat
>    then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)

So if you weren't saying that the deaths of "bastard children of a sacreligious
zealot" was no big thing (and I know I am not the only one who read it that
way), just what the hell WERE you saying?

> However it was the Branch
> Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior" 
> (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that 
> what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their
> lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
> who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and
> for many of the rest of the U.S. 

So who brainwashed YOU into believing that whatever the government says it
the truth?  Or that Koresh was any actual threat to you and the rest of the 
US?  Haven't you ever stopped to wonder WHY the government raided this farm?
This raid was NOT ABOUT RELIGION, SEX, OR CHILD ABUSE.  To the best available
evidence at the moment, this raid, psychological torture, and group death was 
about Koresh's failure to PAY A $200 TAX on ONE grenade launcher that he may 
or may not even have had!  That's why it was the BATF doing the raiding in the
first place.

Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
torture, and a holocaust?

> I am however sad to hear of the death of any 
> child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.

Then think before you post.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54871
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <1993Apr21.021301.25113@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from the White House.

>      Number one, that there was a limit to how long the
> federal authorities could maintain with their limited resources the
> quality and intensity of coverage by experts there.  

Lucky they brought the situation to a prompt resolution before they had to 
turn things over to the amateurs.

> They might be needed in other parts of the country.

God help us all.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54872
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr21.045548.17418@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>Y'know, when the right to bear arms was "invented", 

It wasn't "invented", but was supposed by the writers of the Constitution
to be a universal, pre-existing right. Howsomever...

>all we had to worry about was the shotgun and pistol. 

Hmmm.  You need to spend some time in a library, son.

When the Bill of Rights was written, in addition to the (muzzleloading)
shotgun and pistol you mention we had:

 - rifles in calibers ranging from around .30 to .69 caliber and up.
 - cannon with various different projectiles to choose from (and owned
   by civilians).
 - breech-loading rifles

In addition, semiautomatic and full-automatic firearms had been patented
and/or demonstrated by several people in various places during the preceding
century or so.

>Now, we have to worry about drive-bys
>with Uzis sparaying the entire neighborhood with bullets.

Sounds good.  Any refererences to this actually happening, or is it
just exaggeration for effect following one or more incidents of someone
firing a handful of shots from something that may or may not be an
Uzi, semi- or full-auto?

>Just because someting was good once, does not mean it will be forever.

Until the root conditions that justified it go away (criminal behavior,
either private or government, which should be defended against), there's
no reason it should go away.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54873
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....

That includes suicides.  Since it has been shown in other countries that
suicide rates are pretty much independent of the means available for
doing oneself in (studies include some done/published in Japan, Canada,
Austria, Norway), suicides ought not be included in the count.

If this is done, the number of vehicle-related deaths greatly exceeds that
of firearms-related deaths in Texas.

>*I* should not suffer because of others....

Certainly not.

>We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
>we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

Why?  Unless it's doing something that directly hurts someone else, what's
the point?  (Otherwise, you'd better stop operating all motor vehicles, since
the price of operating them *greatly* exceeds the cost in lives of firearms.

>One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
>only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

WEll, it's been done at least twice.  South (North?) Carolina did it a few
years back...and watched its crime rate relative to the rest of the country
rise quite a bit.

Virginia just passed the law...no word yet on what the results will be, but
I'd be willing ot bet that a reduction in crime rates won't be one of them.

>I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
>other people.

Self-defense doesn't "inflict" on other people (except perhaps the criminal
who's tried to do you damage, and maybe indirectly on future potential victims
who might not become victims).



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54874
From: chuan@stein.u.washington.edu (Chuan "infamous" Lee)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tKI1.C8s@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes:
>Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have
>done their job well.

Just want to make a comment on this.  If you live in this country long
enough, you should realize the media is no friend of the govt.  I am
only concerned about fact that the media like to jump to conclusion
before the facts.  But I am sure they are good in digging dirt as
well; afterall, they like the controversial events, which of course
make news.

--Chuan.
*=========================================================================*
| Chuan "infamous" Lee                Email: chuan@stein.u.washington.edu |
| U of Washington, Seattle.                                               |
*=========================================================================*

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54875
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Waco aflame





		ABOLISH CULTS!

			START WITH THE F.B.I.


			

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54876
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:

>In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>>shoot-to-kill directives.

>You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.

Only because you are apparently easy to fool.  In other words, your
remark is obviously from someone who wouldn't know the difference.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54877
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: ATF, Not enought to do

The best reason to abolishing the ATF is that they don't have enough
to do.  If the organization were disbanded and its duties assigned to
the FBI (firearms) and IRS (tobacco and alcohol).  Both of these
organizations have enough to do.  The FBI is probably not going to try
to get a criminal charge of illegal machine gun for having a broken
gun.
 
There have been postings stating that law enforcement should be
divided and and weak.  But there is nothing more dangerous to
liberties than a law enforcement agency without enough criminals to
chase.  The ATF is one and look at the trouble it started in
Waco.
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO         | "I do not think the United States government
Boulder, CO                 | is responsible for the fact that a bunch of
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu      | fanatics decided to kill themselves"
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16   |        Slick Willie the Compassionate

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54878
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

On 21 Apr 93 05:06:08 GMT, Tim Smith (tzs@stein.u.washington.edu) wrote:
> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> >We have NO evidence that BATF & FBI would not have started shooting
> >when and if people had started coming out of the burning building.

> Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people
> leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the
> press first?

Oh, you mean something like moving the press back to a single
location, 2 miles away from the "compound"?  The press was allowing
into foxholes in Vietnam, but it's "too dangerous" to allow them near
the Branch Davidians?...  There's something skewed about the logic here. 

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54879
From: peten@iat.holonet.net (Pete Norton)
Subject: Re: Feds Caught in Another Lie

-- 
Pete Norton
peten@well.sf.ca.us
peten@holonet.net    
norton@hou.amoco.com          

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54880
From: pmgt1425@altair.selu.edu
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
> From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
> the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
> tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.
> 
> Medical Examiners have found no bullet wounds, as was stated by the
> FBI, on the corpses.
> 
> I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
> the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.  But then
> again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
> his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.
> If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they
> will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the
> Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation.

CNN reported tonight that some bodies were found with bullet holes in their
heads.  However, I have no information on the possible causes.

This is not to say that Government stories are to be taken at the face value in
this case, but to jump to conclusion at this stage may be the source of
embarrassment in the future.  Let's be paranoic, this may be a ploy to smoke
out the opposition and decredit them.  :-)

Comparison of this incidence to Tienanmen Square is made in soc.culture.china. 
Just in case you need more ammunition to shoot at each other.  :-)

No matter which side you are on this Waco issue, are you ready to die defending
your cause?

Peace be with you.

Pete

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54882
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5t14M.Ku2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>	Well, this is still the land of the free for the time being. Individuals
>are supposed be able to do what they please unless it infringes upon the rights
>of someone else. Owning FULLY automatic machine guns is also permitted by
>law if you have a CLASS III FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE and have paid the transfer
>tax. If you are refering to the .50 cal the feds claim the BD to have had, 
>I have used .50 cal for 3000 yard target shooting. It a legitimate and 
>challenging sport. 

I'm getting tired of these wimpy Liberals whining about gun control,
too!  Ya know, the Second Amendment says

	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
	free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
	shall not be infringed.

Now, notice, it says *arms*.  Not guns.  Arms.

The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate
possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just
as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as
any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos.

Support your right to keep and bear short range nuclear weapons.  It's
a legitimate and challenging sport.

And screw the limit.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"My other car is a car, too."
                 - Bumper strip seen on I-805

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54883
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Denver Post yanks 'Assault Ads'


The Denver Post (supposed voice of the supposed Rocky Mountain Empire)
ran the following in the 'Firearms, Supplies' classified heading on 
Friday, 23 April 1993.  If you have an opinion about their new found
wisdom, I am told that the person to speak with is one Mr. Walters,
(303)820-1267.

	Notice

	The Denver Post will no longer 
	knowingly accept any advertise-
	ment to buy or sell assault weap-
	ons.  The Denver Post finds that 
	the use of assault weapons poses
	a threat to the health, safety, and
	security of its readers.

Let 'em know what you think...

--Dan
--
Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54884
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

After seeing William Sessions on television, explaining the great lengths
to which the FBI went to determine the suicidal tendancies of David Koresh, 
I got the very unpleasent feeling that Koresh had manipulated the FBI's 
perceptions much the way he manipulated his own followers.

Maybe I was manipulated by the news story.

David McGaughey
Texas Tech University

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54885
From: gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU (BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r4ef7$408@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
>with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
>torture, and a holocaust?

I doubt if Koresh had let the BATF have a look inside his place as they 
intended to do, "orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and
a holocaust" would never have come to pass.

The BD's killed members of the BATF on the first day. "Orchestrated character
assassination and noise torture" seem like a small retribution.  The use
of tanks is quesionable however.



--Abhijit
-- 
BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5311b
Internet: gt5311b@prism.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54886
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735383339.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> I'm NOT trying to censor this or any newsgroup, I'm just trying to
> give some hints about OTHER newsgroups.
> Doesn't this belong to alt.conspiracy ??

Drop three billiard balls on a ramp, and they all roll in the same
direction.  Pour some blood into the sea, and sharks will converge
from miles around.  Throw a pebble at one starling, and all 200 will
depart.

Natural processes can mimic the outward results of conspiracy when no
actual conspiracy is required.

Put a government functionary in an embarrassing situation, and he
quickly covers his ass.

This, too, is completely natural.

> About Waco
> It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this.

It looks that way to me, too.  But you have to understand that it's NOT 
the first time they have instigated raids like these.  The most recent
one ALSO ended up in a long standoff, but it wasn't quite as public
as this one, and they didn't kill quite as many people.  Maybe this 
screwup will make them think long and hard about raiding any more 
residences in this manner.  But probably not.

> The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house
> in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)

I assume you're talking about Philadelphia.

> It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???

If you're a fan of conspiracies, the time to make that batch of
popcorn is AFTER the screwup, when it's time for the coverup.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54887
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: news says BATF indictment/warrant unsealed...

In article <1993Apr21.051417.23137@husc3.harvard.edu>, kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:

> Other News:
> Sniper injures 9 outside MCA buildling in L.A.  Man arrested--suspect
> was disgruntled employee of Universal Studios, which
> is a division of M.C.A.

Shooting those .44 cal. blanks, I suspect.  Them movie guys is dangerous.

> QUESTION:
> What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald
> denny trial?

Practice with them, I hope.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54888
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption


For those who didn't figure it out, the below message was a reply to another
in sci.crypt, for which the poster put t.p.g. in the Followup-To line. I
didn't notice that. Apologies to those who were confused.

The substance makes little sense unless one reads the prior messages.

However, I don't wish to enter into this discussion here, as it will be yet
another rehearsal of a long-tired set of arguments. Suffice it to say that I
disagree both with the interpretation of "well-regulated" in the Second
Amendment offered by gun lovers, and what I think to be their distortion of
the same phrase in the associated Federalist papers. My Webster and my
reading of the language convinces me that the word meant both under control,
and disciplined, and not 'of good marksmanship'. I think the latter a
special interest pleading. No one has yet shown a contemporateous reference
in which "well regulated" unambiguously meant 'of good marksmanship', and
not under control/disciplined, etc.

Thus I continue to believe the Second Amendment is a militia clause and not
an 'arming everyone' clause. Others are welcome to disagree (as I know many
do) and little would be served by rehashing this topic in this particular
forum.

To avoid flames, or unproductive rehashings, I note that I've come in here
to post this one message, just to clarify the one below. I'm now outta here
again though I'm available via e-mail.

David

In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David
Sternlight) writes:

>
>Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
>a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
>in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.
>
>David
>-- 
>David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of
>                         our information, errors and omissions excepted.  
>
>


-- 
David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of
                         our information, errors and omissions excepted.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54889
From: tedwards@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Need info on Waco, Machineguns

A really sad op-ed appeared in my school's newpaper today.  It
claimed that full-auto weapons are illegal in the U.S.
I understand that full-auto weapons made and registered before
May 19, 1986 are still legal in 40 of the 50 states.  Is
Texas one of those states?

Can anyone point me to a source for info on how many people have been 
killed by legal full-auto weapons in the U.S.?

And finally, I think it would be great if anyone was keeping a digest
of facts on the Waco incident.  In particular, I would like a source
for the FBI/BATF mentioning the supposed methamphetamine lab, and
information on the beginning of the raid, specifically BATF
lies.

I am also interested in past BATF no-knock warrents which have lead
to personal and property damage against innocent citizens.

I intend to put together a reply to this op-ed very soon.  The author
of the piece states he wants to work for the BATF.  gack!  

-Thomas


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54890
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> > :> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
> > :> in Texas. 

> > :Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
>   Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
> not break out for several hours.  I find it highly unlikely that the BD would
> be cooking lunch while armored vehicles punch holes in their house and are
> pumping in tear gas. 

Look, I don't want to bore everybody here with the physics of woodstoves,
but they're not anything like your Caloric gas range.  It takes about
three hours for a woodstove to get hot enough to cook on, and afterwards 
you can't just "shut it off" -- it will contain hot embers for over 24 
hours even after you choke it COMPLETELY.

So it ain't exactly "light up the stove and cook me a batch of them 
pancakes, Aunt J..."  If you use a woodstove for cooking, or even for
heating your house at night, you will have it lit to SOME extent all 
the time.  Trust me on this one, I speak from experience.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54891
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) [me! :-] writes:
>                                     A BILL 
>   
> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

... in response to which ...

In article <1qkeo9$drg@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
[ ... ]
>So, you have the right unless the Federal Government says you don't.
>I don't think I like this very much.

... and ...

In article <1qkshq$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
writes:
[ ... ]
>Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
>I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.

... and ...

In article <1ql3aiINN41c@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clement
s) writes:
[ ... ]
>right mentioned in the bill is already established under the Second
>Amendment; the bill should be reworded to reaffirm the Second Amendment


Hey, guys.  You're absolutely correct, and well on the way to winning
this battle ... and losing the war.  Yes, there are serious philosophical
flaws in HR 1276.  Technical ones, too -- how'd you like to sue the Feds,
lose, and have to pay _their_ "reasonable Attorney's fee" ... ?    :-)

Still, I have one basic question:  compared to what we've _got_ is HR 1276
(a) better, or (b) worse?  This one shouldn't even take you three guesses.

If there's a good enough show of support for HR 1276, maybe for a change
_we_ could be the ones saying "it's a reasonable first step" ...
--------
The 2nd Amendment is about sovereignty, not duck hunting

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54892
From: allanl@microsoft.com (Allan Lockridge)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

Count me in for $1000.00.  

Allan Lockridge

My Opinions are my own and are not for sale.
-- 
Allan Lockridge -- Allanl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54893
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>  Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
>not break out for several hours.  
	Minor quibble back at you.  I am in the same general area as
	the Koresh compound and I can tell you that the air was quite
	chilly that morning, especially with the high winds that
	were blowing. (Of course the swiss cheese walls made it
	even worse. ;-)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54894
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Cost/Benefit Analysis (was FBI Director's Statement...)

In article <93111.094609MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
> Has anyone noticed or commented on the fact that so many of those who
> were willing, nay demanding, that we wait forever for Mr Hussein and
> Iraq, that we use tremendously costly "sanctions", to avoid a loss
> of life, are now at the fore front of those clammoring that we should
> have smashed those "religious radicals" and we were wasting money allowing
> this stand off to go on  ? 

No.  I see many of the same groups protesting both.  I also know people
who feel exactly the opposite (i.e., treat citizens better than Saddam).

> How the worm turns when the sect changes.

Hey!  Sect changes are still illegal in Texas!
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54895
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno on Nightline


It's worse than you show it.....look for Janet REno and others to
link the words "child abuse" and "p[rivate stores of guns" from
now on out.
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54896
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...


In article <1r1die$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>
>> Yet, the FBI mouthpiece at this afternoon's press conference characterized
>> the quantity of CS gas pumped into the building as "massive", and speculated
>> that after a few hours of exposure any Davidian gas masks would become
>> useless.
>> 
>> Does this sound "not harmful" to you?
>
>Hm.  A previous poster argued that the fact that the BD's did not rush to
>escape the burning building indicated that it was they, and not any of the
>government actions, that started the fire.  On the other hand, I wonder if,
>with a face full of "massive amounts of CS," *I* would be able to escape
>a burning tinder-box like that ranch house assuming my best efforts.

Imagine, you have been under seige for almost two months by an enemy which you
believe wants to kill you.  Suddenly, they pump tear gas into your building and
punch holes in it with tanks.  Then a fire breaks out.  Do you run outside to
be slaughtered, or stay and face your fate.

Check Ethiopia vs. Italy in WWII for some answers to that question.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54897
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

In <C601ED.CD6@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com sez:
>
>The Houston Chronicle last Thursday (maybe Wednesday) said that
>the interior of walls had been covered with hay bales to help
>protect against bullets.  Many of you know how fast dry hay
>burns.

This is all terribly interesting, but it doesn't belong in misc.legal.
Take it elsewhere, please.

-- 
        Have you hugged your common nucleus of operative fact today?

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54898
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:

>Could y'all PLEASE stop posting this stuff to tx.general.  tx.politics
>is sufficient and is where this stuff belongs.  Thanks.

>	Cathy
>-- 
>Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu

WHY??????????




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54899
From: fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks)
Subject: Two found shot inside compound.

Today the Texas ME found two people, a man and a woman shot in the head
inside the burned compound. But these were not the people that the FBI
described a few days before. The FBI said that the person found in front of
the compound had been shot and several children were also. The two people
found today were on top of the main inside concrete bunker that provided
the most protection during the fire. So the comment that children were
shot is still not proved.

-- 
Defend your 2nd amendment rights. 
NRA ACLU VFW
Fred Brooks   			        Portland Oregon

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54900
From: jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman)
Subject: More on stupid media

I just heard on CNN that the Texas Rangers found an M60 machine gun
in the BD compound Rubble.  The newscaster called this a new hi-tech
military weapon!  HA HA!!  I would bet that it is that Rock Armory
M60 semi-auto, or that it was leagally owned and the tax was paid.

What year was the M60 patented?

Just showing you how the media is twisting the facts,
Josh


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54903
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Who do I write to now?

Okay.  I have my copies of all relevant gun-control bills.  I'm mad as hell.
I want to get involved.  I want to join the battle to protect our Second
Amendment Rights.

Who do I write?

Who should I concentrate on writing my comments to?  The actual author of the
bill?  The supporters of the bill?  My Congressman?  My Senator?  Newspapers?
Magazines?  All of the above?

I don't believe that I will change the world, but at least I am going to throw
a few punches.  Can any of you offer any advice or suggestions to me as I now
begin to get involved here?

Thanks for replying directly to me via e-mail.

pnesbitt@mcimail.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54904
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>In <C601ED.CD6@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com sez:
>>
>>The Houston Chronicle last Thursday (maybe Wednesday) said that
>>the interior of walls had been covered with hay bales to help
>>protect against bullets.  Many of you know how fast dry hay
>>burns.

>This is all terribly interesting, but it doesn't belong in misc.legal.
>Take it elsewhere, please.


But of course it does.   It's certainly a legal matter.  If it's not a
legal matter that interest *you* you may simply put it in your kill
file. 

Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   FUCK THE POLICE!!!!



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54905
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735413309.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> I`m NOT saying you should ban guns, OR that you should take them away
> from responsible owners.

But this is all gun control laws end up doing.  Politicians can never
manage to get a handle on those who obtain arms illegally, so all their
laws can ever do is further restrict people who obtain them legally.

Karen McNutt, a local attorney, states that there are about two MILLION
licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.  In the past year, the number of
licensed gun owners involved in gun crimes was something like SIX.
Yet, there were a large number of gun crimes in the state last year.

Does passing laws that will further restricting only those people ALREADY
obeying laws pay any dividents?

> All I`m saing is that guns should be treated with respect from owners, sellers
> AND legislators. 

So far, I've seen them treated with the least respect by legislators.

> I believe guns are a problem in many countries and that crime rates
> WOULD fell if they were more restricted.

See, this is what I call the "argument from religion:" "I believe."  Don't
believe -- it's not NECESSARY to take this on faith.  Go look at the history
of countries that passed gun restrictions.  Pay particular attention to
whether or not violent crime was HIGHER before the restrictions and LOWER
after.  (Don't look at "violent gun crimes," that's begging the question.)
You may be very surprised.

> If ALL crimes done with guns stopped AND all accidents also stopped or
> was reduced to a minimum THEN I would consider lifting all gun control.

You have this absolutely backwards.  If crime stopped in the presence of
strict gun control, there is NO WAY I would consider lifting any of it.
However, if gun control made absolutely NO IMPROVEMENT in the violent 
crime rate, THAT'S when I would have it lifted.  Think about it.

So far, none of the stats show any improvement...

> Likevise if car-accidents fell to a minimum in europe, I (and probably
> most people I know) would demand easier drivers-tests.
> (ca. 20 hours and more than 2500$ today....)

Do you really think driver's tests are any indication of your propensity
for having accidents?  

I've never known anybody stupid enough to take a driving test while 
drunk; after having been up all night; with two fighting kids in the 
back seat; with a hot cup of coffee on their lap; or while putting on 
makeup, reading the newspaper, or talking on their cellular phone.  
But that's what they're doing when they have those accidents.

> In other words -We should have legislation because it`s neccacery !!

How can anything that has no positive effect at all ever be "necessary?"

> The one gun/month case in Virginia:
> I was thinking about the reactions on the proposal...
> Loud screeming about civil rights and 2. amendment.

And it didn't help, any of it.

> Winnie the Poh:
> Do you want peace or weapons Winnie?
> -Yes please!

I'm sorry, I don't remember any story where Winnie the Pooh was
offered weapons.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54906
From: bbowen@megatest.com (Bruce Bowen)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption

From article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>, by strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight):
> 
> Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
> a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
> in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.


"Well Regulated", at the time of its writing and in the context of the Second Amendment,
means "Properly trained and equipped."

It modern language it would read:

	A properly trained and equipped militia, being necessary to the security of
	a free state <note the word "free", it doesn't say "police"), the right of
	the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

-Bruce

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54907
Subject: Re: Waco headlines and editorial in Boston Globe
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

John Kim (kim39@scws8.harvard.edu) writes:

> Boston Globe, Wednesday April 21 1993
..
> LIttle in the way of rationality could be expected from Koresh, a 
> self-confessed "sinner without equal."

funny, if Koresh did say that, he was quoting St. Paul. of course, 
the early Christians were persecuted too. if Koresh is a loony 
because he quotes the Bible, how long is it before mainstream 
Christians become the target of the FBI's loving care and attention?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`                "Get off the cross. We need the wood."               `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54908
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:

>In article <C5t14M.Ku2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>
>Now, notice, it says *arms*.  Not guns.  Arms.
>
>The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate
>possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just
>as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as
>any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos.
>
>Support your right to keep and bear short range nuclear weapons.  It's
>a legitimate and challenging sport.

     Good. Another liberal converted by Waco!  If Dave had had something
     realistic, there would have been none of this "Bradley" vehicle
     crap.

        Somebody in talk.politics.guns was offering free NRA
        memberships.  Hurry up.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54909
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1993Apr21.091130.17788@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
> In article <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

> >I'll give
> >you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
> >road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, 

> Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.

Ironic, since it's pretty much what was used to blow up the World Trade
Center...
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54910
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5v15A.7oo@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
[... snip ...]

>|>>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
>|>>spin-doctors censoring such information?
>|>>
>|>>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
>|>>were british citizens.
> 
>The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found
>with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot
>attempting to leave the compound during the fire.
> 
>There is a possibility that these are the bodies of people killed during
>the initial shootout.
> 
>Phill Hallam-Baker

Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every
where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
went up. A Texas ranger does not a pathologist make, so I'll wait for an
autopsy to determine if they were shot first. 

Either way, they're all dead and the FBI & Atty. Gen. Vampria are still
responable.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54911
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

>>>>> On 21 Apr 93 11:28:57 -0800, yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com said:

> Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
> to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
> while watching the TV coverage.
> 
> Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
> 
> Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
> a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
> 
> 
> 
yodicet>
yodicet>
yodicet>

Hmm. You don't say..

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54912
From: sparker@tuba.calpoly.edu (Sean Lawrence Parker)
Subject: NRA commercial


Just saw a new commercial(?) by the NRA. It starts out with a 
bunch of politicians talking about how to get rid of crime.
They finally realize that they need to put criminals away
longer but there isn't enough jail space so they decide on another gun
law.( During this whole seen there quoteing various statistics on how
easy criminals get off ) 
In the next seen the politician is announceing on tv how this gun law 
will get rid of crime and there is this grungy looking guy (criminal)
watching him on tv just laughing his ass off.
Classic.

Sean


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54913
From: djh4484@rigel.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>, Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes...
>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>the people on the net.
> 
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  What kind
>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>saw you and you were caught?
> 
>Anyone?
> 
> 
>Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu


If in said situation. I would, reviewing other cases I've seen reported
on in the articles I've read etc.., suggest the safest legal course of action
is as follows. Warn your assailant loudly and in clear tones that you have a 
weapon(Yes!Even though it's blatantly obvious now that you have it out!)
and that you will shoot him if he advances/does not cease whatever hostile 
action he is currently involved in.( ie: Drop the knife or I'll shoot!)
Repeat this process three times,if you can!(not if he's pointing a freaking
gun at you himself!That's kinda impractical.) (There are variables here and
I will try to address them in turn) After said warning (considering it's
 ignored) Aim center mass and fire until he drops! This is not sadism, it's
practicality.If he hasn't gone down he's still a threat!(Why I support .45)
IF HE TURNS AND RUNS DO NOT PURSUE OR FIRE AT HIS BACK! SHOT'S FIRED IN ANGER
WILL BURN YOU LATER! (Though in some cases the I can see where that might not
bother me all that much!) If you do drop him! REMAIN WHERE YOU ARE! Have a
Bystander or witness(Or Create one by yelling at the top of your lungs!)
call the police, and wait! Reholster your weapon VISIBLY! Or place it on 
the ground nearby. Do not attempt to recollect your brass.The police will
use it's location to piece together the scene along with your testimony and
that of any witnesses. Mentally mark witnesses! If the police say that none
came forward let them know who you saw! Attempt to keep your weapon loaded
with the minimum required(how the hell can I phrase this?) Try to avoid special
purpose ammunition. Hollow points and Hydrashock rounds give the opposing
lawyer the type of loaded phrasing he will need to sawy the jury that you
fully intended to kill someone! The only special purpose rounds that I can
think of that would actually help your case (as it has in several) is the
Glaser Safety Slug (oh what a lovely name SAFETY SLUG) The stated purpose
and stated design parameters of the round are life savers in court.
(ie. Attempting to create a bullet which will not overpenetrate, not 
ricochette, and which is designed to STOP (Not Kill (Gee, to bad the two often
cross, damn I'm real sorry that rapist is dead! NOT!) an assailant with
one shot. This, again, can be a real life saver in a hostile court.
Be as cooperative with the police as possible! Show them where you were.
Repeat your information as often as requested. They will often ask you the
same questions over and over to verify facts, and ,unfortunately, to see
if your lying. Fill out all statements and show all required identification
and weapon permits (BOOO! Down with registered citizens!Register your
 politicians as deadly tax weapons needing to be confiscated!) If they are
required in your state. Contact a lawyer immediately if they decide to
hold you or that further questioning is needed. If you cannot afford one,
contact the NRA. They have a legal assistance fund.(Or at least they used to)
I DO HOPE YOUR A MEMBER! (Not my business either way though..) If I was
vague on anything, or I left some questions unanswered, you can E-MAIL
me or post here. (Preferebly E-MAIL. I don't have a load of time to review
the news)
								Kane

******************************************************************************
*A truely representative government need never fear it's armed citizens!     *
*Disband the BATF!                             Bankrupt Ted Turner and HCI!  *
*I will give up my gun when they pry it out of my cold,dead hand!            *
*DEATH TO TYRANTS!                       [THIS SPACE FOR RENT!]              *
*                                                                            *
*                                        Kane DJH4484@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU         *
******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54914
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Larry King Interview with Koresh's Lawyer

from alt.law-enforcement

In article <1993Apr20.212245.3186@msus1.msus.edu>, hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu (Robert A. Hayden) writes:
> I only caught about the last 15 minutes of this show (I hope to see it
> when it repeats later), but did manage to catch the summary.

> According to Koresh's lawyer and some other guy (who I am not sure who he
> is), The Davidians _DID_NOT_ start the fire and apparently made several
> attempts at escaping but were blocked by smoke, fire, and FBI tanks.

> He states this after interviews with thoses 9 Davidians that escaped. 
> They indicated that their was no suicide pact and that the fire was set by
> the FBI (I got that impression, not sure about that).

> Something about this whole mess just doesn't smell right.  It didn't Feb.
> 28th and is doesn't now.

> -- 
> [> Robert Hayden                   ____   <]  Black Holes result from God 
> [>                                 \  /__ <]  dividing the universe by zero. 
> [> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu  \/  / <]  
> [> aq650@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu            \/  <]  # include std_disclaimer.h

-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54915
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

Post all you want, foreigner.  We'd rather hear from you
than those "I'll support the fascist who writes the
hecks for my salary" .edu site types!

Should you expect the Police to come in and
assault you, lay siege and refuse to help when they
(yes, let's give them the benefit of the doubt)
accidently burn down your ranch home?  Even though
ey have emergency vehicles nearby?

Is this a proper response when you just keep to yourself?
Even if you DON'T hurt anyone?  And you
're cooperative with cops when you occasionally come out?

I hope not.
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu
.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54916
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <94102@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU  
(BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT) writes:
> In article <1r4ef7$408@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.  
Tavares) writes:
> 
> >Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
> >with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
> >torture, and a holocaust?
> 
> I doubt if Koresh had let the BATF have a look inside his place as they 
> intended to do, "orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and
> a holocaust" would never have come to pass.
> 
> The BD's killed members of the BATF on the first day. "Orchestrated character
> assassination and noise torture" seem like a small retribution.  

Does the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" have ANY meaning anymore?

> The use
> of tanks is quesionable however.
> 
> 
> 
> --Abhijit
> -- 
> BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT
> Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
> uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5311b
> Internet: gt5311b@prism.gatech.edu

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54917
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

speaking of the sick bastard, i noticed he attends Kent State University.
 
i guess we have come full circle here. Someone from Kent favoring excessive
force by the govenment to subdue polically incorrect thinking.

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54918
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!


| Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
| with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
| torture, and a holocaust?

Shit, i'm going to be a lot more carefull filling by income tax!   

jim shirreffs

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54919
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Let's discuss Reno's taking full responciblity. Is everyone happy with the 
outcome? Did the FBI pursue the correct course of action? was justice done?
If Reno really meant what she said she would resign! She is just grand
standing, period. What did those people do wrong in the first place? that is
what i can't figure out. sure they were crazy, no dought about it, but what did 
they do wrong? someone please help me out on this.

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54920
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

|>      If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
|> burning building?
|> 
|> James Dusek
 
James, it could be that they were determined to stay together in the compound
no matter what happened. Perhaps the fire was accidental, and the DB simply
refused to leave the compod. Perhap they died fighting the fire? who knows.
we will have to wait and see. i persaonlly find it hard to believe that they 
would all agree to burn themselves up! what a horrible way to go.

jim shirreffs

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54921
From: info@ccsvax.sfasu.edu (SFASU Anonymous account)
Subject: WACO: suicide?

Those of us who questioned the mass suicide line may still have 
wondered, "If it wasn't suicide, why did so few get out?"  The 
answer is now available - the gas the government had been pouring
in on them is so disabling that its use in wartime is banned by the
chemical weapons treaty.

The U.S. had agreed not to use this gas against enemy soldiers in
wartime, but used it in peacetime against civilians, including 
nnocent children.

For confirmation see Friday's CLINTON:AM press briefing by George
Stephanopoulous, posted in alt.news-media and other locations.
(When questioned about it, his reply was that the treaty did
not forbid its internal use by law enforcement agencies.
  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting from Stephen F. Austin State University's ANONYMOUS account.

Please report abuses to newsmgr@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54943
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Subject: Re: Andy:  how do we stop people with a gun?

In article <1993Apr7.141930.29582@freenet.carleton.ca>
ac002@Freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) writes:
>Come on.   A gun kills people.  

Rather, people kill people with guns.  The sad truth is: sometimes that is
good, or at least, better than the alternative.

>But let's ignore guns for defence and/or crime and look at gun accidents.

Ok.  There are about 1400 fatal firearm accidents per year [1], and the
number has been in decline since early this century [2].  Most of these
accidents involve rifles or shot guns, not handguns.

...
>But seriously: a gun is designed to fire a bullet.   This is not so you
>can shoot cardboard cut outs down at the range.

In fact there are both guns and bullets designed specifically for that. 
The idea that my Ruger Mark II Bull Barrel (a semi-auto 0.22 caliber
handgun) was designed to kill or hurt people, even for self defense,
would, I'm sure, come as a surprise to its designer.  It certainly isn't
why I have it.  It certainly would hurt someone if you shot them with it,
and might even kill them, but it is simply wrong to say it was designed to
kill people.

>This is not designed to act as a tool for home  defence where you show
>someone  that you have a gun and they go "Gee, perhaps I should leave".

In fact, that is what happens most of the time.  Most self defensive uses
of firearms don't involve firing any shots.  Most criminals would prefer
not to be shot, and will go to some effort not to be, including doing what
you say when you point a gun at them.

If you were called on to design a tool, that could be easily carried, to
immediately stop someone attacking you, what would it be?  A handgun is
about the best anyone has come up with and experience shows it does work
the best.[3]

>No, you see the gun was designed to fire that little bullet into a human
>body and hurt them.  Not a tough concept to swallow, for most.

Certainly, no one argues that handguns (of the type we are discussing)
aren't deadly weapons.  However, it simply isn't true to say that all of
them were designed to kill people.  Moreover, what exactly is wrong with
having deadly weapons?  There are times when it is perfectly legitimate to
use deadly force, e.g. in self defense.  I consider it not just my right,
but my duty to defend myself and my family, and that includes having and
knowing how to use the tools to do that.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."
	- T. Jefferson.

I think what Jefferson said is still true.

>And the trouble with having such an item is often the little bullet goes
>off into the wrong fleshy target.

Not very often compared to other use.[3]

>Or else Uncle Frank gets pissed and blows  away his wife.

This isn't that common either, at least when compared to other uses.  It is
very rare that a non-violent person will suddenly "get-pissed" and kill
someone, gun or not.  In most cases, the people who murder have long
histories of violence.  If you have good reason to believe that these
people wouldn't kill if they didn't have a gun, feel free to present it.

>Having a thing  specificly designed to kill means it is much easier to
>kill things.  Right?

Right, but there are times when killing things is called for.  I hope I
never have to shoot a person, but I've had to kill a number of animals from
rodents to cows, and when I do, I don't want them to suffer any more than
is necessary.  I prefer they die instantly, but failing that, I want them
to drop so I can quickly finish them with the next shot, and failing that,
I don't want them to go fast or far.  I try to choose the best weapon and
ammunition I have to try to achieve that goal for the size of animal I'm
after, but it doesn't always work as I plan.  Without belaboring the point,
people who are overly impressed with the killing or shopping power of guns,
particularly handguns, haven't used them much for that purpose.


[1] Accidental deaths in 1988:
	48700 deaths by auto
	11300 deaths by fall
	 5300 deaths by drowning
	 4800 deaths by fire
	 4400 deaths by poison
	 3200 deaths by food
	 1400 deaths by firearm

     Source: Statistics Department, National Safety Council.
     "Accidents Facts 1988 Edition". National Safety Council.
    444 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago IL  606111  (800) 621-7619


[2] RKBA.002 - Declining trend of accidental deaths by firearms
           Version 1.1 (last changed on 90/04/23 at 22:28:19)

DESCRIPTION
===========
The accidental deaths by firearm per capita has been declining steadily 
for almost sixty years. In 1932, the accidental deaths by firearm per 
1,000,000 people was 24.03. In 1987, it was 5.74. The decline has been 
steady, consistent, and a fairly straight line when plotted. At the rate 
of the last sixty years, it will reach zero sometime around 2025 AD.

CONCLUSION
==========
Firearms have been a declining factor in accidental deaths for over 
sixty years, despite rising per-capita gun ownership.



[1] = Year.
[2] = Population.
[3] = Accidental deaths.
[4] = Accidental deaths per 1,000,000.


[1]   [2]          [3]    [4]       [1]   [2]          [3]    [4]   
1932  124,840,000  3,000  24.03     1961  183,691,000  2,204  12.00
1933  125,579,000  3,014  24.00     1962  186,538,000  2,092  11.21     
1934  126,374,000  3,033  24.00     1963  189,242,000  2,263  11.96     
1935  127,250,000  2,799  22.00     1964  191,889,000  2,275  11.86     
1936  128,053,000  2,817  22.00     1965  194,303,000  2,344  12.06     
1937  128,825,000  2,576  20.00     1966  196,560,000  2,558  13.01     
1938  129,825,000  2,726  21.00     1967  198,712,000  2,896  14.57     
1939  130,880,000  2,618  20.00     1968  200,706,000  2,394  11.93     
1940  132,122,000  2,375  17.98     1969  202,677,000  2,309  11.39     
1941  133,402,000  2,396  17.96     1970  204,879,000  2,406  11.74     
1942  134,860,000  2,678  19.86     1971  207,661,000  2,360  11.36     
1943  136,739,000  2,282  16.69     1972  209,896,000  2,442  11.63    
1944  138,397,000  2,392  17.28     1973  211,909,000  2,618  12.35    
1945  139,928,000  2,385  17.04     1974  213,854,000  2,613  12.22    
1946  141,389,000  2,801  19.81     1975  215,854,000  2,380  11.03    
1947  144,126,000  2,439  16.92     1976  218,035,000  2,059   9.44    
1948  146,631,000  2,191  14.94     1977  220,239,000  1,982   9.00    
1949  149,188,000  2,330  15.62     1978  222,585,000  1,806   8.11    
1950  151,684,000  2,174  14.33     1979  225,055,000  2,004   8.90
1951  154,287,000  2,247  14.56     1980  227,757,000  1,955   8.58    
1952  156,954,000  2,210  14.08     1981  230,138,000  1,871   8.13
1953  159,565,000  2,277  14.27     1982  232,520,000  1,756   7.55    
1954  162,391,000  2,271  13.98     1983  234,799,000  1,695   7.22    
1955  165,275,000  2,120  12.83     1984  237,001,000  1,668   7.04    
1956  168,221,000  2,202  13.09     1985  239,279,000  1,649   6.89    
1957  171,274,000  2,369  13.83     1986  241,613,000  1,600   6.62    
1958  174,141,000  2,172  12.47     1987  243,915,000  1,400   5.74    
1959  177,073,000  2,258  12.75           
1960  180,671,000  2,334  12.92

Sources: 
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 
Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 2, Washington, DC, 1975.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 
1982-83. (103th edition.) Washington, DC, 1982 [sic]..

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 
1989 (109th edition.)  Washington, DC, 1989.


[3] Kleck, Gary.  "Guns and Self-Defense: Crime Control through the Use of
Force in the Private Sector."  __Social Problems__ 35(1988):4, pp. 7-9.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .       The only fair tax is no tax!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54944
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Statement to everyone on t.p.g

Ok, here goes.  Yes folks, I realize I have stuck my foot in my mouth
quite a few times already so please let me make some clarifications.  My
inaccurate information in my posts was due to lack of knowledge.  Thanks
to you kind (and some not so kind) people I am learning.   Some people
have given me several good points to ponder and I see how I was wrong.
In no way was this inaccurate information supposed to be trying to
further the anti-gun cause.  I have said several times before (but
nobody seemed to be listening) that I am pro-gun and anti-gun-control.

As far as the race can of worms that I have opened up I have only one
thing to say - I am in no way prejudiced.  Some of the things I have
stated were said to demonstrate that I am not prejudiced and/or a racist
but I have been accused of being too aware of race and prejudiced.  I will not
say anymore about that subject because no matter what I say it will be the
wrong thing.

Boy, what a start to being on a new group.  Oh well, things have been
worse in my life.

I hope this clears things up but I guess that will remain to be seen.

By for now,

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54947
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

>Of course, true or no, this is a clever attempt to make them seem harmless
>folk minding their own business.

Nice touch - using the word *seem*.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54948
From: v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <1r4r01INN4v6@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes...
>In article <C5uyG1.7q9@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu  
>(P.VASILION) writes:
>> In article <C5v15A.7oo@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>> [... snip ...]
>> 
>> >|>>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
>> >|>>spin-doctors censoring such information?
>> >|>>
>> >|>>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
>> >|>>were british citizens.
>> > 
>> >The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found
>> >with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot
>> >attempting to leave the compound during the fire.
>> > 
>> >There is a possibility that these are the bodies of people killed during
>> >the initial shootout.
>> > 
>> >Phill Hallam-Baker
>> 
>> Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying  
>every
>> where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>> went up. A Texas ranger does not a pathologist make, so I'll wait for an
>> autopsy to determine if they were shot first. 
>> 
> 
>I would doubt bullets would go flying.  There is no particular force to make  
>the bullet leave the scene of a cartridge going off outside of a barrel.  The  
>brass shell would burst too soon to give the bullet any real velocity.  I  
>wouldn't want to be near it, but I do not think bullet wounds would result.   
>Shrapnel wounds would be more likely
> 
>At least this is my understanding.

Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due
to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate.
In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of
meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up
such scenes. 

As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a
magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and
thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the
time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the
evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists. 


> 
>> Either way, they're all dead and the FBI & Atty. Gen. Vampria are still
>> responsable.
> 
>Yep, at least in large part.
> 
>jmd@handheld.com

P.Vasilion

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54949
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: THE LIES OF TEXAS -- L. Neil Smith

Posted for L. Neil Smith by Cathy Smith


                         THE LIES OF TEXAS

Okay, what have we learned?

For reasons still being kept secret, a federal agency already known 
-- well enough to be examined and rebuked by several legislative 
committees over the years -- for a longstanding, violent disregard
of the law, invades the home of a man whose religious beliefs and 
personal habits they abominate, violating his rights under the 
First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to 
the Constitution. 

The man and his followers fight back, killing four of the outlaw 
agency's minions, wounding many more, and suffering their own 
losses in the process. The agency responds by cutting off his 
electricity, water, and especially his contact with the outside 
world. They are then free to say anything at all about him -- in 
pronouncements that contradict one another daily as the agency 
finds itself locked in a bitter power struggle with another outfit 
eager to gain credit for "straightening out the mess" -- and, more 
importantly, to script his side of the subsequent "negotiations" 
any way they please. 

The impasse lasts almost two months, ironically, at the same time 
four L.A. cops are being given a second trial for brutalizing a 
single individual, sparking one of the ugliest riots in history. 
Armored vehicles surround the house, already ringed with snipers 
using scoped, high-powered rifles. Loudspeakers playing obnoxious 
records at the highest possible volume, and searchlights, deprive 
those in the house of sleep (in the aftermath, nobody in authority 
will mention the effect this technique, originated by North Korean 
Communists as a battle tactic, may have had on their judgment). 

Finally -- another irony -- on the 50th anniversary of the rising 
of the Warsaw Ghetto, some of the armor punches holes in the house 
and gas of some kind is injected. The house bursts into flame and 
is reduced to ashes in less than an hour. At least 80 lives, 
including those of more than a dozen children, are snuffed out. 

Spokesmen for the outlaw agencies, the Attorney General, and the 
President all hold press conferences to articulate a common theme: 
blame the victim. 

He had illegal weapons -- as soon as they can be prepared in a 
secret government workshop and planted among the cinders being 
"examined" by the agency that created them. He was abusing children 
-- the tapes will be stored with the data on the JFK assassination. 
He set the fire -- our snipers saw him doing it. Film at 11 -- in 
3000 A.D. He shot his followers who tried to escape -- or was that 
Jim Jones? Best of all, he's dead -- he can't say a damn thing to 
embarrass us, any more than when his contact with the world was 
severed at the start of the whole travesty. 

A leading national paper claims 93% of the American people believe 
that a man who resisted a savage attack on his home is somehow 
responsible for everything that resulted. But when did you ever 
know 93% of Americans to agree on anything -- doesn't this sound 
more like the outcome of a Soviet election than an opinion poll? 

Very well, what can we infer from the above? For starters, never 
forget that, although Democratic careers are on the line (and 
rightfully so) over this fiasco, by the outlaw agency's admission, 
it was planned and rehearsed by a Republican administration. Which 
may explain why Paul Harvey, who evidently used up all his courage 
and integrity changing his mind (at about the same time I did) 
about the war in Viet Nam -- has been acting as little more than a 
mouthpiece for a state that has no regard for the Bill of Rights. 

More importantly, when Rush Limbaugh, who's been a quivering tower 
of Jello during the whole thing, takes essentially the same stance 
as Bill Clinton, it's time for fundamental changes, if not in the 
system, then at least within yourself. 

On March 5, back at the beginning, Mary Gingell, national chair of 
the Libertarian Party, issued a press release condemning the outlaw 
agency and calling for its abolition. In fact, the LP has promised 
in its platform since 1977, for at least 16 years, to abolish both 
agencies involved in Waco. I'm proud to say I was there and helped 
to write that plank. 

True, the LP is tiny and insignificant (although less so than in 
1977 -- ask the Democrats in Georgia if you doubt it). But, alone 
in a howling wilderness of fascists scrambling now to cover their 
behinds with phony polls and Big Lies, the LP is right about what 
happened in Waco. And if their advice had been followed in 1977, 
Waco never would have happened. 

Think about it. And think about the fact that, if you've had enough 
of political parties more interested in collecting and holding 
power -- at whatever cost to the Bill of Rights, let alone human 
life -- than in defending and expanding individual liberty, maybe 
the change it's time for within yourself is to make the LP less 
tiny and insignificant by a single voice and a single vote.

Think about it.

L. Neil Smith
Author: THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN, 
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
Editor: LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54950
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: NO SURRENDER -- Lenda Jackson

NO SURRENDER!
Delivered by Lenda Jackson at the RKBA Rally in Denver, April 18, 1993

It is a fact of modern life that urban residents, particularly women, feel
threatened. A certain number of them actually are threatened. There are
immediate threats, the things that women will tell you they're afraid
of. The noise downstairs at night. The lonely walk to the car. The
stranger at the door. The abusive husband, finally kicked out of the
house as he threatens to hurt her and their children. The burglar... The
mugger...the rapist. 

And what are we told is the solution? Move. Get a dog. Keep the door
locked. Call the police. as a next-to-last resort, learn martial arts. and
always, there's the implied question "what's a pretty little thing like
you doing without a husband around to protect you?

But what if you don't like dogs? Like living alone? Don't have 10
years to devote learning judo?

What if, after examining the facts, a woman learns that "rape victims
using armed resistance were less likely to have the rape completed -
and were less likely to be injured(Kleck,124) than those using any
other form of resistance (Kleck,126) (also true for
robbery/assault)(Kleck,123) 

What if, to our horror and despair, we find that citizens cannot depend
on the police for effective protection - they usually respond after a
crime has been committed. In truth, the Supreme Court has held that
the police are not responsible for protecting any individual, only the
whole community.

As a society, are we going to ask women, once again, to sacrifice
themselves? Are we going to continue to deny women the ability to
help themselves?

Here's a thought. Neil Smith, in his book The Probability Broach, says
"no 220 pound thug can threaten the well being or dignity of a 110-
pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out." But if
a woman decides to protect herself, with the easiest, most efficient
means possible, people - especially other women - are horrified.
"Eughh, how could you? I'd be terrified!" they ask. How could you
hurt someone? They'll repeat the lie: it'll just get taken away from
you. In truth, 1% of "defensive gun uses" result in the offender taking
the gun away from the victim.(122,Kleck)

Well, despite the lies, and the social pressure, some of us have already
made that hard choice. We've decided that we are not going to be
victimized by the muggers, burglars or rapists. We're buying more
guns than every before. We're learning how to use them - and teaching
others, women and men, how to use them. Most importantly, we are
preparing ourselves mentally to use our firearms for our own defense.
We're taking our own security, literally, into our own hands. We're
going to stop begging and pleading and marching and WHAT WE
INTEND IS TO REALLY TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.

But there's another threat, more insatiable than any mugger, more
secretive than any burglar, more soul-destroying than any rapist.

That menace is government, and it threatens us all. We know that
governments, throughout time, have suppressed rights and oppressed
people. It's the way they survive.

In our names and with our money, it interferes with innocent people
both at home and abroad. It lies to us, cheats us, steals from us and
threatens us with violence. No one knows exactly what it'll do next -
what freedom we will lose because some government goon decides
"it's for your own safety" or "we know best". Any person who acted
like government does would be psychoanalyzed within an inch of his
life and locked up as a habitual offender.

But this monster called government persists, and grows. And we, who
should be its masters, have become its unwilling slaves. Do you doubt
me? Then why did you file your income tax? 

Like any reasonable person, I believe that being afraid of something
that can hurt you is smart, and that paranoia isn't crazy if someone's
really after you. And make no mistake, they're after you and they're
after me. Their names are familiar: Brady and Reynolds, Groff,
Metzenbahm, Moynihan, and Clinton. If we're lucky, they'll settle for
our assault rifles, our shotguns, our handguns and our ammunition. 

As citizens, we have only two choices. They are the same two choices
given to women: to surrender or to fight. 

Surrender leads to the gulag, to the genocide of Pol Pot, to the
disappearances, to Dachau. I do not intend to surrender. 

A battle can be philosophical or political: in the main, the people keep
the government honest by threatening to vote it out of office. But if
they have to, they will keep in mind the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"the tree of liberty must be well watered with the blood of patriots."

As a patriot, I will point out the error in the government's ways. I will
do my best to vote the villains out of office. I will protest, and write,
and speak, and teach our children justice, honor and truth. And always
remember that Rebellion can lead to Bunker Hill and Saratoga......or it
can lead to Tiananmen Square. 

When the time comes to stand up, if I have to give my life to keep
them from going too far, if there is a Tiananmen Square in our future,
I intend to be there. And no matter what lies they tell and no matter
what laws they pass, I intend to meet them with something more
substantial in my hand than a brick. 

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54951
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Subject: Re: the truth starts to come out

>Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and 
>Senate so that we can all write letters?

US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

US Senate
Washington, DC 20510


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54952
From: kratz@cs.uiuc.edu (Jason Kratz)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

In <1993Apr16.202441.16032@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear
>>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapons
>>that are being confiscated.

>Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16
>from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and
>a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various
>versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?

Well, let me see.  UZI, no.  M-11/9, no.  M-16/AR-15, maybe.  I remember there
being a selector swtich on the AR-15.  If I remember correctly (please correct
me if I'm wrong) the switch would set to an "off" position or an "on" position
because the gun (AR-15) is semi-automatic.  Wouldn't the M-16 have a position
for semi-auto fire and full-auto fire (or maybe 3 round bursts)?  If this is
correct wouldn't it be easy to distinguish each gun by this alone?  Of course
if the AR-15 were modified to full-auto fire I wouldn't think it would be that
easy but I'm talking about distinguishing between an unmodified AR-15 and M-16.
How about the other guns?  Do they also have selector switch to switch between
semi-auto and fully-auto fire?

>If so, I'd love to hear the details, if only because they'll demonstrate
>that Kratz is blowing smoke.

>Considering that one can design a gun so that it looks just like
>another gun, yet have very different properties, and that that's
>quite common....

>Most kids in my neighborhood were quite young when they figured out
>that my parents car wasn't much like Richard Petty's, even though it
>looked just like it (except for the paint job).  Things must have been
>different with Kratz.

Actually it was pretty hard for the kids in my neighborhood to figure that out
as Richard Petty lived in my neighborhood and left his stock car in the 
driveway. ;-)

>>Sure it's on TV but why does that make a difference?

>No, it doesn't, but that's irrelevant.  If visual inspection of the
>outside worked, TV would be acceptable, but since it doesn't, the fact
>that it's just as good as seeing in person doesn't mean much.

Well, what about what I said above?  If that is correct I guess TV would be
acceptable (if you had a good enough picture and a picture of the lower 
receiver of the AR-15/M-16).

>-andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private
>--
Jason Kratz <- didn't take andy's offer to back down in private

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54953
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>
>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>themselves to death.

If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
of paranoia?

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54955
From: oaf@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Oded Feingold)
Subject: Dealing with cults - a few thoughts

In the wake of the Waco denouement, I had email discussions with
people from this group.  In particular, we discussed how cults
operate, why the FBI might be motivated to black out news or behave
the way it did, and what kinds of problems are involved in dealing
with cults and similar organizations.

I include an edited account of what I wrote.  The identity of my
correspondents have (I hope) been erased.  The editing process makes
the text choppy - sorry about that.  I've tried to retain the
information content.

Ellipses (...) indicate where text was removed.  A few of the comments
in parentheses are new, intended to make it easier for outsiders to
understand.

These notes are preliminary - feel free to criticize.

Cheers(?),
Oded

------------------------ (begin included text) -----------------------

I took a course called the MADNESS OF CROWDS, ...  The course included
cults and briefly mentioned/analyzed Jonestown.  (Did some external
reading too).

William Adorno ... edited a series of books on the psychology of
"evil" mass movements...  starting with THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY,
University of Chicago Press, 1948 ... an attempt to figure out what
would motivate people to support fascism or be the bad guys in WWII,
and by extension in other wars, in racial lynchings ...  I don't think
the books are perfect, and the study of psychopathology has advanced
..., but you can elicit Koresh types from even the first volume.  So I
think they're onto something.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
		How cult psychology works...
	[I'm an amateur.  Hope I'm not hopelessly naive.]

So long as Koresh could "own" his people, he made sure they didn't
believe there was any life out there for them, away from him.
Otherwise, he'd (Koresh) be nothing.  During the siege, ex-Davidians
recounted how he convinced the people in the compound they survived
only through his intercession with God to spare their worthless souls.
Absolutely classic brainwashing technique. ...  As long as they
believed him, they'd ignore BATF/FBI/Child Protective Services or even
the Red Cross asking them to come out.  After all, if they ever left
him, God would catapult them straight to Hell, and the combined forces
of the US gummint, with all the goodwill in the world (doubtful)
couldn't save them for a second.  If I believed it, I'd stay and die
too, like the folks in Jonestown.

For a prosaic analogy, replace a cult leader with an estranged wife
(or husband), and notice how many folks show up, kill the ex and then
themselves.  That's the consequence of shattered "cultism."  It really
does happen all the time.  [By the way, the treasured ideal in such
cases, without which life is meaningless, is the relationship, no
matter how abusive, rather than the individual's partner.]

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Why No News, Don't The Feds Owe The World An Explanation?]

I agree that official explanations are in order.  I can also see good
(?)  reasons for news blackouts.

>	The only fact available is that had the FBI not acted  
>	yesterday, those people would be alive today.

 ... that no matter what, those people would have died, because Koresh
made sure they believed they had no lives outside his influence.
Hence it would make little difference when or how the FBI acted.  He
held them hostage, as his trump against going to jail, but nothing
would really stop him from offing them.  Even if the FBI went away!

Look at history.  Rep Leo Ryan (and some staffers) visited Jonestown,
at the request of constituents who had relatives there.  Once
Jonestown was discovered, and even though they killed Ryan and his
entourage ... they all killed themselves, because Jim Jones knew he'd
be busted.  Internal arguments asking to spare the children, brought
up by some of the women in the cult, were shouted down.  There are
tapes...  The "logic" of saying that no matter how bad the gummint is, it
wouldn't kill the kids, was shouted down as blasphemy, and the people
who brought it up were threatened with ostracism by people who by
THEIR OWN AVOWAL would be dead within the hour.  I suspect it's the
same with the Branch Davidians.
(There's a book on Jonestown by James Reston Jr., titled OUR FATHER
WHO ART IN HELL.  I don't know whether it's good - never read it.)

...
The only way to prevent such a problem would be never to investigate
reports of child abuse or sexual mistreatment, or organizations buying
full-auto conversion kits or shipping hand grenades via UPS, on the
off chance of stumbling across cults that would kill themselves. ...

So, the only way the BATF/FBI could "save" those people, and future
cults, is by ignoring such signs.

I suppose there's another way - outsmarting Koresh and tricking him
into letting them go, or somehow influencing "his" people to abandon
him while he owns most of their means of communication with the world.
... a mighty tough row to hoe. ...  I suspect the FBI tried to do that
with blackouts, noise and other sensory insults.  However, maybe
they're not very sophisticated, or maybe the job is impossible.  It's
certainly possible the guy running the show was a jerk.

...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
	[Why the FBI might want to blackout during and coverup after]

    ... - if they were doing a poor job of weaning the BD's from
Koresh, they'd want to keep it quiet so they wouldn't be embarrassed.

    ... - if they were trying to wean the BD's from Koresh, they'd
want to keep it quiet so he couldn't outflank them, or well-meaning
boneheads from ANY point of view wouldn't screw it up. ...  I _hate_
playing chess when the world screams in my face, especially if at
checkmate time people really die, and I could be blamed.

...

I don't think ignoring such incidents is a workable policy, unless you
deny the FBI, BATF, Child Protective Services (of whatever stripe) and
the rest of the gummint should exist at all. 

		(the end)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

			  Okay, have at it.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54956
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:


> I will add my voice to the (hopefully) growing multitudes.

> I hereby pledge $1000.00 towards the purchase of CNN, under the same conditions
> as already described.  I will also post this idea on the other nets I can 
> access (RIME and Libernet).

I'll go in for $1000 worth of CNN stock.  Is anyone from the NRA listening?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54957
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale; Influencing the coverage

In <1993Apr19.171602.27135@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.153444.28112@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>I'd be willing to go in as well. By the way, we wouldn't need to
>>buy the network wholesale. Simply owning a large number of shares
>>would still work (if 5% of the shareholders want pro-gun coverage
>>and the rest don't really care, they'll go along just to keep 
>>the 5% happy...)

>I'd go along with this plan as well.  Turner's stock is traded
>on the American exchange and has 3 classes (A, B, and C).  A and
>B stock is currently about 23 bucks a share; C stock is about 11
>bucks a share.  Does anybody have any idea how much stock TBS
>has issued?  What would it take to reach 5%, 51%, or even 100%?

Um, I sortof hesitate to bring this up, but owning even a single share
entitles you to attend the annual shareholders meeting, and under most
corporate charters to introduce topics to be discussed.  While I *don't*
suggest the tactic used by some in Japan (go to the shareholders meeting,
and disrupt the bejeezus out of everything), what about a well-worded
resolution complaining about "advocacy journalism"?


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54958
From: nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

	My god, a sane person!  Somebody asking intelligent questions rather
than spouting of unsubstantiated drivel and making comparisons to Nazi
Germany.  I question, along with others, the initial raid by the ATF.
There are some definite questions needing answers.

>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

	Probably.  Which is why there are so many people angry at the
initial confrontation.  Why attack a compound with as many people in that
compound who are willing to die for their leader?  Further, they attacked
in the daylight hours without proper backup, medical support, etc.  That
was rather stupid...

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

	This I doubt.  While I question the ATF's initial raid, I believe
that the remainder of the standoff was handled fairly well with the single
exception of the psychological "warfare" by blaring music, etc.  I think
that was uncalled for and probably hindered the outcome.

>3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?

	See above...

>And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
>general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.

	Agreed.

>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

	Which is actually rather refreshing nowadays.  Most of the time, the
higher-ups claim "I don't remember..." or "I had no involvement..."  :-)

-- 
Michael G. Larish       | Amateur Radio Callsign:  KD6CTZ
nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu | Golden Empire Amateur Radio Society (GEARS) - W6RHC
California State        | Chico State Amateur Radio Society (CSARS)
University, Chico       | Butte County Sheriff's Search & Rescue - #317

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54959
From: ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>More than someone who would not release children from the compound.

I suppose it's too late now, but the repeated use of the word
"release" is peculiar.  Let's say you and your family are besieged
in your home by some people with tanks, helicopters, and automatic
weapons.  They give you a break from the amplified sounds of dying
rabbits to blare, "You in there!  Release the children, and they'll
be perfectly all right."  Stipulate on top of that that you may not
have your epistemology entirely in order.  Is it entirely surprising
that the Branch Davidians were reluctant to "release" their children
into FBI custody?

	 PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail
   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 54960
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Photographers removed from compound

Relay of coverage seen:
----------------------
There was a press conference by authorities at the compound on CNN earlier 
today (Wednesday).  It was explained that two news photographers were found 
on the compound earlier this morning without permission.  It was explained 
to the press corps. that this is dangerous and that an unknown photographer 
turning around with a long lens camera could be mistaken for someone dangerous 
by a Texas Ranger surveying the site. (!)  

The two photographers were said to be currently in jail and 
the press were warned to follow the authorities' guidelines.  
It was also emphasized that the survey of the "crime" scene at this 
point was crucial and that the press could not be allowed to interfere.
The press will not be allowed in until the bodies are removed and the 
site has been completely surveyed for evidence for a court case.  

That is the gist of the beginning of the conference to the best of my 
memory.  I bring this up because I haven't seen anyone else note it 
and I haven't seen the regular newscasts mention it.  It will 
probably be mentioned in the papers tomorrow.

My opinions:
-----------
I find this disturbing.  While I believe that Koresh is largely 
responsible for not ending this standoff in a peacable manner during the 
last 51 days of patient opportunity, I find the secrecy surrounding the 
aftermath more damaging to the authorities' position than they realize.

Since the vast majority of potential defendents in a court case are 
already dead, the emphasis on the importance of building the court 
case seems overblown to me.

It will be interesting to see the hearings on this affair.  I have also 
heard congressional calls for a review and possible overhaul of government 
enforcement agencies which you will recall I have stated would be a good 
idea in previous months.

Please also note that I by no means endorse  or agree with the many 
conspiracy-type theories I have read here and in other groups.  As usual, 
I am basing my opinions on info gathered from various media and filtered 
by my own common sense and consideration of plausibility, IMHO.  As such, 
my opinion is subject to change as more information is made available.


Scott Roby                                                Standard Disclaimer
-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55036
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
 
>
>In a previous article, nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) says:
>
>>In article <1r00ug$d60@btr.btr.com> michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn  michaelh@btr.com) writes:
>>>A partial list of excellent socialist visionaries and the tolls they've
>>>taken of unpopular religious/ethnic/social groups.
>>>
>>>Mao Tse-Tung		Millions Killed
>>>J. Stalin			Millions Killed
>>>A. Hitler			Millions Killed
>>>Pol Pot				100,000s Killed?
>>>W. J. Clinton		~100 Killed, but relax-he's only had a hundred or so days.
>>
>>	You people are rather amusing in a perverse sort of way.  You take
>>a tragic/unpleasant situation that you feel is a terrible injustace, and
>>assign blame to anybody and everybody with or without a link to the incident
>>simply because they don't fit your extremely narrow definition of good.
>>
>>	How is Clinton responsible?  It was a law enforcement action.
>>Granted, it was a nationally covered incident but Clinton had no more to
>>do with the outcome than Fred Flintstone.
>>
>Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
>are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
>that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
>briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
>go ahead.
>
>Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?
>
>>--
The FBI, CIA, BATF, etc. ARE federal agencies, you are correct.  But to
think there is a visible and clear chain of command up to the Prez, and
that these agencies inform Reno who informs Clinton, etc. is naive.  These
agencies operate as distinct and seperate entities and while they have
ultimate accountability to the Prez, they make their own moves, and then
tell the Prez, who says, "I knew all along".  While this may not seem right,
or it may not fit our idealistic need to see a structured chain of command
leading to the White House, thats the way it is.  Bureaucracys are not, after
all, composed of 3 or 4 people who talk on a regular basis, have lunch, and
maybe golf together.  I do agree, the FBI, BATF messed up. I'm not sure if
they should have stormed the compound or not.  By the way, Jehova Witnesses
are a religious minority in this country.  Protestantism is a minority
religion in the World.  BDs were a cult by all definitions and history of
cults.  To say this is not to persecute a religious or ethnic enclave.
Koresh said he was the Messiah.  I was raised a Baptist, although I do
not practice the religion and do not think that the Big Guy upstairs is
digging the divisiveness, closemindedness, and right-wing morons that are
associated with the religion.  Anyway, the Messiah that I was taught about
would not be carrying a gun, let alone stockpiling weapons.  You can doubt
BATF reports all you want, David Koresh was not a poor soul who was
unjustly persecuted.  While some of the information coming from the U.S
government is being exagerated so as keep public opinion on their side, I
do believe that some of the things that former cult members have said
are true.  Anyway, this is just another excuse to try and blame President
Clinton for something.  People who attempt to do this for political motives
should be ashamed.  THEY are the ones who are keeping this country from
reaching its full potential.
 
 
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55037
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <1r600fINNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:

> In article 5589@news.eng.convex.com, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
> >In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >>  Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
> >>not break out for several hours.  
> >	Minor quibble back at you.  I am in the same general area as
> >	the Koresh compound and I can tell you that the air was quite
> >	chilly that morning, especially with the high winds that
> >	were blowing. (Of course the swiss cheese walls made it
> >	even worse. ;-)

  You are correct WRT the idea of some heating being nice that morning.  But 
part of that line was also for the guy who said "minutes later, the fires
started".  I did forget how cool it was that day.

> Those choppers flying around didn't make the wind any more still, either.

  When you got 30-40 mph winds swinging across the Texas plain, a couple of
Hueys don't add one whole hell of a lot.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55038
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r5a7jINN83g@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) writes:
>In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:

>>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

>	This I doubt.  While I question the ATF's initial raid, I believe
>that the remainder of the standoff was handled fairly well with the single
>exception of the psychological "warfare" by blaring music, etc.  I think
>that was uncalled for and probably hindered the outcome.

  BUT...  Suppose they had waited.  The WORST outcome would have been the
one that actually did.  But with the FBI/ATF just standing there watching
instead of being a part of the problem.  It then would have been very clear
exactly who was at fault then, rather than the way it turned out.

  AND, that would have been the WORST case.  The best would have been, they
finally get hungry and come out.  Possible/likely?  Well, the alternative was
worse...

>>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

>	Which is actually rather refreshing nowadays.  Most of the time, the
>higher-ups claim "I don't remember..." or "I had no involvement..."  :-)

  But what does it matter?  Why say "I don't remember...." when it doesn't
make any difference?  Altho the clintonettes have been pretty good at lying
when it wasn't necessary, they didn't do it this time.  But it wasn't 
necessary - claiming full responsibility is a totall meaningless gesture.
Symbolism over substance - again!  

  I've offered to take full responsibility.  When do they pay me the big
bucks the AG is making...????   ;^)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55039
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:    CRIMESTRIKE - Phoenix Gazette Editorial


    Editorial - A10, Saturday, April 24, 1993

    CRIMESTRIKE HITS TOWN

    With the chilling reality of crime at the hands of urban terrorists
    that were noted above (a high school student and gang article in the
    same column), we welcome into the ranks of those dedicated to re-
    moving criminals from the streets the National Rifle Association's
    new CrimeStrike project, engineered by Arizona's former chief assist-
    ant attorney general Steven J. Twist.

    CrimeStrike is working to reverse the disturbing trend of daily
    crime.  It is promoting solutions that can be applied nationally,
    including tough and honest sentencing of the sort that Arizona is
    applying with its Truth in Sentencing law; funding construction and
    staffing of appropriate prison space; ensuring that the system is
    primed to punish serious youthful offenders; strict attention to the
    rights of victims; and citizen and community involvement.

    Phoenix will be the home for this national organization.

    The Gazette has vigorously opposed many NRA policies on issues of gun
    control, and will be resolute in promoting prudent laws that seek
    reasonable regulation of firearms.

    But CrimeStrike is an appropriate creation, a response to a clear
    need for more robust vigilance in holding legislators and judges ac-
    countable when it comes to swiftly and surely punishing criminals.

    When an organization has an issue, it has an issue, and Crime-
    Strike has it - especially when it is willing to direct its dollars
    to getting criminals off the street.

    We say, welcome to town.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55040
From: s5uapw@odysseus (Aaron Walker)
Subject: A little question of  "blame" (was Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>,  
mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
 
> However it was the Branch
> Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their  
"savior" 
> (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing  
that 
> what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up  
their
> lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  

Tolerent, aren't we?  Their's was hardly the first faith/sect/cult 
to espouse this type of belief.

> Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
> who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me  
and
> for many of the rest of the U.S. 

I keep hearing this, and while I'll agree that he "should" have come
out (legally, that was his best option), he didn't; and as far as I know,
there is no legal provision for "we're tired of this shit, lets just
kick some ass..."

So I have a question for you; here goes.

I come up to you and point a gun at you, saying "I'm going to count
to ten, if you aren't standing on your head by then, I'll kill you."
You believe that standing on your head is the road to damnation, so
you don't do it.
"1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10...BANG!"  You are now dead - Is it my
fault for shooting you, or you're fault for being shot?
Koresh wouldn't stand on his head.  

-Aaron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55041
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <C5uIHo.8LK@chinet.chi.il.us> dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
:gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
:>On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to
:
:You couldn't find a window after six hours?  
:
:-- 
: Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Have you ever been violently sick repeatedly?  I have, and it was difficult to 
drag myself back to my bed, much less move through a building full of smoke and
debris, especially when most likely already disoriented from lack of sleep and
constant psychological abuse...  Throw in the fact that the 'safety' outside
consists of people who have shot at me and thrown grenades at me, and are
currently knocking my house down with tanks, I could understand if the BD's
were inclined to stay put in the center of the building...



-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55048
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Starting my letter writing campaign

Okay, here is the result of my efforts.  I'm just getting started with this
type of activity, so please set your flame-thowers on low.

Comments, corrections, suggestions, welcomed.

****************************************************************************

Editor, 

I would like to ask you and your readers a few questions that are related to
the "right to keep and bear arms", and to a greater degree, the many other
"rights" that we take for granted on a daily basis. 

1.	You're sleeping at night, when you hear someone in your house.  You
call the police.  How will you defend yourself, should the need arise, while
you are waiting for the police to arive? 

2.	You are driving your family home when your car breaks down.  A "good
samaritan" stops to "help", when you find you and your family at gun-point or
knife-point.  How will you defend yourself?  And your Family? 

3.	You are a woman walking alone to your car or home.  A man appears
suddenly with the intent to rape you.  How will you defend yourself?  Are you
strong enough to fight off your attacker?  Are you willing to let this man rape
you in order to survive the attack? 

If the House and Senate have their way, we will soon not have the right to keep
and bear arms, as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A gun
may not be the answer to each and every dangerous situation, but are you going
to let the politicians decide what sort of force or weapon you may use to
defend yourself and your family? 

Many times a situation may be diffused by just brandishing your handgun.  If
certain members of the House and Senate have their way, .25, .32, and 9mm
ammunition will be banned for sale to anyone other than the military and law
enforcement departments.  Very soon, you may not be able to purchase ammunition
for use in your handgun. 

There is already a 15 day waiting period in California.  Do you really feel
that any law abiding citizen should be required to wait this amount of time for
the purchase of a handgun when his life or family members have been threatened?

Our local police do an excellent job, but they can not be there all the time,
or in a moments notice.  You should have the right to protect yourself   while
waiting for help to arrive. 

There is currently legislation circulating in Washington that would prohibit
the sale of certain types of ammuntion, handguns, rifles, and shot-guns.  One
elected official even wants to repeal the Second Amendment! 

I want to ask the readers of this paper what they would do if their elected
officials decided that they should only belong to a "certain church", or go to
church on a "partiular day"?  What if you were told that you could only read
certain books?  Write about certain subjects?  What if you no longer had the
right to a jury of your peers?  How about the right to assemble in a peaceful
manner? 

These are all rights that are provided by our Constitution and the Amendments.
If we give up one right, we may as well give them all up.  If you do not fight
for the right to keep and bear arms, what will you fight for?  When your life
is affected?  Write your law makers now!  Protect all of your rights by
defending your Second Amendment rights. 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55049
From: djh4484@zeus.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

In article <1qt8pt$ge4@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes...
>In article <93106.21394634AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>|In article <2001.150.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
>|says:
>|>
>|> Bill Vojak:
Hey! If you can get it together, I'm all for it! I too am one of the poor
(a college student) Get a bank account set aside, and set aside a big ass
data base and you will get my contribution. I'm setting aside as of now 10$ 
a month. Not a slew of cash to be sure, but it's the best I can do. Let me
know what you guys come up with. I'm sure as hell not going anywhere.

E-Mail to DJH4484@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU
Death to Tyrants!  
							Kane
Better ideas anyone? Haven't heard 'em yet!


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55050
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining
>>these weapons, 

>This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.

	Very narrow.  Very, very narrow.  If you'll recall, I was the
nut that advocated the possibility of tactical nukes being militia
weapons in certain situations.  How can you possibly define what is a
weapon and what isn't is only the start of this.

>>and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of
>>modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.  

>I would hope so.  Let's define a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon
>whose majority of energy comes from fission and/or fusion of atomic
>nuclei.

	And you've just described any civilian reactor because your
definition fails to note what energy is being considered.  Reactors
blow with a steam explosion, but the majority of energy still comes
from fission or fusion because that is what heated the coolant.  See
what a can of worms this is?  Last I heard, Ft. Calhoun station just
north of Omaha, Nebraska wasn't considered a weapon.  Given the
sodium-cooled breeder designs on the blocks now, I can easily envision
reactors being household appliances in under twenty years.  With the
PRISM design, there is *no* operator input needed on the reactor
itself, and it is not unreasonable to assume the secondary side can
be made equally as automatic in the future.  So your definition is
flawed in a few respects already.

>  Let's define a biological weapon as live organisms or viruses 
>in such state, quantity, and with such a vector that they could cause 
>death or serious disease [further defined] to a significant number of
>people if released in a city, similarly populated area, resevoir, or
>cropland.  

	Typhoid Mary would likely fit this bill if she sneezed.  If
you don't mind extrapolation, any HIV-positive person also fits this
bill if they interact with others in a way that stands any chance of
spreading the virus.  Finally, that manure pile I mention below fits
this definition, as does, say, releasing a pet rattlesnake to the wild.

>Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
>gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
>is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
>research purposes on such chemicals.

	And I can show where any such gas has other uses.  For example,
perhaps we would like to rid the hay field of gophers.  Calcium Carbide
is a rock that dissolves in water to produce aceteylne gas.  It can
be used for welding, in miners lamps, for gassing gophers, or for
making carbide bombs and doing some illicit fishing.  Toss some in a
toilet and leave a lighted cigarette on the seat and you'll see that
it can also be a weapon, just like any other flammable substance.
So, now my miners lamps won't work, I can't do any welding, and I
still have those pesky gophers.

>I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
>definitions.

	The basis for, but I'm sure you see that the problem is not
in writing a law, it is in writing a law that cannot be abused and
extended beyond the point where it does any good.

>>I'll give
>>you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
>>road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, 

>Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.

	It is under your proposed law.  So is a silage pit if there
is run-off.  So are underground fuel tanks.

>>biological in
>>nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate
>>the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So,
>>where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that
>>a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?

>It is not defined as a weapon of mass destruction.  Many things are
>banned for other reasons.

	It meets all the criterion of a weapon.  It is an instrument that
can be used for fighting, even though that is not its intended purpose,
and despite there being better weapons around.  Given that the aquifers
supply a significant part of the country with drinking water, mass
destruction is rather a given.

	It's not that certain weapons aren't something I'd rather not
see a lot of people having.  The problem is that it is nearly
impossible to write a law such that it cannot be abused upon some
pretext or another.  The looser your definition, the more ripe for
abuse that law is.  Furthermore, if you get specific then the old
standby is to insert a clause allowing the list of banned things to
be added to, generally without going through the hassles of another
vote and public reading of the law.  Again, ripe for abuse.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55051
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CNN report: FBI/ATF killing ALL Americans

In article <1993Apr22.000020.23999@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower) writes:

> CNN just reported the ATF and the FBI have begun killing everyone in the
> United States. A press release stated this action was required because
> bugs had revealed that many people were doing something illegal in their
> homes, and statistical data indicated that those who weren't might someday
> do something illegal. An ATF spokesperson, just before he shot himself, stated
> that "this would clean up things once and for all".

For those of you still unsure whether this is satire, the jury is still out:

    "Also yesterday, even though the compound no longer exists, the
     US attorney's office here released formerly sealed documents,
     including a search warrant and related affidavits, that authorities
     planned to use when the siege was over.

    "These documents did not include the original warrants the Bureau of
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had in late February, which to this
     day have never been released.

    "...one of the documents indicated the agency planned to seek
     samples of Koresh's handwriting not only to verify that he had
     signed for some gun purchases, but also that he espoused
     'certain doctrines hostile to law enforcement and particularly
     the ATF.'"

So, one of the charges against Koresh seems to be Contempt of Cop -- he
expressed hostility to the BATF.  That chilly feeling in your gonads is 
perfectly normal, folks... it should go away in about 51 days.

        The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
        ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
        abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

That should save them the trouble of subpoena-ing samples.  Heavens knows 
I want to cooperate fully, meinherren.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55052
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

>gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
>>On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to
>>tear gas, the first thing that came to mind was the location of the exit.  If
>>there had been anything in the way, corners to negotiate, doors to open, or 
>>any other obstacles to movement, I would have had a difficult time exiting

>You couldn't find a window after six hours?  

	I'd bet cash 90% of the people couldn't find the window after six
minutes!  Ask anybody who's taken basic training in the military.  It is
not at all uncommon for a few soldiers who have not properly attached
and cleared their masks to require assistance exiting the chamber.  Since
that chamber has a door, not just a window, it's likely a hell of a lot
easier to exit than a multi-room, damaged house.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55053
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Don Kates' talk on the Branch Davidians

This was posted by Lyn Bates to the firearms-politics mailing list:

I recently learned that Don Kates was going to be in Boston to give a talk
at the Harbard Law School about the Waco situation.  (Of course, this was
all set up after the incident started but long before its unhappy
conclusion.)  So, yesterday I went to hear him.  What follows is a rough
summary of what I think I heard him say, which should not be taken as
exactly what he actually said...

Kates started by saying that since he didn't know any more about the fire
than the audience did (it had just happened the day before), he would not
discuss that, but would concentrate on the original raid.

Koresh definitely was not playing with a full deck.  But so what?  This
isn't the first time that the leader of a new, small religious group has
been ridiculed by the public.  Extreme religious views nearly always fuel
hatred and mistrust.  The first amendment applies, maybe especially, to
people like Koresh.

Lengthy digression into the history of police organizations in the US.
There were none until about 1830, when they began in metropolitan areas.
Police originally were not armed; if they found a crime in progress, they
called local armed citizens to help.  Many began to carry arms for
protection despite regulations against them, eventually the laws were
changed to allow them to carry guns.  The original intent was to have many
small police departments, jealous of one another and competitive, but not
large enough to be a threat to liberty, hence the plethora of
organizations ranging from postal inspectors to the coast guard.  When the
FBI was started, agents did not have the authority oto carry guns (they
were to be, after all, a bureau of investigation, not a police force).
"All police agencies will be misused by anyone in power to maintain that
power."

The BATF started as a tax collection agency, whose primary job was to raid
illegal stills.  When the price of sugar went up so high that moonshiners
no longer found their trade no longer profitable, many illegal stills
disappeared, and the BATF needed something else to do to justify its
existence, so it turned to activities like phony raids on gun stores.
Around the time when the BATF's annual budget is under review, the media
is alerted by the BATF to come to such-and-such a place, where at a
pre-arranged time, a bunch of cars full of BATF agents roar up to the door
and the media get great pictures of the agents entering the premises of a
gun dealer suspected of not keeping books properly.  The media isn't
invited in for the boring hours of agents leafing through paperwork, but
if any irregularities are found, the media gets to cover the agents
removing armfuls of guns from the premises, and the luckless FFL in
chains.

The Waco incident happened a few weeks before BATF's budget was up for
review.

Kates' opinion is that it was a staged publicity stunt that went bad, and
that the BATF never thought for a moment that they would actually be shot
at, or they would have planned the raid differently (not sending 100
agents over open ground with no cover, for example), and would have had
some medical personnel on hand.

He confirmed that some years ago there was a warrant for Koresh's arrest
in connection with a murder charge, and the local sheriff called him on
the phone and explained about it.  Koresh sais, ok, come pick me up, and
the sheriff did, temporarily confiscating all the guns so that they could
be tested.  Koresh was later cleared, release, and presumably got his guns
back.  At least at that time, he was rational enough to be approached
rationally, and behaved in a reasonable manner.

The BATF didn't take into account that, unlike most of the FFL's they
audit, Koresh was actually paranoid, and fostered paranoia in his
followers.  Thus the pubicity stunt looked like a real attack to them, and
they reacted accordingly.

With respect to the original warrant, it had not been unsealed when Kates
was giving his talk, so he could not comment on it, except to mention that
the BATF has been known to not double-check the veractiy of their
informants, if they can manage to get a judge to issue a warrant.  He had
more to say about the way the warrant was served, which may have been
completely illegal.  Apparently the proper way to serve a warrant is to
knock on the door and announce that you're an officer with a warrant for
thus-and-so; if they don't open the door and the evidence is flushable,
then it is ok to break in the door.  But since it is hard to flush guns
down the toilet, there may have been no justification for the BATF
breaking in the way they did.  If the constitutional rights of the
Davidians were violated by an invalid warrant, or by an improperly served
warrant, then the Davidians may have been justified in their actons.  A
close look at one of the original films shows that one BATF agent _may_
have shot himself by accident when entering the building; if so, this was
the first shot fired!

The role of the media could have been a whole lot worse.  After an initial
position on the side of the BATF, the media began to come around to the
view that this might be a situation in which legally armed citizens held
off a bad, possibly illegal attack.  A real cynic might say that the FBI
went in when they did because it was clear that public opinion was
beginning to change sides, and the FBI wanted to act before they lost the
public's sympathy.

Should the BATF be abolished?  No.  Police agencies _should_ be numerous,
diverse, inefficient, decentralized, etc.  Better a few inept accidents
like this, than a move toward a single, large, well-organized,
well-trained, powerful, domestic police force, which would eventually have
even more tragic results.

   - Lyn Bates
     (bates@bbn.com)

PS Don Kates will be giving a shorter version of this talk at Boston
College Law School next Tuesday, April 27.  I don't know the exact time or
place, but presumably a phone call to the BC law school could elicit that
information.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55054
From: jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas


In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the army
> saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been banned from
> military use.  Its use is also banned by a draft international
> agreement on the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
> 
> The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
> blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  
> Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results
> all the earlier.  

Interesting development.  Especially since the Feds (and the U.N.)
accused Saddam Hussein of using illegal chemicals on his own 
citizens as well.  Hmmm...  Republican Guard/Iraqu Army = FBI/BATF?  
You decide.
--
I hope very much that others who will be tempted to join cults
and to become involved with people like David Koresh will be
deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over the last 
seven weeks.  

           -President William Jefferson Clinton, April 20, 1993,
at a press conferance held the day after the Branch Davidians 
"compound" went up in flames while under attack by the FBI/ATF
near Waco, Texas.  Is your church U.S. Government approved?

CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!!!  Ministry, TV Song
-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55055
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: "Women With Guns" on CBS

Catch tonight's (Thursday's) CBS Street Stories.  Covers, among others,
the work of AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment), a women's
empowerment and training group in Massachusetts.  They'll be interviewing
spokesperson Nancy Bittle, as well as some of her students.  (Assuming
all of the "interesting" stuff they taped makes the final cut.)

[If they show the ugly housebreaker in the toque and sunglasses, wave hi.]
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55056
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Janet Reno on Nightline

In article <FINN.93Apr20102525@dalek.ISI.EDU>, finn@ISI.EDU (Greg Finn) writes:
> 
> 	I am bothered by the suggestion of child abuse that Janet Reno
> used several times last night, both on and off Nightline as a de facto
> justification for approving the raid.  If that is to be used as a
> justification of potentially lethal force attack on the compound, and
> doing structural damage can fairly be called that, then that evidence
> had better be quite strong.  That seemed to be on Ted Kopel's mind
> last night.
> 
> 	Reno stated that they had evidence of child abuse.  She would
> not say what it was.  Koresh's now ex-lawyer was inside the compound
> repeatedly and told her to her face last night that he saw plenty of
> happy children playing with their mothers and no signs of child abuse
> whatsoever.  No brooding silent children, no apparent bruising, and so
> on.  Her reply to this was that child abuse is not always as evident
> as that.  True, but what better evidence could the FBI have had?  At
> this point it seems difficult to see how the FBI could have had better
> evidence than that seen by Koresh's lawyer who was an eye witness.
> 
> 	Having lived in LA and seen the media and authority feeding
> frenzy that accompanied the McMartin Preschool debacle, I have seen
> just how hot a button a child abuse charge can be.  Child abuse has
> been used before by authorities as a justification to discard prudence.
> 
> 	I find Janet Reno's repeated assertions of evidence of child
> abuse rather curious.  Wasn't the warrant issued for a supposed
> weapons violation?  That certainly had nothing to do with child abuse.
> Are we to assume therefore that new evidence of child abuse arose
> after the issuance of that warrant and the initial assault?  If so, I
> fail to see now how that new evidence was gathered, and how it could
> be better that on-site eye witness evidence.
> --
> Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
> Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

On TV news this morning it was reported that the local Texas authorities
who have reviewed the cases of the 21 children who were released
earlier in the siege have found no evidence of physical or sexual
abuse of any of the children.  I don't recall if this was on Good
Morning America or our local Texas TV station.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55057
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> FBI Director's Statement On Waco Standoff
>   "I had hoped to be making a very different statement this evening.
>After very careful planning and extensive preparation we all thought
>that today's efforts by the FBI to bring the Branch Davidians out of
>their compound would result in the peaceful resolution of the
>stand-off or at least meaningful negotiation.
>   "Instead, we are faced with devastation and death.  However, I
>have no question that our plan was correct and was conducted with
>extreme professionalism and care.  I applaud the restraint shown by
>agents in the face of life-threatening gunfire, and I thank them for
>risking their lives to try to end this peacefully.  I have only the
>greatest admiration for the courage and professionalism of all
>involved."

      "I have no question that our plan was correct?"  Months to
get ready, unlimited funds, knowledge of a threatened mass suicide by fire,
and no fire trucks on hand?   This is "extreme professionalism and care?"

      I can understand the first screwed-up raid by the BATF.  They
underestimated the opposition, which happens.  But not this one.  
The FBI had their first team in place, massive resources, ample time 
for planning and bringing up any specialized equipment or people necessary.  
They still botched it.

      The FBI Director and the FBI SAC in overall charge should resign,
or be fired for incompetence.

      I don't blame Reno or Clinton.  They gave the FBI clear orders:
don't go in unless you can do it without casualties; if you can't do that,
wait it out.  Those were reasonable orders.  The FBI said they could
pull off a tactical solution, and they couldn't.

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55058
From: lilak@peaks.enet.dec.com (Rod Lilak)
Subject: Re: Should Anybody be Permitted to Own a .50 BMG rifle?


In article <93111.141747JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!cunyvm!jcehc
Organization: City University of New York
Date: Wednesday, 21 Apr 1993 14:17:47 EDT
From: <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Message-ID: <93111.141747JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Should Anybody be Permitted to Own a .50 BMG rifle?
Lines: 26

   For the moment, forget about BATF incompetence or FBI hubris.  Did
anybody catch Rep. Charles Shumer on the news last night holding up
a .50 BMG cartridge and rhetorically asking if anybody should be allowed
to own one of these.  (I presume he meant the rifle for which it is chambered
and not the cartridge which you can get for a buck.)

  So what's your guess for the upcoming anti-gun agenda:

1.   A ban on heavy caliber rifles. (read .50 BMG)

2.   A ban on "sniper rifles"

3. A ban on "stockpiling" guns and ammunition.


BTW: Shumer is perhaps the most misinformed congressman I have seen on
     the news. I wonder how he finds the floor in the morning.
-------
MICHAEL F. GORDON
JCEHC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

"Vote as you shot."  (19th Cent Republican campaign slogan )


Shumer is not mis-informed, he knows full well what he is doing.

If you look at his other votes, and positions as an agent of redistribution
of wealth & property in this country, to him guns and personal freedom 
are incompatible with his obvious world-view. They are a threat to the
'order' he would impose.

	R

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come
close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell
after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The
savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
    -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55059
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Dealing with cults - a few thoughts

In article <OAF.93Apr21181038@klosters.ai.mit.edu>, oaf@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Oded Feingold) writes:

> Look at history.  Rep Leo Ryan (and some staffers) visited Jonestown,
> at the request of constituents who had relatives there.  Once
> Jonestown was discovered, and even though they killed Ryan and his
> entourage ... they all killed themselves, because Jim Jones knew he'd
> be busted...

> The only way to prevent such a problem would be never to investigate
> reports of child abuse or sexual mistreatment, or organizations buying
> full-auto conversion kits or shipping hand grenades via UPS, on the
> off chance of stumbling across cults that would kill themselves. ...
> 
> So, the only way the BATF/FBI could "save" those people, and future
> cults, is by ignoring such signs.

The paucity of this line of argument is that it is provably false.

Texas state officials COULD and DID investigate child abuse charges.
They COULD and DID apprehend Koresh peaceably.  The COULD and DID
impound his weapons for the duration.  And Koresh was NOT CONVICTED.

Note that child abuse and similar accusations are STATE matters, not
federal.  The state COULD and DID handle them properly and peaceably,
and furthermore violating no one's constitutional rights in the process.

So maybe the best way for BATF/FBI to save people is to mind their 
own fucking business.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55060
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
> In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
> >In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> >>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
> >
> >Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
> >latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
> >themselves to death.
> 
> If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
> is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
> your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
> of paranoia?

Funny, Brent, but so far we have heard two versions of the "facts:"

1) What the government says.  This includes what the government says that
   two survivors have said.

2) What Koresh's lawyer (who was actually inside the compound) says,
   including what he says that most of the survivors have said.

Strange, but they seem to disagree in most important particulars.

If anyone has actually seen news reports of any of the survivors
speaking first-hand, feel free ot pitch in.  I may have missed it.
But my money is that their story will sound a hell of a lot like
case 2, and not at all like case 1.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55061
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno

Few simple points:  Leadership: You are responsible for all that your 
                      subordinates do or fail to do.

                    Law: Any deaths that occur as a result or during the
                       commision of a crime are a felony against whoever dies
                       during the incident, and whoever committed the crime
                       establishing the incident is chargable for MURDER ONE.
                       This is how criminals are charged with murder for the
                       deaths of bystanders from police stray rounds and such.
                       Someone dying of a heart attack is also considered a
                       murder one, if it is in a situation caused by a crime.

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55062
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>

In article <1r2d2rINNa7e@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) says:
>
>NUT CASE PANICS!!!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF
>THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE
>MERCY ON HIM!!!!

I love a clown, even a school-yard one.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55063
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Flames on the net about flames in Waco

In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wa
yne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvin
e) writes:
>>
>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>of paranoia?
>
>Are you a moron or just illiterate?
> [...]
>Oh, I forgot, you're the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need
>electricity, never mind.

     And you're the guy that doesn't know that illiterate people can't write 
coherent sentences. Does that make you superior somehow?

                                        Steve
[]
-- 
   Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    "Across the page / across the ages / the moving hand of history [pleads]
     For a kinder eye to see us / not as we are / but as we dream"
                                                  -- Mark King

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55064
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu
(The Lawnmowerman) says:
>[deleted]
>lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
>who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and
>for many of the rest of the U.S.  I am however sad to hear of the death of any
>child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.
>--
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              |
>| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    |
>| Kent State University | 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |                         |

How tragically ironic that a post like this should originate
from Kent State. Apparently the lessons of history have been
ignored there.






Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55065
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

In <1993Apr21.202659.28336@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>> Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>> to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>> tacky, but hey, whatever works.

>How about a gun buy-back/charity?  Get some sponsors to fund the
>purchase of used firearms, have a gunsmith check them over, and give
>or sell them at a low price to poor persons wishing to own firearms. ;-)

	Why sell them at a low price to poor people immediately?  The NRA
is an educational organization too, after all, and it would be a shame
to pay all that money for new guns when these cheap guns would allow a
lot of money thus saved to be used in opening more classes.  Mention
that the NRA trains our boys in blue and you've got the media between
a rock and a hard place.

	"City pays $50 per gun to reduce crime."
			or
	"NRA to pay $50 per gun to provide training guns for police
	 and citizens.  Classes expanded with money saved."

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55066
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:

>Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes?

	Generally the ship sinks (sorry, there's a picture of the
USS Iowa next to my desk).

> Bullets go flying every
>where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>went up.

	First, unless that round is chambered there is little threat of
penetration by the bullet, or the brass for that matter.  Unless that
expanding gas is held in an enclosed space you get a nice "pop" and not
enough threat for even firefighters to worry about.  Finally, it's
rather simple to tell if a person was shot prior to being burned to
a crisp.  See, by the time the ammunition went up those people were
quite dead.  Look for blood around the wound, particularly bruising.

	However, it's my contention that it makes little difference
whether they died from exploding ammunition or fire; the Feds seem
to have shared responsibility for both.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55067
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

From article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
> 
> In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
> |>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
> |>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
> 
> |>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
[stuff about British cult members deleted]
> |>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
> |>a mile of the compound?
> 
> Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
> has a range of 3000 meters.

They were using 50 caliber ammunition not 50mm ammo.  50mm would be 5cm; a
shell of this size would be larger than a lot of cannon shells.

Snipers could have screened the people trying to put out the fire.  Besides,
the ranch house (not "fort apocalypse"; it was just a house despite what
the FBI and ATF says) was on *fire*.  The "Gun loonies" couldn't hardly
have been shooting at fire men while there house was engulfed in flames.
The FBI and ATF don't have any excuse for not having fire engines there
to put out the blaze.  The bastards waited until the fire was *well*
under way before they called the fire department in Waco.  They didn't
even tell the fire department to be on standby.  I sincerely hope that
the FBI, ATF, Attorney General Janet Reno, and all others involved in
this fiasco get the just punishment that they so richly deserve.
Someone should pay for this needless, tragic waste of human life.

Sadly, these evil SOBs will probably never face justice.  The media
and the government will just whitewash this incident and chalk it
up as being solely David Koresh's fault.  Sadder still, the American
people will probably believe them.

> Next question.
> 
> 
> The problem is of course the laws that allow a bunch of raving nutters
> to collect a huge stack of arms in the first place.

This is not the problem...the problem is that we have a government that
is becoming more tyrannical every day.  If people decide to own guns
*and* live in one place together then that is their prerogative.  On
the other hand, if the BDs were in posession of explosives and illegal
guns then the government did have the right to search their compound.
But, the allegations that the BDs were in posession of illegal weapons
hasn't been proven yet, so I'm not going to conclude that the BDs broke
any laws.  David Koresh was accused of abusing children, but if this
is his *only* crime then the presence of the ATF can't be justified.
The ATF is only supposed to deal with firearms, tobacco, and alcohol
violations.  ATF agents are basically cigarette cops...they should
stay out of other kinds of law-enforcement actions that are out of
their jurisdiction.  Better yet, they should be s**tcanned IMO.

> The sequence of events meant that there really was no option but to
> attempt some sort of breakthrough via an intervention. If the FBI had
> had the stomach for it they could have mounted a commando type
> raid and attempted to save the children by shooting all the adults.

Sounds like something the SS would do.  Human life---children and adults
alike---should be treated with respect---even if they are "heavily-armed
religious wackos".

David Koresh's lawyer seemed to think that everyone *would* come out
peacefully sooner or later.  The FBI and ATF had NOTHING BUT TIME ON
THEIR HANDS!  Why did they have to escalate the situation and cause
this senseless tragedy?  Their job is to protect the public and SAVE
LIVES NOT KILL PEOPLE for crying out loud.

> It really was a no win situation. Koresh had plenty of opportunity 
> to give up and stand trial for the murder of the 4 ATF officers. Instead
> he ordered the murder of the children.
 
Don't be so sure about that.  I read in a newspaper today that one of the
cult members said that when one of the tanks went through the wall that
it knocked over a lantern which caused the ranch house to be caught on
fire.  This cult member also said that David Koresh had *no* intentions
of committing mass suicide.  David Koresh's lawyer also confirms this.
Therefore, if this is true then this means that the FBI AND ATF MURDERED
EVERYONE IN THAT HOUSE!  Even if this is not true, the FBI and ATF still
don't get off the hook because they waited a damn long time to call the
Waco fire department.  Perhaps they wanted all these people to die.

> In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
> the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
> suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
> the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
> by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
> claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
> AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
> grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
> they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.
 
You're wrong on several accounts.  ATF agents were adequately armed.  They
had MP5s, AR-15s, and shotguns.  Some agents were armed with automatic
pistols but not all were.  The ATF's initial claim---which they later
retracted---that agents were underarmed is simply ludicrous.

> The B-D seige could not be allowed to go on indefinitely. The B-D were
> quite capable of commiting mass suicide and murdering the children at any
> time. A commando assault was the only other likely action that could have
> achieved that objective, that would have been very risky, orders of 
> magintude harder than Antebbe or the Iranian Embassy Seige. Airplanes
> and Embassies are not designed for defense against attack ranch 
> apocalypse was. 6 terrorists are far easier to disloge without casualties
> than 80.
> 
> Allowing the siege to go on was not an option either, besides the serious
> risk that Koresh would proclaim armageddon at any moment there was the 
> question of the difficulties of keeping the emmergency team on standby over
> a prolonged period. The longer the siege went on the more mentally prepared
> Koresh and his followers would be for a prolonged siege. Rather than go
> in prematurely the mistake was probably to go in too soon.
> 
> 
> Can you think of a better way of getting the children out?
> 
> A 100% certain way?
> 
> 
> The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
> government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
> them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
> them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
> up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
> set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
> to get gun control legislation through.

Gun control isn't the only issue here.  If the sick little monkeys in
Washington try to use the Waco incident as a reason to ban guns then
they will have demonstrated just how f***ed up they are.  What concerns
me much more than new gun control legislation is that the government
seems to be able to get away with s**t like they did in Waco...they are
becoming more and more callous about people's rights and the law.  This
greatly disturbs me and it should disturb you as well.

> This conspiracy theory assumes that the BATF deliberately got 4 of its
> agents killed and that the FBI etc actually enjoy sitting out in the
> middle of Texas being shot at by religious nutters.
> 
> Still the conspiracy theory is comforting, it allows them to pretend that
> WACO proves nothing except about how incompetent the government is in 
> resolving a hostage crisis. No govt in the world has ever faced a 
> comparable situation, quite probably there was no manner in which it
> could be peacefully resolved. The blame does not rest on the FBI, it
> rests on the fact that Koresh was allowed to get so far, in particular
> the person who tipped the B-D off in advance has the murder of 4 ATF
> agents and 17 children on his or her conscience.
> 
> 
> There are a large number of people in the US who predict the end of society
> preach salvation through armed security. The fact is that these are the
> very people who pose the threat to society in the first place. The next WACO
> may not be religious nutters but a political movement. A splinter group
> of the Klu Klux Klan taking over a schoolhouse in a black area for example
> and holding several hundred children hostage.
> 
> The only possible solution to such situations that can work is to prevent
> them arising. No other government in the world has faced such a situation. 
> this is because no other government has so carelessly allowed high power
> weaponry to become avaliable to any little Hitler or would be Messiah
> to set themselves up as dictator in their own little empire.
> 
> 
> Phill Hallam-Baker


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55068
From: johnm@karnak.lonestar.org (John Meaders)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:

>In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>   "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine 
>   survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David
>   was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of 
>   these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
>   this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also
>   someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat
>   then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)

I guess you need to be reminded of some things!  Have you ever heard of the
First Amendment?  I guess not.  It isn't a crime to be a religous (I know
you said "sacraligious", but it isn't your place to judge his religion)
zealot in this country.  REMEMBER we have freedom of religion in this country!
I guess you are selective in that respect!  So what if they were "bastard"
children.  They were CHILDREN!  Do you condone their deaths?  I pray for
your lack of a soul if you do!
-- 
John B. Meaders, Jr.	"Gun Control is being able to hit your target!"
8820 Southwestern Blvd. #1103, Dallas, TX  75206
VoiceMail:  214-750-0273	UUCPMail:  karnak!johnm
InterNet:  johnm@karnak.lonestar.org

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55069
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r569aINN7ss@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) writes:

> 	How is Clinton responsible?  It was a law enforcement action.
> Granted, it was a nationally covered incident but Clinton had no more to
> do with the outcome than Fred Flintstone.

Do I think Clinton conceived of it?  No.
Do I think Clinton ordered it?  No.
Do I think Clinton was aware of it before it went down?  No.
Do I think Clinton was aware of it after it went down?  Of course; who wasn't?
Do I think Clinton prejudged these people to a certain extent because he
                   believed the BATF crap about child abuse and stockpiling
                   "evil semi-automatic weapons?"  Yes.
Do I think Clinton ever questioned federal jurisdiction in this matter?  No.
Do I think Clinton ever considered the civil rights of the victims?  No.

> 	As for the rest, I won't argue whether BATF handled the initial
> confrontation well (or as it should have).  But from day 2 on, I have no
> problem with the way the operation was handled or the decisions made.

Some of us suspect that ALL the unlawful mistakes made on Day 1 were made 
on the government's end.  That makes days 2-51 nothing but a macho 
alternative to delivering an apology.

> As
> for day 51, as long as the FBI and BATF didn't INTENTIONALLY set the fire
> then, while it is certainly tragic, the majority of Americans (according
> to a recent poll) have no problems with the operation itself. 

Who gives a good goddamn about some bullshit "opinion poll" of "most 
Americans?"  Most Americans swallow the government line that they're fed --
not because they're stupid, but because it's the only line they ever hear.

"Most Americans" thought the staff at the McMaster(?) school was guilty,
guilty, guilty.  Woops, turns out they weren't.  "Most Americans" once
thought that black slaves weren't human beings.  Woops, wrong again.
"Most Americans" thought Saddam Hussein was the Antichrist.  Oh dear,
he was a "special friend of the American government" until two years 
previously.  You know, maybe truth ISN'T determined by majority vote
of a half-informed public after all.

> In fact,
> most Americans (according to this poll) think it should have been
> resolved sooner...

You're just testy because of all those newsbreaks that were interrupting
"Roseanne."
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55071
From:  ()
Subject: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

"Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.

I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
supporters helped inflate his ego.

That doesn't change the fact that he was a loose fucking cannon with a
shitload of serious weapons. Or that he was banging thirteen year olds and
twisting their impressionable little minds.

This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the
stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
expected this to happen.

Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
attract some of the more rootless members of our society.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55073
From: mroberts@ptdcs2.intel.com (Mark Roberts ~)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

In article <1993Apr20.060635.26568@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <nagleC5n2sz.5IA@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>>      The San Francisco Examiner reports that Clinton has issued instructions
>>to federal law enforcement that they may not kill or injure anyone to 
>>resolve the Waco situation.  So they've built a fence around the compound,
>>and are now seriously considering building up the fence to prison-camp
>>levels, pulling out most of the manpower, and waiting however many months
>>it takes.
>
>Well either the Examiner was wrong (as usual) or Clinton lied *again*.

Or perhaps David Koresh didn't listen too well??  Just because mistakes
were made does not mean the President *lied*.

>
>Gary
>
>-- 
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

** Mark


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55074
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas

In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the
>army saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been
>banned from military use.  Its use is also banned by a
...
>The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
>blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  
>Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the
>earlier.  

If we are indeed talking about CS, then this is not quite accurate. CS is
"just" tear gas--albeit the worst kind. It isn't a nausea gas, and doesn't
have direct CNS effects. However, it's quite bad--much worse than CN gas. I
was briefly exposed to it once (during an engagement in Berkeley circa 1968
8^) and it's not the kind of thing you forget. It seems to be
moisture-activated--it not only made my eyes sting and water, but attacked
my breathing passages and lungs. Breathing was painful, and my entire face
felt as if it was on fire. These effects persisted for hours after
exposure, and I was coughing for days afterwards.  If I was exposed to a
dense concentration of this stuff in a closed space for several hours, I
doubt whether I could find the exit. Indeed, I can't imagine living through
it.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55075
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Congress to review ATF's status

In article <C5vzHF.D5K@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

> 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- As part of its investigation of the deadly
> confrontation with a Texas cult, Congress will consider whether the
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be moved from the
> Treasury Department to the Justice Department, senators said Wednesday.
> 	The idea will be considered because of the violent and fatal events
> at the beginning and end of the agency's confrontation with the Branch
> Davidian cult.

Of course.  When the catbox begines to smell, simply transfer its
contents into the potted plant in the foyer.

"Why Hillary!  Your government smells so... FRESH!"
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55076
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
......
> 
> No Koresh is responsible.
> 
> If a murderer goes on the rampage it is the murderer who is responsible.
> The police may bear responsiblity for failing to stop him but the primary
> responsibility is with the murderer.
> 

When did Koresh go on a rampage?

What I saw was an unnecessary, unprovoked massive attack on Feb. 28th.

Probably even an illegal action by ATF, certainly way out of proportion
to anything reasonable.

And yet, according to a pole taken yesterday, 95% of the people poled
believe the government forces acted appropriately.  They don`t believe
Reno or the President have any guilt in ordering/allowing the attack.

I suppose they also believed things like:
"I would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget."
"We don`t need to lead with a tax increase...."
"It starts with a middle-class tax cut..."
"I`ll have the bills ready the day after I am inaugurated and we`ll
have a 100 day period....It will be the most productive in modern history."
"I will ask congress for a line item veto.."
"I will lift the social security earnings test.."

I personally prefer to disbelieve the government until they prove themselves
right, rather than the other way around.  That way I have a better than
50% chance of being right about my first guess!

Read the constitution sometime, it is supposed to protect the citizens
and their rights.  I am sick of the abuse of government power.

As Tom Jefferson said:
"When all government,..., shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of
all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government
on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government
from which we separated."  (1821)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55077
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
 
>
>In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
>>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
>>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
>>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
>>crime.
>
>What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
>any of these things?  Evidence, please?
>
> Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point tha
there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
of common incidents.
 
>If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps
>you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the
>rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps
>with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners
>spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death
>among children in the U.S. is a serious problem.
>
 Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
ages 14 and under.  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
 
>>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the
>>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good.
>
>Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
>
 My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
useful.
 
 
>>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or
>>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are
>>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often
>>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge.
>
>I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
>suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
>students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
>to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
>who carry a gun to school daily.
>
 Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see
that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
in 1990.  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
to guns in their home.  California schools reported a 200% increase in
student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".
 
 
 
>>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news
>>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours
>>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they
>>were in danger).
>
>"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the
>children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were
>outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door
>if you believed as they did?
>
 Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
would not let innocent children die.
If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.
 
Rodney

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55078
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

> No Koresh is responsible.
> 
> If a murderer goes on the rampage it is the murderer who is responsible.

ram.page, n.: To move about wildly or violently.  A course of frenzied,
violent action.

Who assaulted who here, Phill?  Do you remember exactly which side came 
out looking for trouble?

> The police may bear responsiblity for failing to stop him but the primary
> responsibility is with the murderer.

So if it turns out that the fire WAS caused by a tank knocking over a
Coleman lantern, you'll support punishing the "responsible" people, Phill?
Or will you find then find a different reason to hang it all on Koresh?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55079
From: jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5zsyn.MtD@sugar.neosoft.com>, jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
|> |>      If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
|> |> burning building?
|> |> 
|> |> James Dusek
|>  
|> James, it could be that they were determined to stay together in the compound
|> no matter what happened. Perhaps the fire was accidental, and the DB simply
|> refused to leave the compod. Perhap they died fighting the fire? who knows.
|> we will have to wait and see. i persaonlly find it hard to believe that they 
|> would all agree to burn themselves up! what a horrible way to go.
|> 
|> jim shirreffs

I seem to recall graphic news file of buddhist monks setting themselves on fire
in the streets of Saigon. Yes, its a horrible way to go, but apparently not
so horrible that someone with enough religious conviction might not be able to 
carry it through. And, since they've discovered bullet wounds in a couple of 
the bodies from the compound, there is the possiblity that those with the will power to self immolate also had the will power to take out the ones who had
less constitutional fortitude. Then again, maybe the FBI ran in while the fire
was raging, executed those two, and ran out again.

Jason Durbin
Oracle Europe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55080
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Photographers removed from compound

In article <C5vF59.83q@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

> two news photographers were found 
> on the compound earlier this morning without permission.  It was explained 
> to the press corps. that this is dangerous and that an unknown photographer 
> turning around with a long lens camera could be mistaken for someone dangerous 
> by a Texas Ranger surveying the site. (!)  

In other words, "Nice camera you got dere.  It would be a shame if somet'in
wuz ta happen to it..."

> The two photographers were said to be currently in jail 

> It was also emphasized that the survey of the "crime" scene at this 
> point was crucial and that the press could not be allowed to interfere.
> The press will not be allowed in until the bodies are removed and the 
> site has been completely surveyed for evidence for a court case.  

> My opinions:
> -----------
> I find this disturbing. 

Good.  Keep thinking critically.

> While I believe that Koresh is largely 
> responsible for not ending this standoff in a peacable manner during the 
> last 51 days of patient opportunity, I find the secrecy surrounding the 
> aftermath more damaging to the authorities' position than they realize.

What if the secrecy is actually LESS damaging than the alternative?

> I am basing my opinions on info gathered from various media and filtered 
> by my own common sense and consideration of plausibility, IMHO.  As such, 
> my opinion is subject to change as more information is made available.

> Please also note that I by no means endorse  or agree with the many 
> conspiracy-type theories I have read here and in other groups. 

Make your own bite-size pieces.  We'll wait.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55081
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <C5vB3E.Ev5@sugar.neosoft.com>, kunkee@NeoSoft.com (Randy Kunkee) writes:

> Perhaps we are a little off track.  The discussion was about rewording
> the 2nd amendment.  This specifically refers to the right to bear arms.
> "Bear" and "arms" are key words here, no?  Is it too simplistic to say
> that if you can't pick it up (ie. bear it), or if it is not a firearm
> then it can be restricted without amending the constitution.

Firearm?  Let's not even consider long knives (swords), which were also
common militia weapons in the 18th century, and which, if anything, are
often restricted more heavily than firearms.  Whatever sense gun control
makes, knife control makes even less.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55082
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Revisited

mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell) babbles from Scotland, one of England's
last remaining colonies:

>Are you for real?

>People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's
>jesus deserve all they get

People who were dumb enough to believe Klinton was a moderate deserve what
they get too.  It's a real laugh to hear them try to justify this massacre
with bullsh*t about how concerned they were about how our tax money was
was being spent.  (Wasting money keeping Texans alive?  Hell no. let's
spend it to import Haitians with AIDS so we can treat them at taxpayer
expense.  %^P  )

>Anyway, he killed a few feds

So what?  The Feds killed 90+ civilians when they "ran out of patience", to use
their own phrase.  If the Feds hadn't attacked them, they'd all be home eating 
dinner with their families tonight.  Too bad, but they started it.  Maybe
next time they'll think twice.  That's worth 4 stormtroopers.

>He's not the goddam hero here

Nobody says he is.  What he was was a victim of a left-wing government,
that violated its pledge to protect and uphold the Constitution, run amok.  
Don't worry, though dweeb, we're gonna take it back.  (Hey, I'm a white guy,
but would it be OK if I quoted Malcolm X here, and said "by any means 
necessary"?  Nah, never mind.  We can do this legally...

>He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!

NO, you're just a brainless f*cking trogladyte.  Go beat up some soccer
fans.  Ignorance is bliss, so drool on with that stupid smile on your 
face when people die needlessly. I hope a badger climbs up your kilt.

(Don't expect these UKies to care about this, folks...  these bastards
never did like the idea that we Americans had the means to defend ourselves 
and wouldn't stand for tyranical governments, which is why we sent them packing 
back to their dreary little island with their tails between their legs twice.)




  **************************************************************************
*     I remember what I was doing         *    Bad boy, whatcha gonna do    * 
*  when I heard that JFK had been shot.   *        Whatcha gonna do         *
*  Will you remember the Battle of Waco?  *    when they come for you...    *
 ***************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55083
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1r6a50$ln4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton) writes:
>
>In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:
>
>>The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate
>             ^^^
>>possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just
>>as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as
>>any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos.
>
>Ah yes, yet another anti-semite anti-gunner blunders into tpg and makes
>an ass of himself.

satire \'sa-tir\ n [MF or L; MF, fr. L _satura_, _satira_, fr. (lanx)
satura full plate, medley, fr. fem. of _satur_ sated; akin to L
_satis_ enough - more at SAD](1509) 1: a literary work holding up
human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.  2: trenchent wit,
irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.  syn see
WIT.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"My other car is a car, too."
                 - Bumper strip seen on I-805

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55084
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 21-Apr-93 The Dayton Gun "Buy
Back" (.. by Larry Cipriani@cbnews.cb 
> Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
> to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
> tacky, but hey, whatever works.

Pro-gun people can take used pot-metal guns with sale values LESS THAN
$50.00 and turn them in, thus making a profit at the gun-grabbers
expense.

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55085
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: senate and house addresses

> In article <C5uA7r.DAD@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>,
pprun@august.it.uswc.uswe
> > 
> > Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and 
> > Senate so that we can all write letters?

Unites States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55086
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <16BB88F6D.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
> In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>  
> >
> >In a previous article, nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) says:
> >
> >>In article <1r00ug$d60@btr.btr.com> michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn   
michaelh@btr.com) writes:
> >>>A partial list of excellent socialist visionaries and the tolls they've
> >>>taken of unpopular religious/ethnic/social groups.
> >>>
> >>>Mao Tse-Tung		Millions Killed
> >>>J. Stalin			Millions Killed
> >>>A. Hitler			Millions Killed
> >>>Pol Pot				100,000s Killed?
> >>>W. J. Clinton		~100 Killed, but relax-he's only had a hundred  
or so days.
> >>
> >>	You people are rather amusing in a perverse sort of way.  You take
> >>a tragic/unpleasant situation that you feel is a terrible injustace, and
> >>assign blame to anybody and everybody with or without a link to the  
incident
> >>simply because they don't fit your extremely narrow definition of good.
> >>
> >>	How is Clinton responsible?  It was a law enforcement action.
> >>Granted, it was a nationally covered incident but Clinton had no more to
> >>do with the outcome than Fred Flintstone.
> >>
> >Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
> >are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
> >that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
> >briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
> >go ahead.
> >
> >Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?
> >
> >>--
> The FBI, CIA, BATF, etc. ARE federal agencies, you are correct.  But to
> think there is a visible and clear chain of command up to the Prez, and
> that these agencies inform Reno who informs Clinton, etc. is naive.  These
> agencies operate as distinct and seperate entities and while they have
> ultimate accountability to the Prez, they make their own moves, and then
> tell the Prez, who says, "I knew all along".  While this may not seem right,
> or it may not fit our idealistic need to see a structured chain of command
> leading to the White House, thats the way it is.  Bureaucracys are not, after
> all, composed of 3 or 4 people who talk on a regular basis, have lunch, and
> maybe golf together.  I do agree, the FBI, BATF messed up. I'm not sure if
> they should have stormed the compound or not.  By the way, Jehova Witnesses
> are a religious minority in this country.  Protestantism is a minority
> religion in the World.  BDs were a cult by all definitions and history of
> cults.  To say this is not to persecute a religious or ethnic enclave.
> Koresh said he was the Messiah.  I was raised a Baptist, although I do
> not practice the religion and do not think that the Big Guy upstairs is
> digging the divisiveness, closemindedness, and right-wing morons that are
> associated with the religion.  Anyway, the Messiah that I was taught about
> would not be carrying a gun, let alone stockpiling weapons.  You can doubt
> BATF reports all you want, David Koresh was not a poor soul who was
> unjustly persecuted.  While some of the information coming from the U.S
> government is being exagerated so as keep public opinion on their side, I
> do believe that some of the things that former cult members have said
> are true.  Anyway, this is just another excuse to try and blame President
> Clinton for something.  People who attempt to do this for political motives
> should be ashamed.  THEY are the ones who are keeping this country from
> reaching its full potential.
>  
>  
>  
You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal agencies  
you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from your  
Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious  
persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all?

Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.

Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the dictionary  
of "cult".

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55087
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: WACO - Willie Authorizes Cook Out (was Re: FBI Director's Statement)

NOTE - local tx groups trimmed out of Newsgroups: line

In article <1r23a3$28a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> D.Nash@utexas.edu (Donald L. Nash) writes:
<
<In article <1r208f$bp2@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
<Tavares) writes:
<>No, you were right the first time.  Law enforcement agencies should keep
<>HIS opinions in mind before breaking into or assaulting ANYBODY'S house.
<
<OK, let me correct my unfortunate choice of words:  I just hope that the
<law enforcement agencies keep your attitude in mind the next time your
<wife is gang-raped by a bunch of juvenile, drug-dealing thugs while she
<was jogging in the park.  No, strike that... (etc.)
<
<>The BATF came out with horse trailers, 100 men, ninja uniforms, machine 
<>guns, and stun grenades, and used them before Koresh could even look 
<>at the warrant.  Koresh fought back, and people died.
<
<The key part of this sentense is "Koresh fought back."  This was his big
<mistake.  When the police decide to exert their authority over you, you
<don't fight back unless you want people to get hurt.  You cease all
<resistance and signal your submission to their authority.  The cops

They are the BOSS.  You are the SUBJECT.  The concept of defense against
illegal action under color of law is kaput.  No longer is it government
of the people by the people, its government of the people by the biggest
guns.  The idea of 'sorting it out in court later' is fine, but one
has to GET TO COURT IN ONE PIECE to do that.  Korash had good reason
to think that he was not going to get that chance.  (see below).

<aren't in it to beat up and kill people, in spite of the actions of a
<few bad apples.  If you quit resisting, they quit hitting.  Perhaps the
<BATF did over react to the threat posed by Koresh.  Perhaps they did use
<too much force.  OK, fine.  I'm willing to concede to that point if
<sufficient proof is produced (and I admit that there is some evidence to
<indicate this).  However, resisting the BATF is the worst thing Koresh
<could have done.  If they hadn't resisted, there is a good chance that
<no one would have been hurt.  Remeber, they were using stun grenades,
<not anti-personnel grenades.  If the BDs were not in violation of any

Rember, Korash didn't get to sort this all out, serenely typing at his
keyboard.  He heard SOME KIND OF EXPLOSIVES go off, he saw he was being
ATTACKED with no overt action from him (yet).  He could no more say 'oh,
its ok, its only stun grenades' anymore than I could.  He slammed the door at
that point and proceeded to repel the attackers.  He felt in genuine fear
of his life - I know I would be in fear of MY life at that point.  Have
you ever been shot at?  How clear and logically could you think, under
that pressure, when you MIGHT have ALL OF 1 or 2 SECONDS to evaluate
what is going on?  And, it would not be the first time that 'law
enforcements' intended to bring in their suspect horizontally.  For
all we know, he was informed by someone saying something like "Hey,
guy, the BATF is coming like gangbusters, and they mean to WASTE you..."

According to the latest news, the released warrant (so we are told) said
the reason for this WW III raid was that Korash's group had spent around
$200,000.00 on firearms and related stuff (over an undetermined period).
Now, even assuming that the figure isn't calculated like the Feds do a
drug siezure, for 90 people, that isn't really all that much (you priced
decent guns lately?).  Hell, I can think of a person right now that probably
has that much for ONE INDIVIDUAL, mostly machineguns!!!  Sure, he is
an avid collector, but unless a new law has been passed, it is NOT illegal,
nor an indication of anything illegal, to have a lot of guns.  Also note
that the warrant had NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT MACHINE GUNS.  So, what
is the justification of this cowboy raid, other than a romp gone bad
for some anti-gun media hype, to support Clinton's push for disarming
the unconnected citizen of any and all effective defensive weapons?
This administration has only one thing in mind.  CONTROL.  PEOPLE CONTROL.
Whether it is gun control, Clinton Cripple Chip, National smart ID cards,
it all boils down to PEOPLE CONTROL.  Can you say 1984, only 10 years late?
I knew you could...  :-)

<laws, they would have been released as they had been before.  If this
<had happened and it turned out that the BATF had used too much force,
<then the BDs would have grounds for a law suit and for federal charges
<of civil rights violations (Sounds a lot like LA, huh?  Don't take that
<wrong, I'm not commenting one way or the other about the Rodney King
<case).  But that's not what they wanted.  They got tipped off that the
<BATF was on the way in, and rather than adopting a non-violent,
<non-threatening posture to greet the BATF, they decided to fight.

And BATF knew the BDs were expecting them (via 60 minutes report).  But
they decided they were so big, so bad, they would have a cakewalk at
the BDs expense, for a nice media show anyway.  But it all turned to
shit, and the FBI taking over to manage things, we see it all turned to
shit, too.  Clinton says 'I am taking full responsibility'...  BAH.
Responsibility means to take the repercussions if it goes wrong.  Bet
you NOBODY pays any serious repercussions.  'Responsibility' only has
meaning as media PR, or as a means to corner the average Joe Schmoe.
Figure it out... Clinton, Reno, the FBI and BATF, will all be IMMUNE.
Can you say WHITEWASH?

<I've said enough of this issue.  I'm probably not going to convince any
<of you folks and you're certainly not going to convince me.  I've got
<work to do.
<
<				++Don

Be VERY afraid of our government.  In the land of the free...
And if you decide all this is acceptable, get even MORE afraid... especially
when it is YOU they decide, for some reason, they dislike...
When they no longer feel the need to confine their cowboy tactics to
'kooks', or 'wierdos'...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55088
From: mlh@austin.ibm.com (Sewer Snake)
Subject: Re: BATF Acronym



	B urn
	A ll
	T he
	F uckers

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55089
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>>
>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
>>> in Texas. 
>>
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.


Not when the power has been cut off for weeks on end.  Any generators are
no doubt out of fuel, too.  So all they would have is wood stoves and
kerosene lanters (maybe).  It is alleged that the tanks pushing in the
walls knocked over the lanters, starting the fire.  Remember, the FBI
had bugs which they even used (illegally) to eavesdrop on private
conversations with the lawyers.  If a suicide order were given they
WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT IN TIME.  If the Feds had been concerned they would
have had emergency equipment ready.  Not an hour or so later, not
leaving the water THEY TURNED OFF, off.  They could have turned it back
on.  They just didn't wanna.  Scores to settle...


-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55091
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Flames on the net about flames in Waco

In article <1993Apr22.173240.29129@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
>In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wa
>yne J. Warf) writes:
>>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvin
>e) writes:
>>>
>>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>>of paranoia?
>>
>>Are you a moron or just illiterate?
>> [...]
>>Oh, I forgot, you're the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need
>>electricity, never mind.
>
>     And you're the guy that doesn't know that illiterate people can't write 
>coherent sentences. Does that make you superior somehow?
>

Oh my god, I made a typo AND used the word "god". Come burn my house
down, I must deserve it.

>    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
>    "Across the page / across the ages / the moving hand of history [pleads]
>     For a kinder eye to see us / not as we are / but as we dream"
>                                                  -- Mark King


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55092
From: t-chipsw@microsoft.com (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <LARRY.93Apr21174441@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu wrote:
> >>>>> On 21 Apr 93 11:28:57 -0800, yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com said:
> 
> > Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
> > to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
> > while watching the TV coverage.
> > 
> > Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
> > 
> > Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
> > a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> yodicet>
> yodicet>
> yodicet>
> 
> Hmm. You don't say..
> 

 No, it appears he didn't. Well, I think he's on to something here. I
mean the post he responded to (not) did pretty much speak for itself.

-- 
Chip Switzer				"A witty saying proves nothing."
t-chipsw@microsoft.com 	 		        -Voltaire

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55093
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: H.R. 711

In article <C5qEpL.1nu@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
[Posting the text of H.R. 711 ...]
[ ... ]
>To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that handguns are available
>only to persons with demonstrated knowledge and skill in their safe use,
>maintenance, and storage.
[ ... ]
>8         "(1)(1)(A) An individual who is not licensed under
>9   this section may not possess a handgun on or after the
>10  date final regulations are prescribed pursuant to para-
>11  graph (2) unless the individual has been issued a handgun
>12  permit under paragraph (2).

Note that this is a "licensing bill," pretending to be a "training bill."
--------
Gridlock, the only mechanism ever to succeed in
slowing down the growth rate of Big Government.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55094
From: mac@cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun)
Subject: Re: Medical Examiner Says No Evidence for Bullet Wounds EITHER WAY

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>Apparently needing to clarify his comments from Thursday, Dr. Nizam
>Plawaby (spelling?), the Medical Examiner for Tarrant County, Texas,
>who has authority in the Waco deaths, stated that since no autopsies
>had been performed, there is no evidence for bullet wounds, or 
>evidence against bullet wounds.

>Janet Reno also stated that she had never been told of bullet wounds
>by anyone in the Justice Department.  

On the news from radio station KANU (Lawrence, KS) about 6:15 this Monday
morning, I heard someone with a nasal-sounding voice (supposedly the Waco
coroner?) claim that he had found TWO persons killed with a single shot
to the forehead.
--Myron.
-- 
# We preserve our freedoms using four boxes:  soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.
# Myron A. Calhoun, PhD EE; Assoc. Professor  (913) 539-4448 home
# INTERNET: mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.5)          532-6350 work, 532-7353 fax
#     UUCP: ...rutgers!depot!mac     Packet-BBS: W0PBV @ K0VAY.#NEKS.KS.USA.NAOM

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55095
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:    Children/Firearm, etc. Injury Articles Wanted



 One of our ASU students needs data and or a copy or an article regarding
 accidents, injury or death to "children" (articles which state the age
 limits of "children") relating to firearms for a sociology report.

 We have a copy of the long Edgar A. Suter, M.D. article and but we can't find
 the Paul Blackman (NRA) "expose'".

 Any articles (or sections thereof) which deal with comparisons over time,
 locations, age groups, other reasons for accidents, injury or death, with
 percentages would be welcome.

 Please send same to our I.D. and node.

 Thanks in advance !
 -Tom Crise


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55096
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>  
> >
> >In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu  
writes:
> >>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
> >>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
> >>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
> >>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
> >>crime.
> >
> >What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
> >any of these things?  Evidence, please?
> >
> > Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point  
tha
> there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
> there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
> of common incidents.
>  
> >If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps
> >you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the
> >rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps
> >with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners
> >spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death
> >among children in the U.S. is a serious problem.
> >
>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
> ages 14 and under.  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
> I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
> justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
> gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
>  

Any death is serious.  Wanna discuss match control?  Firearms related  
unintentional deaths among children ages 14 and under are the fault of one or  
more negligent persons, not the gun.

> >>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the
> >>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good.
> >
> >Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
> >
>  My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
> departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
> giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
> to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
> had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
> useful.
>  

Providing false hope, then, is the intent?

>  
> >>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or
> >>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are
> >>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often
> >>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge.
> >
> >I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
> >suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
> >students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
> >to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
> >who carry a gun to school daily.
> >
>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
> or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see
> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
> in 1990.  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
> to guns in their home.  California schools reported a 200% increase in
> student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
> 1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
> schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".
>  

200% increase in California schools, eh?  Gun control is working fine, there!
>  
>  
> >>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news
> >>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours
> >>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they
> >>were in danger).
> >
> >"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the
> >children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were
> >outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door
> >if you believed as they did?
> >
>  Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
> situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
> act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
> these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
> would not let innocent children die.
> If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
> did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
> burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.
> 
So your religion is different.  Does that make it his wrong?  Even assuming  
Koresh actually made that decision, and the verdict is still out on that.

 
> Rodney

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55097
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr22.175410.23214@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> "Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
> arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
> as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.
> 
> I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
> he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
> supporters helped inflate his ego.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that he was a loose fucking cannon with a
> shitload of serious weapons. Or that he was banging thirteen year olds and
> twisting their impressionable little minds.
> 
> This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
> that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
> There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the
> stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
> but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
> expected this to happen.
> 
> Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
> coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
> the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
> to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
> to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
> attract some of the more rootless members of our society.
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier  
own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.

Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55098
From: scatt@apg.andersen.com (Scott Cattanach)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>>The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
>>blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  
>>Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the
>>earlier.  

>If we are indeed talking about CS, then this is not quite accurate. CS is
>"just" tear gas--albeit the worst kind. It isn't a nausea gas, and doesn't
>have direct CNS effects. However, it's quite bad--much worse than CN gas. I

Has anyone publically considered the possibility that the fires were set
for defence instead of suicide and the destruction and confusion caused
by the tanks and gas caused things to get out of the BDs control?

--
"Spending programs are now 'investments,' taxes are 'contributions,' and 
these are the same people who say _I_ need a dictionary?"  - Dan Quayle 2/19/93

My employer is not responsible for ANYTHING that may appear above.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55099
From: jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart)
Subject: Cult practices of the FBI

Broadcasting amplified sounds of tortured rabbits?

Burning alive men, women, and children?

We have on our hands here some truly sick puppies.


Jim Hart
jhart@agora.rain.com
Arlen Specter for President in '96

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55101
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Ammo in a fire (was Re: WACO burning)

bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

>Small arms rounds set off outside of a firearm pose little risk except
>possibly eye injuries and minor wounds.  

True.

>Large concentrations of ammo,
>or 'magazines' (not the type you insert into your semi auto) probably
>pose a larger risk, but mostly from heat and flame.  (This is also
>covered in the above reference.)

No more risk than smaller stashes unless the stash is somehow confined so
the heat from early ignitions could somehow bulk-heat the remainder.

Two  years ago this month my house and office burned.  In my office was my
reloading bench.  On the top shelf next to the wooden ceiling was 
about 100 lbs of smokeless powder, 5 lbs of black powder, several thousand
primers and a couple thousand loaded rounds, primarily in .45ACP, .30-20
and .308.  The fire was extinguished before the area containing the 
reloading supplies were fully involved.  There was about 1/2" of char on
the joists, subsequently removed by sandblasting.  Lots of heat in other
words.

None of the powder kegs ignited.  One 1lb can of pistol powder ignited.
No explosion, as the can opened at the seam as it was designed to do.
The black powder cans were charred and got so hot the plastic lids
completely melted and ran down inside.  The smokless powder was
contained mostly in 8 lb cardboard or metal kegs.  The kegs were charred
badly enough that the paper labels burned completely off and in the case
of the metal cans, the plastic lids melted completely away.

Many of the rounds cooked off.  They were in close proximity to wood
on all sides so the effects were easy to observe.  In most cases with the
rifle ammo, the cartridge cases ruptured in the middle.  Many bullets were
found still in the neck.  Small shards of brass were lightly stuck into 
the wood.  Lightly enough that brushing them with a fingertip would usually
dislodge them.  Primers generally popped out of the primer pockets.
The .45ACP rounds that cooked off left empty cases and bullets laying around.
No dents were observed above the storage area, indicating the bullets
left the cases slowly enough not to be a hazard.

Ordinary small arms ammo is NOT a hazard when cooking off regardless
of what the FBI says.  

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Lee Harvey Oswald: Where are ya when we need ya?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55102
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

[massive dan blather mercifully deleted.]

>>His last sentence says it all.  Who the hell ARE we (or the government)
>>to judge their religion as wrong.  This event, I hope, will be recorded
>>in history as the American Holocaust.  These people were murdered 
>>by the US government just as surely as the jews were by the Nazis.
>>I hang my head in shame for what I've allowed my government to become.

>I have NEVER judged them by their religion, but by their ACTIONS.

>If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
>have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
>of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
>IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
>shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

Last time I checked, "amassing an arsenal" and practicing any kind of
religion were mentioned in passing in the Bill of Rights.  Guess it's
OK with you if we just brush 'em aside in order to justify killing
a bunch of religious nutcakes, eh?

Of all the idiots I run into in daily life, Dan, your type scare me the
most.  You'll accept expediency and a coward's safety over any belief
just as long as the government tells you to.  You assume that anyone who
doesn't comform to your beliefs and ways of thinking are wrong and
therefore bad.  Worse, you seem to accept without question what the
government says is wrong to be wrong.

David Koresh's religion was not mine but then again, neither are the baptists,
methodists, catholics or any of the rest of the corporate religions.  BUT
even though Koresh's, the Baptists, the methodists, etc, don't believe
the same way I do, I recognize that their religions are equally valid
to mine and more importantly are equally protected under the 1st Amendment.
You see, I'm not that much different than Koresh and I suspect many others
fit the same catagory.  I read the Bible many times and as I learned 
from it, I discovered that a lot of what corporate religions practice
just isn't justified by MY interpretation of the Bible.  Therefore I go
my own way.  So did Koresh.  And neither you nor I nor anyone else,
either individually or collectively as the great socialist "we" has ANY 
RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell me or you or Koresh that our religions are wrong.

You seem to think that it would have been oh so easy for the Davidians to
just forsake everything they believed in and walk out of their compound
in order to "save themselves".  Think (if you're capable) for a moment
about some belief you hold dearest.  Would you abandon that belief if
suddenly told to do so by the government?  If you would do so you are
beneath contempt.  Let's assume you have a belief that you hold dear
enough to commit your life to.  Do you think it would be the correct
course of action for your government to initiate actions specifically
designed to force you to make that "forsake or die" decision?

The "forsake or die" option is exactly what the government forced on the
Davidians the day the first wave of black-clad stormtroopers fired that
first shot and tossed that first grenade.  The FBI clenched it on Day 51
when they sent in heavy armor against 80-some-odd men, women and
children holed up in a rickety old building and armed with small arms.  The
people who stayed, who held to their beliefs over personal safety, whose
individual personal honors demanded they die rather than submit, who
believed that the Bill of Rights meant exactly what it says, to those
people go my deepest respect, regardless of their religion.  People like
you who blithely blow off the murder of 80 people with "well they could
have come out" get my most scornful contempt.  I'd spit in your face
were there not a network between us.  You're not worth the ashes of
those people who burned.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Lee Harvey Oswald: Where are ya when we need ya?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55103
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article 7205@dazixco.ingr.com, crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips) writes:
>In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>|> Thank you for remembering Matzada.  Matzada was not an insane act. It was
>|> a sanctification of G_D's name and the most extreme denial of tyranny
>|> possible. To this day the officers of the Tzahal (Isreal Defense Force)
>|> take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will
>|> not fall again!
>|> 
>
>Not anymore!  Recent archaeological inspection of the site presents pretty
>compelling evidence that the "mass suicide" at Masada never occured.  This
>evidence was so compelling tha the Tzahal no long hold their secret ceremony
>at the fortress.
>
>
>-- 
>**************************************************************
>* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
>* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
>* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
>* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
>* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
>**************************************************************


First I've heard of this... could yo please elaborate a little?



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55104
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article 3890@rpp386, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu> blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes:
>>I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.
>>
>>Apparently not.
>>
>>Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.
>
>That's right.  Despite claims that someone at Kent State fire a shotgun
>at the the soldiers, the only projectiles that anyone can prove where
>sent in the direction of the soldiers were rocks.
>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org



No firearms were ever ever shot at the National Guard at Kent State.

At the time of the shooting, no rocks were being thrown at all.  The squad was
slowly proceeding up a knoll, away from the body of students.  Some students
were taunting them, and photographs of the incident show at most one or two
students who were following and taunting.

The series of photographs show the squad slowly proceeding up the hill, while
occasionally their NCO, .45 in hand turned back to look at where they came from.
All at once, as if on command, the entire squad turned and fired their M1
Garands, firing 30.06 rounds into the crowd (the NCO can be shown with this
45 at full recoil).  At least two of the students shot had nothing to do with
the taunters... they were only passing through, and were not participants in
the confrontation.

There is some dispute whether the Guard was even legally on Campus... apparently
they had not been invited onto the state school by the president, who had
conveniently flown the coop, so as not to be around.  The governor of Ohio,
James Rhodes, had just embarked on a senate campaign, and wanted it to be known
that he was tough on peaceniks, so had ordered the guard in.

The matter was quickly covered up.  Some years later, wounded survivors launched
a civil lawsuit against those responsible... a settlement was made, and under the
terms, the plaintiffs could not discuss much, and guilty individuals were not
identified (in fact, those shooters in the squad have been identified).

It was a tragic incident, but it was not provoked by the students, or apparently
by General DelCorso or any of his command.  From studying the incident & the 
photos, IMO it looks like it was an independent action by a small squad of soldiers.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55105
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

From article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham):
> What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
> had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
> compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

They did have the proper equipment.  The problem is that they went about
things the wrong way.  The ATF should have served the warrant in a
peacable manner instead of going in there like a bunch of Rambos with
guns blazing.  I'm not trying to excuse what David Koresh did.  I'm
just saying that the ATF (henceforth to be known as the cigarette cops :-)
went about the "raid" in an improper manner.

> The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
> transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
> more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
> do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
> must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

Let the FBI, Customs, and local police officers do the ATF's job.  WE
DON'T NEED THEM ANYMORE!!!  The cigarette cops are just leftovers
from Prohibition days.  They are an anachronism!

> With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
> more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
> the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
> at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
> of ours.

Including you?  What if the cigarette cops kicked down your door and
cut you in half with a machine gun?  THIS COULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
Maybe they get the wrong address and then raid *your* home, for example.
It's happened before and it can happen *again*.  I have heard of more
than one instance of a no-knock raid going sour.  Just recently I
heard about a case in which police raided this guy's home because they
thought he had dope or something.  The guy blew both of the officers
away and he didn't go to jail for it.  The judge hearing the case
ruled that the man was acting in self-defense.

> With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
> mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
> women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
> to death 51 days later.

Are you sure that that would have been the way to go?  Surely the FBI
and ATF could have handled this fiasco better.  They didn't have to
massacre all those people.  As Stimpy said in "Fake Dad", "Shame, shame,
double shame!"  The FBI and ATF should be ashamed of theirselves. 


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55106
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

From article <93859@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone):
> In <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> 
>>Anybody for impeachment?
> 
> Yeah, me.  Both the Slickmeister and Hillary's buddy Janet say
> they're responsible... I want both their resignations on my desk 
> yesterday.  I also want both thier butts up on federal civil rights
> violations.... something which carries life in prison as a penalty.
> 
> Oh, and I'll contribute $20 to Arlen Specter's presidential campaign
> for having the 'nads to launch the Senate investigation.

I second that motion wholeheartedly.  Also, how about s**tcanning the
cigarette cops (a.k.a. as the ATF).  Comments anyone?

> -- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)       ==================
> America in Distress                             ==================
> (flag upside down = SOS)                        *******===========
> Save your Republic before                       *******===========
> it no longer exists.                            *******===========


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55107
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

>Be as cooperative with the police as possible! Show them where you were.
>Repeat your information as often as requested. They will often ask you the
>same questions over and over to verify facts, and ,unfortunately, to see
>if your lying. Fill out all statements and show all required identification
>and weapon permits (BOOO! Down with registered citizens!Register your
 >politicians as deadly tax weapons needing to be confiscated!) If they are
>required in your state. Contact a lawyer immediately if they decide to
>

This would have to be a call.  You are not required to say anything until you
have a lawyer present, and not saying anything until such time is not to be
construed as derogatory to your cause.  Anything you DO say can later be used
against you.  You will be talking to the police, the same people who will be
gathering evidence for the prosecutor to use against you.  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55108
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Denver Post yanks 'Assault Ads'

In article 1rco2qINN91q@dns1.NMSU.Edu, loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:
>
>The Denver Post (supposed voice of the supposed Rocky Mountain Empire)
>ran the following in the 'Firearms, Supplies' classified heading on 
>Friday, 23 April 1993.  If you have an opinion about their new found
>wisdom, I am told that the person to speak with is one Mr. Walters,
>(303)820-1267.
>
>	Notice
>
>	The Denver Post will no longer 
>	knowingly accept any advertise-
>	ment to buy or sell assault weap-
>	ons.  The Denver Post finds that 
>	the use of assault weapons poses
>	a threat to the health, safety, and
>	security of its readers.
>
>Let 'em know what you think...
>
>--Dan
>--
>Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
>  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
>                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
>-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>Version: 2.2
>
>mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
>1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
>itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
>tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
>=S5ib
>-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----



I've seen lots of notes like these in various newspaper classified sections.  But then
under Hunting or Sporting Goods or Outdoor or Collector's classifications, you
see things like, Colt AR15 .223 hunting rifle,  or Galil .223 sporting arm...
stuff like that.  The newspaper gets to make its editorial statement, plus they
get the revenue anyway... 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55109
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:


>If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are
>true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for
>the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the
>US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no
>exceptions. 

>Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive
>in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?


Jason - I've heard the people who are talking about this dismissed as
conspiracy nuts, but nobody seems to be talking about a conspiracy, at
least at the beginning.  There were a lot of bad decisions that went into
this tragedy, and some people may now be taking some serious evasive
action to avoid being held responsible for the unexpected results of
those bad decisions.  Actually, the only ones I see that are tied into
a conspiracy theory are the ones raving about deranged cultists with
stockpiles of weapons and suicide pacts.


>Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather
>than stupidity?

I think there are a lot of us that have been following this pretty closely
from the beginning, and we woud probably agree that this tragedy was more
the result of stupidity than malice.






Jason Durbin
Oracle Europe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55110
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

From article <1r0mhtINNa59@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, by dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard):
>>Does that include the right to murder little children?  How about killing
>>ATF officers?  I do not know much about the gun laws in Texas, but 
>>Koresh's folks claimed to have grenades, grenade launchers, and rocket
>>launchers.  I am not sure that the NRA feels that this falls under 
>>"right to bear arms."
>  
> If the waco wackos truly had grenade launchers and rocket launchers, why
> weren't they used against the armored vehicles that attacked their house?
> All the media stated was that small arms (ie, ineffective) fire was used
> against them.

I noticed that too.  Special agent (asshole actually) Ricks stated that
David Koresh had "explosives that could blow up an armored vehicle 40
feet into the air."  It looked like to me that the BDs had plenty of
opportunity to use these explosives---provided that they had them in the
first place.  For example, when one of the tanks was injecting CS gas
into the ranch house (yes ranch house; the BDs weren't living in a
fortress) they could have easily destroyed or disabled that tank because
it was idling there for a considerable length of time.  So, why didn't
they do this?  Could it be that they didn't have any explosives or
similar munitions?  I just don't buy what the ATF and FBI have been
saying.  Hopefully, the truth will come out.

Here's something noteworthy:  after the fire had been burning for some
time an explosion occurred---just *one* explosion.  The media said that
this was some of the explosives that the BDs posessed going off.  I
don't think this was the case.  My brother and I noticed that this
so-called "explosion" resembled a plume of propane gas being ignited.
We figure that this is what it was because of how the "explosion"
looked and sounded.  Obviously, it wasn't due to something like TNT,
dynamite, or C4.  I have seen a propane explosion before...the explosion
in the ranch house greatly resembled this.  Also, I noticed something
that looked like a propane tank in the charred ruble the next day.

Isn't it curious that the ATF wasn't very forthcoming about how the four
officers got killed?  Many weeks had gone by before they stated that
some of the officers had been killed and/or wounded by grenades thrown
by the BDs.  Earlier, when someone asked one of the spokespersons about
whether or not an autopsy had been performed on the slain agents, they
said that an autopsy had been done but THEY WEREN'T READY TO RELEASE
THE FINDINGS.  Now why is this?  Does the ATF have something to hide?
Perhaps those four agents were killed by friendly fire.  What is the
cause of death exactly?  NO ONE HAS EVER SAID WHAT IT IS.

What is certain is this:  ATF agents *did* throw grenades into the
compound.  As a matter of fact, Mr. Koresh handed his lawyer a grenade
body during one of the lawyer's visits to the compound.  Later on
the lawyer gave the grenade body (I don't know if it was a dud or a
spent one btw) to the ATF.  How much do you want to bet that this
grenade will mysteriously disappear?  At this point in time the only
people we know who had grenades was the ATF agents.  Wouldn't it be
a shocker if the no one ever found any evidence of grenades, rockets,
or explosives in the rubble?  The ATF would sure have egg on their
face then.  Note that the ATF is doing the *initial* sweep of the
rubble.  The FBI and the Texas Rangers won't investigate until the
ATF is done.  This looks like a perfect opportunity for the ATF to
make sure that others "find" what they want for them to "find" if
you know what I mean.  I'm probably being a little paranoid here
but if I am I have could reason to be.  Recall that several weeks
had gone by before anyone said that the BDs had used grenades.
Also recall that early on the ATF had *denied* that their agents
used grenades on the BDs.  Someone is lying here.


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55111
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: TEXAS HB 1776 - VOTING IS TODAY

I just called Texas' legislative bill tracking service and found out
that HB 1776 (Concealed Carry) is scheduled for a floor vote TODAY!
Let those phone calls roll in.

Daryl

             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55112
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr22.175410.23214@starbase.trincoll.edu>
() writes:
 
>
>"Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
>arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
>as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.
>
>I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
>he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
>supporters helped inflate his ego.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that he was a loose fucking cannon with a
>shitload of serious weapons. Or that he was banging thirteen year olds and
>twisting their impressionable little minds.
>
>This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
>that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
>There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the
>stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
>but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
>expected this to happen.
>
>Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
>coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
>the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
>to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
>to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
>attract some of the more rootless members of our society.
>
  I'd have to agree with you there Joe.
 
Rodney Thomas

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55113
From: mjp1@roger.gte.com (Michael Procanik)
Subject: MA Senate Bills. HELP!


Two URGENT requests:

1. I need the latest update and description of MA bill S-897.  From
   what I gather this bill takes the Hunter Safety Courses from
   Law Enforcement and places them under Fish & Game control.

2. Has someone out there compiled a list of all MA Senate & House
   Bills under consideration?  If they have, please e-mail me
   the list.  If not, is there a database I can access?

	Thanx,
		Yours in the fight,
		Mike P.

P.S. My wife and I thought Nancy B. was great on Street Stories.

-- 
             Mike Procanik (617) 466-4126 mjp1@gte.com
                     *** I'm the NRA ***
 GTE Laboratories Incorporated, 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02154

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55114
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: TEXAS HB 1776 - VOTING IS TODAY

In article <1rgolaINNqjf@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>I just called Texas' legislative bill tracking service and found out
>that HB 1776 (Concealed Carry) is scheduled for a floor vote TODAY!
>Let those phone calls roll in.

Well, I don't normally like to quote myself, but I just got some
additional information.  I called my state rep (to express my support),
and the person there informed me that it's actually just a second
reading of the bill (three are required) for further consideration.
I'm not 100% sure what *that* means, and I'm also not sure why
there's a discrepancy between what the two offices are telling me.

Still researching....

Daryl

             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55115
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19


In a previous article, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) says:

>
>|>>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>|>>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>
>|How would the Fed snipers have been able to witness the BDs setting the
>|fire (as is claimed) through all that tear gas?
>
>I actually heard one report which claimed that infrared cameras saw
>the Branch Dividians setting the fires... now, you'll have to excuse

Yeah sure.  Maybe thermal GUNSIGHTS on the armored vehicles.  When
discussing military hardware and weapons, the media generally looks like
a ufology convention.

>my scepticism, but I find it quite strange that ANYONE would be operating
>a thermal viewer during a daytime battle. It would be unusual in the
>sense that the Federales combat operation - gassing the BD with "CS2,"
>whatever that is (Is this the infamous "BZ" hallucination gas?), from

CS is merely the garden variety military teargas.  As far as it being
"humane and harmless", I've seen teenage boys knock 200lb. drill
sergeants flat getting away from it....

>I am pretty sure that newly-born religious groups will study these
>FBI tactics and build anti-armor barricades and tank traps to make
>"Next Time!" a lot bloodier for the Federales...
>
What do you expect when idiots and criminals confirm paranoids in their
paranoia...?

-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55116
From: eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder)
Subject: Denver Post Classifieds: No assault weapons



I came across the following notice in the Denver Post classified secction
this morning (April 26, 1993):

\begin{quote}

NOTICE:

The Denver Post will no longer knowingly accept any advertisement to buy
or sell assault weapons.  The Denver Post finds that the use of assault
weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of its readers.

\end{quote}

Now I suppose the Post is within its rights to refuse such ads.  However,
the second sentence is so noxious, I feel compelled to bring it to the 
attention of the t.p.g/c.g readership.  

I called the Post classified number (825-2525) and expressed my displeasure. 
According to the supervisor I spoke to, the Post was reacting to public
complaints regarding the running of assult weapon ads.  However, she said
the paper was keeping track of the reaction to the change in policy.  I 
strongly encourage Denver Post readers to call and make their feelings known.

Eric E. Snyder                            
Department of MCD Biology              ...making feet for childrens' shoes.
University of Colorado, Boulder   
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55117
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks


|This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
|that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.

Did anyone notice any helicopters equipped with thermal imaging 
equipment? They usually manifest themselves in a turret in the front
of the helo, or a sphere on top of the rotor with optical elements.

I didn't notice any UH-1s or other helos equipped as such. Did they
use handheld military thermal scanners? If so, there is no recording
capability, and hence the credibility of the report is subject to
human error.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55118
From: jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5v9Du.D76@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due
>to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate.
>In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of
>meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up
>such scenes. 
>
>As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a
>magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and
>thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the
>time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the
>evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists. 
>
>P.Vasilion

This is quite corect, but a bullet hitting a burned body with little energy
will show virtually no deformation, ie a hollow point probably would not
expand, an FMJ would be "pristene".  Also the bullets will not be marked
with the lands ang grooves of a barrel, because they didn't come out of
one.  A good pathologist should be able to notice this right away.

Let us hope that the  ME's that handle these bodies are more competent
then the ones who did JFK's body.

JAG


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55119
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas


In a previous article, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) says:

>Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the
>army saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been
>banned from military use.  Its use is also banned by a
>draft international agreement on the use of chemical
>weapons in warfare.
>
>The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
>blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  

I don't know about the paranoia and irrationality, but the rest is
pretty close, all though you left out the inability to breath.  Of
course you can make a claim that people will do some fairly deranged
things to get away from it.  I've seen teenagers flatten 200lb. drill
sergeants to get out of tents full of it.  Which raises another
issue....

>Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the
>earlier.  
>
>This is the stuff Janet Reno was told would be safe for children.

What they didn't mention is that IN THE OPEN, it probably wouldn't do
TOO MUCH harm to children, although I wouldn't use it in close proximity
to infants.  On the other hand, IN CONFINED spaces, the effects are
GREATLY intensified, to the point of LETHALITY, since a sufficient
quantity of CS will displace OXYGEN.  When running a CS chamber CAREFUL
attention is paid to ventilation.  I wonder if they checked to see if
any of the BDs were asthmatics or suffered from other respiratory
diseases.  I doubt it.

-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55120
From: SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
Subject: Two Questions

I'd appreciate any help anyone could give me on these two questions:
 
The Brady Bill was in the news throughout 1992 but what actually happened to
it in Congress?  Did Bush veto it?  If so, when?
 
Also, the state of Virginia, I believe, just passed a gun control bill on
Febrauary 25 of this year.  I think it limits gun purchases to one a month -
is this correct?  What was the bill number?
 
Anyone?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55121
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

Everyone is complaining about the debacle in Waco. It is hard to 
understand all this angst. What happend there is nothing less than
what we wanted to happen. Why all the sour grapes ?

BATF was looking for a propaganda event to counteract their impending
budget cuts ... the attendance of the press at the initial big
commando raid is proof. It would have been ever so easier to grab
Koresh and his central followers as they shopped in Waco. Alas, no
propaganda value there. 

The FBI screwed-up big time, all the time. They should have never allowed
the situation to drag out like that. A quick second assault, before the
BDs could decide on a strategy, would have been the better plan. 

The BDs themselves were the biggest screw-ups though. They imagined
that US law and US law-enforcement had no jurisdiction within their
little 'country'. WRONG ! They had no right whatsoever to fire on
the BATF, and if they mistook their identity initially, they should
have surrendered at once when they did realize who they were. If the
BDs had a problem with the warrants, they take it to court, just like
the rest of us. If they wanted full-auto weapons, they could have
obtained the proper permits, just like the rest of us would need to
do. What they may NOT do is decide for themselves what US law applies
to themselves and which does not. They get their chance like the rest
of us - at the voting booth. 

If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have
become that way because WE have desired them to be so. We get to
vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. By our choices over the years,
we have approved the creation and form of the BATF and FBI. When
the FBI was out chasing 'pinkos', the general public didn't seem
to mind a bit of extra-constitutional activity. When the BATF is
raiding militant black organizations, we don't mind the heavy hand.
When the FBI is dicking around with the rights of potheads, the
public doesn't mind. Suddenly, when we see a bit of ourselves in
the current 'enemy' choosen by these agencies, we get all bent out
of shape. SUPRISE ! You reap what you sow.

Waco was an encapsulation of the All-American experience - religious
fanaticism, militaristic thinking and overwhelming violence. Don't
blame it on 'them', the FBI and BATF. They were just acting within
the parameters we have set over the years. We made 'them'. We ARE 'them'.

-- Jim Mason 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55122
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <2077@rwing.UUCP>, pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> I am sick, dismayed, discouraged.  And ASHAMED of our Administration.
> 
> It looks like the US now has their own little Tienamen Square.  The
> FBI is portraying Korash as a psychopath, doing a deliberate mass suicide,
> etc.  Possibly.  Possibly not.  I don't believe that the tear gas used
> [...]
> God Bless America - Land of the Free!!!  (past tense).
> 
> Well, maybe I AM overreacting.  But I see on the TV as I am typing where
> govt spoksewoman (the new attorney general, known to be almost rabid
> about private ownership of guns - wants to ban 'assault guns' and just
> about everything else), is saying the FBI had "amazing restraint", then
> falls back into the official goverenment line about how the BD were
> guity of child abuse, and were into it in an on-going basis, and so on.
> [...]
> Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this
> thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business
> as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order?
> Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...?

	What a load of crap ! The BDs had absolutely NO RIGHT to fire
	upon the BATF agents. If they didn't know who they were at
	first, then they should have surrendered immediately when they
	did realize who they were dealing with. Little groups of loonies
	do not get to decide just what laws they will obey or disobey
	or what sorts of warrants are justified. Like the rest of us,
	they get their say at the voting booth and if their personal
	wants are not backed by the majority of voters, then too bad.
	If they wanted to keep automatic weapons, then they could apply
	for the proper permits. If they had a problem with the warrant
	then they get to argue that in court. In no event do they get
	to establish their own little nation inside our own and pretend
	that our laws and law-enforcement personel have no jurisdiction
	within their borders. You live on US territory, you live by
	US laws - period. (unless you are a congressman)

	Sure, the situation was handled badly by both the BATF and
	the FBI. It would have been all so easy to detain Koresh and
	his core members while they were out in the streets of Waco.
	The BATF, threatened with budget cuts, was trying for a
	propaganda coup ... and dragging the press along for the big
	commando-style assault is proof of that. They should be
	roasted for both their imcompetance and their mindset. On the
	other hand, they DID have the legal right to do what they did.
	Once the attack was begun, they should have pressed on and
	finished it rather than let an interminable situation like that
	take root. 

	The FBI also used poor judgement in a number of ways - but again,
	the laws we voters have approved, or the lawmakers who created
	them, gave them the right to do what they did. If BATF and
	the FBI are latter-day Gestapo, it is because the voters have
	allowed them to become that way. Waco was pure Americana -
	militarist mentality, religious fanaticism and unadulterated
	violence all rolled into one experience. We get what we pay
	for, or vote for, and this was the result of many choices
	we have made over the years. Don't blame 'them' - blame 
	ourselves. We made 'them', we ARE 'them'. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55123
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter's address?

In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
> Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him
> for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation
> into the Waco mess.
> 
> Ken

	You are talking about the man who as a federal attorney did so
much to frustrate the proper investigation of the JFK assassination by
the House sub-committee on assassinations.  Fox and hen house???


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55124
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: H.R. 893

In article <C5qEqv.1px@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
[Posting the text of H.R. 893 ...]
[ ... ]
>8         "(s)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to pos-
>9   sess an assault weapon, unless the weapon was lawfully
[page break]
>1   and continuously possessed by the person since before the 
>2   date of the enactment of this subsection.

OB ill-wind-and-all-that:  with Bill the Prez in there, at least the
anti-gunners are out of the closet.  The provision that any existing
so-called "assault weapons" die with their current owners was worked
into H.R. 3371 (102nd Congress bill number) a couple of years ago,
in a complicated way that the anti's claimed was a "drafting error."

Can't call 'em "lying bastards" any longer.  (Not all the time ...  :-)
--------
Gridlock, the only mechanism ever to succeed in
slowing down the growth rate of Big Government.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55125
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject:  Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

[snip]....

draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:


>The President is not competent to plan or judge the planning of such a
>raid, nor does he need to be.  His job is to set basic policies and
>manage the people under him.  If Clinton instructed Reno to preserve
>lives, and if she confirmed that the plan for the raid was a safe as
>could be, then he did his job.  The President should not involve
>himself in the minor details of these kinds of operations.  This sort
>of micromanagement only leads to disaster, as was demonstrated so well
>in Vietnam.

>But the raid went bad:  Over 80 civilians have been killed in a
>controntation with U.S. authorities.

>NOW Clinton enters the picture in a big way.  Will Clinton start an
>investigation?  Or will he try to squash any attempt to investigate?
>Is he a responsible leader?  Or is he only interested in protecting
>the image of his administration?

>We'll all find out as this unfolds.


	Excellent point, Mark.  We should all remember that if Nixon
	hadn't tried to cover up the misguided actions of some of his
	subordinates in the Watergate burglary, the scandal would
	never have brought down his presidency.  So far, Klinton seems
	to be stonewalling this the same way Tricky Dick did.  His whole
	case seems to be "we didn't do anything wrong".  However, if
	in the course of the investigation it turns out that the
	gov't DID do something wrong, and he tried to cover it up,
	then that's an impeachable crime, I believe...  

	Perhaps he is inadvertently cooking up his own scandal...  Can you 
	say "Wacogate", little neighbor?...   ;-)



  *************************************************************************
 *   Ya know, this being part of the "loyal opposition" is kinda fun for   *
 *   a change.  I sure am glad I get to bitch about Clinton rather than    *
 *   having to be one of those poor saps stuck trying to defend him.  I    *
 *   wonder how Michael Kinsley likes being part of the Establishment? :)  * 
  *************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55126
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <9753@blue.cis.pitt.edu> jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman) writes:
>In article <C5v9Du.D76@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>>Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due
>>to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate.
>>In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of
>>meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up
>>such scenes. 
>>
>>As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a
>>magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and
>>thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the
>>time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the
>>evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists. 
>>
>>P.Vasilion
>
>This is quite corect, but a bullet hitting a burned body with little energy
>will show virtually no deformation, ie a hollow point probably would not
>expand, an FMJ would be "pristene".  Also the bullets will not be marked
>with the lands ang grooves of a barrel, because they didn't come out of
>one.  A good pathologist should be able to notice this right away.
>
>Let us hope that the  ME's that handle these bodies are more competent
>then the ones who did JFK's body.
>
>JAG
>
Speaking of ME's. The FBI said the fire victims were found face-up
<fire victims, apparently, are usually found face down> 
suggesting they died prior to the fire. The ME says, in a word,
BULLSHIT, the victims WERE face down. The FBI says they sent a body
of a victim that was shot, supposedly by BD guards, the ME
says, in a word, BULLSHIT, the body showed NO evidence of gunshot
wounds. Can the ATF/FBI tell the difference between CYA and truth?



-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55231
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr23.034910.23729@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:

[many lines deleted]
>>subject.  It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up
>>the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on  e
>th
>>gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part.
>
>Actually, those of us who have experience with social workers pointedly
>ignored it.

Ah, here Freeman is being prejudiced (look it up and see what I mean Freeman).
Here Freeman is pre-judging someone before he knows all of the facts.  Guess
it can happen to the best (and in his case the worst) of us.

>
>Quit while you're behind,
>-andy
>--
Freeman thinks I am behind when actually I am quite on top of things.  The
point he seems to be missing now is that after a certain point accuracy can be
very tedious and ridiculous.  See Freeman's next post for an explanation.


Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55232
From: djh4484@zeus.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes...
>In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
>jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
> 
>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.

   I saw this nifty drawn out posting and I thought I might give the two of you
   a little help with your problem. As you both know what you posted,(and this 
   foolish thing gave me so much shit last time I tried to post) I took the 
   liberty of deleting all but the header and a single quote. I hope you don't
   mind.

   As written the second ammendment states rather clearly for anyone who can
   read the following:

 "  A well regulated militia, being necessarry to the security of a free state,
   the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

  What is regulated? Regulated means "controlled"! How about security?
  Well hey! That would be along the lines of being and feeling safe wouldn't
  it? Wow! We have a concept forming here don't we!? Now what have we left?
  "the right of the people people people people people people people (sorry
  got kinda hungup there) shall NOT be infringed" Oops! Backup there,hmmm..
  "infringed"....That'd be like Interfered with, altered, changed or
  watered down in any way,shape or form! So! What we have here in it's big old
  long winded version would be.

  " A well controlled militia, being necessary to the secure/safe feeling of
  state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be Fucked
  with in any way shape or form by some happy ass good for nothing in 
  some piddly government building who wants to run my life in the pursuit of
  his happiness!" The item is clear and concise in it's present form my young 
  friend! It does not need my clarification or that of any other. THIS IS
  ONLY AMMENDMENT which guarantees the continued existence of the others.
  It's whole purpose is to give people recourse against the military machine
  of a government which fails to properly represent it's creators!US!

>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
>    Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
>    to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
>    recital of particulars."


ANY REPLIES OR COMMENTS CAN BE SENT TOO KANE.    DJH4484@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU

"No representative government need fear it's armed citizens"

"Death to Tyrants!"

"The only thing we have to fear......Is Me!"


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55233
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
><MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> says:
>>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.
>
>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?
>
And just where is the evidence for this? FBI sayso. The Texas Medical
Examiner refuted 2 of their lies today.


>And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
>to get out of the compound?

Let me put you in a building, pump in CS, knock the walls down around
you and see how fast you find an exit.

>And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.
>
I don't know why either, you're willing to swallow everything fed you.
Good boy.

>>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
>>the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.
>
>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
>a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
>contrary. Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
>the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
>prefer to believe the cultists?

Oh a Clinton apologist, why didn't you *say* so.

>(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)
>
>>But then
>>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
>>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.
>
>Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?
>
>>If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they
>>will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the
>>Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation.
>
>So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
>people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
>one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
>to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

The kgBATF was expecting a quick victory while the cameras rolled,
however, they were the only ones with a script.

>And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? How is he
>on diabolical laughter? Does he look good in a cape? These things MUST be
>investigated. You first.

Hey, you're the apologist, *you* tell us.

>   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
>   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55234
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr23.044544.24559@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:

This is where Freeman's love of accuracy becomes really ridiculous.
>
>Good - now let's look at those sections.  They'll prove my point.

[his point was that it is possible under certain circumstances for many people
to carry concealed in Illinois]
>
>>     (a)  A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he
>>knowingly:
>>
>>(4)  Carries or possesses in any vehicle or CONCEALED on or about his person
>>     except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business
>>     any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm;
>
>Note that this doesn't affect all concealed carry.  (Look after the
>word "except".)  It always helps to read the law before commenting on
>it.
>
I did read the law before I commented on it.  Judging from replies I received
about my "Semantics on t.p.g" post many (if not most) people here on t.p.g
assume that when CCW laws are asked about the person is asking about the
possibility of an ordinary citizen getting one.  It would also follow that said
person would get the CCW to carry on his/her person away from their home and/or
business.



>Would a prudent storekeeper carry concealed?  How about someone at
>home?  Note that both are legal, and a lot of "common" people qualify
>for one or the other.
>
>-andy
>--

Maybe Freeman did prove his point but his point is not relevant.  The thing
that most people seem to care about when they ask questions about carrying
a concealed weapon is whether or not they can carry it concealed on their
person when they are out on the street somewhere.  I'm sure that not many
people are concerned with whether or not they can carry concealed at home.
Speaking as someone who lives in Illinois (the only place where the above
quoted law is relevant :-)) I know that it is legal to own a handgun here (I
am not taking into account city ordinances).  I could care less about whether
or not I can carry concealed at home.         I only care about the fact that
I can't carry concealed in the place where it really counts- out on the street.
Freeman loves to be accurate and I can understand that (especially not) but he
seems to be forgetting that accurate facts don't always replace common sense.
I am not going to followup to this thread anymore because I believe that it is
useless to argue these points anymore.  The only thing that is happening now
is that Freeman and I are "running around in circles" trying to prove each
other wrong and I do not have the time to be playing games anymore.  Of course
now Freeman will attack me about my use of common sense in some of my earlier
posts but what can I do.  My only advice for Freeman - quit being so picky
about accuracy sometimes and use your common sense; it really does work some-
times.

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55235
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Subject: Re: The LAW of RETRIBUTION

Steve Hix writes:

>Is there NOWHERE on the net that this guy WILL NOT POST?
>
>Not to mention, is there ANYWHERE that he makes any
>SENSE?!

Of course there is.

Perhaps the Vogons will put in a hyperspace bypass so that he can get there.


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55238
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <C5yCou.M5B@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, random@cbnewse.cb.att.com
(David L. Pope) wrote:
> 
> From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  ():
> 
> > 
> > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds. 
> 
> So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't
> seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more
> than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What
> proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any
> "banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your
> wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?

(sic) Oh, you're really bright. As if nobody would have understood it was a
typo.

Several parents with children who either had at one time or currently were
inside the compound made the aforementioned charges. One parent actually
spoke about said charges (in reference to his 13-year old daughter) WITH
Koresh on the phone.

You missed my point entirely.

> 
> > You're a sorry
> > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> 
> Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's
> going to insult you AND your mom!

Since you're unable to formulate a cogent response, you make a lame joke.

> 
> > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend
> > sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the
> > paranoia.
> 
> Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior.
> Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing
>              the same ranch-house.

Anti-social. Normally meaning a response against societal norms. Stealing
is sociopathic behavior. It's not an oxymoron to have a GROUP of
SOCIOPATHS. I guess you're NOT a psychologist. Oh well...

> 
> > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
>                                 ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.

Maybe YOU should get an education, my man.

> 
> Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?

Why won't some assholes use a sig so I can send them mail instead of
wasting bandwidth?

> 
> 	Random
> 	

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55239
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1ra0i5$h69@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
Tavares) wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How
> > in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking
> > governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE
> > reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't
> > there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the
> > sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens. 
> 
> Hey, joe -- assuming you're old enough to remember it -- how did you feel
> about presidential responsibility every time Reagan said "I don't recall" 
> about his arms-for-hostages meetings with the Ollie North gang?
> 
> How did you feel about it when Bush said he "was out of the loop on that
> decision" when he was right there in the thick of it?
> 
> Oh, right.  "He was responsible in the sense that he was briefed, but so
> what -- shit happens!"  Is that what you said?

Of course not. There's more than a little difference between formulating
foreign policy and overseeing the ATF's handling of a scenario involving a
group of religious fanatics. Why do people compare apples and oranges?

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55240
From: 6820230@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: heidi@lmsc.lockheed.com

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------

The Colorado Daily recently reprinted the Wall Street Journal's article
on Paxton Quigley, including the nefarious little paragraph the Journal
tacked onto the end.  After recieving much assistance from various T.P.G.
type folks, I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing this last paragraph,
and surprise, surprise, surprise, they published it.  The text follows.
The Colorado Daily, btw, is the University of Colorado (Boulder) student
(I think) newspaper... not exactly a big coup, but every little bit, i guess...

(The title was the only thing they changed/added)

"Gun Stats"

The Daily recently reprinted an article from the
Wall Street Journal, primarily concerned with Paxton
Quigley, author of "Armed and Female."  The article,
in turn, cites a misleading statistic that was originally
reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.  The
article states, "A study... found that a gun in the home
was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder."  This
is an often-quoted statistic, and it is misleading for sev-
eral reasons, outlined below:

The study gives the impression that, if you own a
gun, the likelihood that you will successfully use it to
defend yourself is less than that of the gun being turned
against you.  The study, however, fails to take into
account cases where a law-abiding citizen uses a gun
to thwart a crime, without actually killing the perpe-
trator.

The study actually refers to 'acquaintances' rather
than 'friend'.  This would include the friendly neigh-
borhood thug who shows up like clockwork, every
month, the second your grandmother cashes her social
security check.  Possibly an acquaintance, but hardly a
friend.

The NEJM study is based on the immediate dis-
position of cases and fails to take into account cases
originally filed as homicides that were later ruled to be
self-defense.  Especially considering the small sample
size (396), taking these events into account has a sub-
stantial effect on the 43:1 ratio quoted.

Criminologist Gary Kleck gives us a slightly dif-
erent statistic: a gun is 33 times more likely to be
used, successfully, by a private citizen against an
aggressor than it is to kill anyone at all.  Further, per-
sons defending themselves from aggression by using a
gun fare better than those who resist vicimization by
some other means, or who offer no resistance at all.
Statistics available from the FBI and other agencies
also show that a gun is 245 times more likely to be
used by a non-criminal to defend against criminal threat
than to be used to commit criminal homicide, 535 times
more likely to be used to defend against a criminal
threat than to accidentally kill anybody, and 50 times
more likely to defend against criminal threat than to be
used to commit suicide.

It is well to keep in mind that nearly anything can
be proved by uncritical quotation of statistics.  One has
to consider carefully what questions were asked by
those gathering the data before one can draw an accu-
rate conclusion from them.

D.F. Taylor
CU Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry


--
Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55241
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <16BB8E4C0.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>In article <1r6qqcINN8j4@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>>Any death is serious.  Wanna discuss match control?  Firearms related
>>unintentional deaths among children ages 14 and under are the fault of one or
>>more negligent persons, not the gun.
>
>No, I don't want to discuss match control.  I don't equate a book of matches
>to a loaded 9 millimeter either.

And you shouldn't, as the matches kill more kids.  So why are you bleating
about guns?

>say that tired old NRA line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

It may be tired, but it is true.

>Sure, people can kill people without guns.  But easy access to guns makes it
>a lot more convenient.  "Guns don't kill people, People with easy access to
>guns kill people".

No, that's not right either.  People who have both easy access and the
desire to kill, kill people.  Considering that people who have the
desire to kill turn that into easy access ....  (Haven't you folks
learned anything from either Prohibition or the war on drugs?)

If you don't affect the desire, you're wasting your time, not to
mention the other costs incurred.

>    Jim, I'm just saying how it is.  I'm not saying if that is a good thing
>or not. From the police who I have talked with who run some of these gun
>buyback programs, I get the impression that they really think they are
>having an impact on the community.

Good for them.  I note that the TM folks make the same argument.  If
you'll pay their expesnses ($21 million for a reasonable size city),
they promise to meditate away all crime, disease, etc.  At least
they're not promising to jail me if I don't go along with their little
plan - they're going to just sit in a room and fly, leaving me alone.

>gun violence whether its effective or not.  Look, if you can't measure
>the impact of these programs using some sort of pre-test and post-test
>evaluation, what is the point?  It must be symbolic in nature.

Ah, but we have evaluated gun control using before-after and it
doesn't work to reduce crime.  What is the point?  We can't claim that
it is symbolic, as people do get jailed.

>The police are
>essentially saying "look, if you have a gun lying around and you don't
>want it, we'll give you $50 for it...because we care about the community".

No, they're essentially saying "we hope this will keep you from
noticing that we're not doing anything useful".  Pissing away
resources isn't "caring".

>If you, I and Joe could think of a way to measure the effectiveness or
>ineffectiveness of these programs we could become rich and famous.

Nope, you'll merely be ignored, as Wright, Rossi, and Daly were after
finishing "Under the Gun".  They were supposed to prove that gun
control worked, so ....

>> Jim, listen to me, I said I'M NOT RELIGIOUS WHATSOEVER, do you understand?
>
>  Religion has nothing to do with this.  I could care less what religion
>they were okay?  To put children in that situation is wrong, pure and
>simple.  Difference is good Jim, I am the most progressive and diverse
>person in the world.  But, if different is allowing kids to be exposed
>to tanks and tear-gas, then yes Jim, DIFFERENT IS WRONG.

So, who gassed them?  Given their previous experience with thugs who
threw grenades before yelling "we're from the govt and we're here to
help you", would a rational person think that the feds had their best
interests at heart?  Would you "know" that the gas was "non-lethal"?

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55246
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <1993Apr17.025258.7013@microsoft.com> by anthonyf@microsoft.com (Anthony Francisco):

> cmort:
> | If anybody wanted proof of the nonsense of the "you can't build guns" claim,
> | they need look no farther than the Philippines.  Amateur gunsmiths there
> | regularly produce everything from .45 automatics to full auto shotguns.  Now
> | if this guy wants to claim that the Philippines is either technologically
> | superior to the US or that their transportation is better than ours, all I
> | can say is that he's living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Unfortunately a few of those .45s blow up in your hands.

That's life.  First you marry Imelda Marcos, then you die! :)

> On the other hand, my compatriots built an excellent copy of a Beretta that
> I enjoyed using when I lived in the Philippines. Hmmmm.

And that's the HARD stuff to copy!

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55247
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <2071@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>What I find so hard to understand is how come some people, apparantly
>NOT connected with government or otherwise privileged, will
>go to great lengths, redefinitions, re-interpretations, in a full-bore
>attempt to THROW AWAY THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTS under the
>Constitution!!!
>Almost makes me think of lemmings running into the sea during a lemming
>year...
>I really wonder that Jefferson and Madison would say to these folks?

They'd probably quote Montesque (sp?) who was once asked if Russia
was likely to become a democracy any time soon: "No, because
Russia is a nation of slaves and the people get what they deserve."
Since he said that, Russia has changed a great deal. But so, 
unfortunately have other nations.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55248
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>
>>The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found
>>with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot
>>attempting to leave the compound during the fire.
>
>Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every
>where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>went up.

Unlikely.  Ammunition is not as dangerous when simply burned as it
is when fired from a gun.  The brass case is not capable of holding
the pressure generated by burning powder, and will (unless supported
by the walls of a gun barrel or chamber) simply split open.  While
this may cause small pieces of brass to fly around, it will not
propel the bullet with any significant velocity.

In fact, it was not uncommon in years past to dispose of old loaded
cartridges by burning them.  As long as you were not close enough
to take a piece of flying brass in the eye, you were reasonably safe.

Thus, the detonation of loaded magazines or loose rounds might cause
slight injury but would be unlikely to cause fatal bullet wounds.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55249
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>
>>According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
>>gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
>>They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
>>some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
>>media-event brought to you by HCI.
>>
>>Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>>to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>>tacky, but hey, whatever works.

As David Veal points out, this sort of "promotion" would be used
against gun owners by the mass media.

However, here is my proposal: offer gun safety classes in your area,
free, as a community service.  Such a class would normally cost $40
or $50, so offering it free is a good promotion.

Our Gun Club has organized several of these (we just finished
teaching another one last night, in fact) and they have been
very well received.  We get a lot of people who are novices
interested in guns.  We even get a few who are anti-gun, but
feel they should know something about "gun safety" since members
of their family keep guns at home.

Teaching such a course gives us many desirable benefits:

(1) We have the chance to teach gun safety rules; this increases
    firearm awareness and may help to reduce gun accident stats.

(2) A "gun safety" class is Politically Correct, and likely to
    be viewed positively by the public and the media.

(3) Most of the students are 'normal people' (not gun enthusiasts)
    and this kind of class gives us the chance to give them a
    gentle introduction to firearms.

(4) Some of the students are enthusiastic, and will purchase a gun
    and become more involved in shooting or personal defense.

(5) It improves the public perception of our club and gun owners
    in general.  Our students see that we are all reasonable,
    non-aggressive, soft-spoken people, which helps to mitigate
    the standard image of a hardcore gun owner.  Even anti-gun
    students sometimes tell us they have "something new to think
    about" with regards to personal gun ownership.

(6) Sharing our experience with others is a lot of fun.

Our course is the standard NRA-certified "Home Firearm Safety"
class, and our students pay only $5 for materials.  We also
teach the NRA's "Personal Protection" class, although the cost
is higher for that one since we have to purchase range time.

I think firearms safety classes are an excellent response to
gun buy-backs.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55250
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Change of name ??



	CAN you read ??
	If so: read my posting about Quisling OR look in a dictionary.
	If not: Don't read this :)


			Thomas

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55251
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

In article <1993Apr21.223541.2353@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
 
>Everyone is complaining about the debacle in Waco. It is hard to
>understand all this angst. What happend there is nothing less than
>what we wanted to happen. Why all the sour grapes ?
 
       Cute word angst.  Conveys volumes.
 
       I'd be interested in this particular definition of "we."  It's
such a fluid pronoun.
 
>BATF was looking for a propaganda event to counteract their impending
>budget cuts ... the attendance of the press at the initial big
>commando raid is proof. It would have been ever so easier to grab
>Koresh and his central followers as they shopped in Waco. Alas, no
>propaganda value there.
>
>The FBI screwed-up big time, all the time. They should have never allowed
>the situation to drag out like that. A quick second assault, before the
>BDs could decide on a strategy, would have been the better plan.
>
>The BDs themselves were the biggest screw-ups though. They imagined
>that US law and US law-enforcement had no jurisdiction within their
>little 'country'. WRONG !
 
       The BD were a paranoid little cult out in the middle of nowhere,
which all of a sudden had their worst paranoid fears reinforced.
 
       Joy.
 
>They had no right whatsoever to fire on
>the BATF, and if they mistook their identity initially, they should
>have surrendered at once when they did realize who they were.
 
       Yes, they probably should have, although how many paranoid
nuts can say they held off the feds for 51 days?
 
>If the
>BDs had a problem with the warrants, they take it to court, just like
>the rest of us. If they wanted full-auto weapons, they could have
>obtained the proper permits, just like the rest of us would need to
>do. What they may NOT do is decide for themselves what US law applies
>to themselves and which does not. They get their chance like the rest
>of us - at the voting booth.
 
        The voting booth is highly over-rated.  People need to get up
off their lazy butts more than every year or every two years.  Hell,
most don't even do that.
 
>If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have
>become that way because WE have desired them to be so.
 
        No, because "we" have decided that it doesn't make enough
difference to "us" to get up and do something.  That's something,
for instance, a lot of people who go speak against gun control
bills at their local government.  Dozens of "pro-gun" speakers
show up and few if any antis do, but  they often win anyway.
 
        Why?  Because it doesn't matter who shows up, it matters
who's willing to scream afterwards.  And it isn't that most people
give a damn one way of the other, but that they don't.  Nobody
gives a damn about anybody beyond their own little worlds.
 
>We get to
>vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. By our choices over the years,
>we have approved the creation and form of the BATF and FBI. When
>the FBI was out chasing 'pinkos', the general public didn't seem
>to mind a bit of extra-constitutional activity.
 
       The general public's usually not even read the constitution.
And what they have learned is a distorted picture of the whole thing.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55256
From: icsgh339@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: newbie

This is my first time on the network, but I am very concerned with this
incident in Waco.  I will refrain from stating my opinions until after I have
read the FAQ.  Could someone tell me how to get this?  I must say that I
believe the Govt. was wrong in the actions that they took in this situation.

Portenier           icsgh339@trex.oscs.montana.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55258
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr26.172903.12436@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <C5yCou.M5B@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, random@cbnewse.cb.att.com
> (David L. Pope) wrote:
> > 
> > From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  ():
> > 
> > > 
> > > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> > > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds. 
> > 
> > So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't
> > seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more
> > than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What
> > proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any
> > "banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your
> > wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?
> 
> (sic) Oh, you're really bright. As if nobody would have understood it was a
> typo.

That was a reasonable insertion, so folks would know "Random" hadn't made an  
error reposting your message.  No one was flaming you for the typo.

> 
> Several parents with children who either had at one time or currently were
> inside the compound made the aforementioned charges. One parent actually
> spoke about said charges (in reference to his 13-year old daughter) WITH
> Koresh on the phone.

I have heard such claims from disgruntled former members.  Could be true, who  
knows.  No proof.  And what does all this have to do with the BATF and FBI  
actions?
> 
> You missed my point entirely.
> 

No, you missed his.

> > 
> > > You're a sorry
> > > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> > 
> > Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's
> > going to insult you AND your mom!
> 
> Since you're unable to formulate a cogent response, you make a lame joke.
> 
> > 
> > > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend
> > > sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the
> > > paranoia.
> > 
> > Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior.
> > Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing
> >              the same ranch-house.
> 
> Anti-social. Normally meaning a response against societal norms. Stealing
> is sociopathic behavior. It's not an oxymoron to have a GROUP of
> SOCIOPATHS. I guess you're NOT a psychologist. Oh well...
> 
> > 
> > > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
> >                                 ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.
> 
> Maybe YOU should get an education, my man.
> 
> > 
> > Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?
> 
> Why won't some assholes use a sig so I can send them mail instead of
> wasting bandwidth?
> 

This from someone who does not have a return address in his header:
----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Sender: usenet@starbase.trincoll.edu (SACM Usenet News)
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Lines: 65
----
Whereas David Pope (random) did, so a reasonable newsreader could simply hit  
reply to his comments, but not to yours.  Get an education in Internet use, "my  
man".

> > 
> > 	Random
> > 	
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55259
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr26.174819.13707@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <1ra5i9INNd4g@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
> Arras) wrote:
> > 
> > In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> 
> > > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> > > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. 
> > 
> > I don't recall saying Baptists do any of that.  Though I suppose some do.   
And  
> > none of them are listed in the dictionary as characteristics of a cult.  My  
> > mother stockpiled Campbells soup when it was on sale.  
> > 
> > > You're a sorry
> > > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> > 
> > You are an intolerent, foul-mouthed human.  You sound like you are ready to  
> > join the KKK or neo-nazis, with a narrow mind like yours.
> 
> Fuck YOU. My paternal grandparents died in Oswiecym (Aushwitz in the native
> tongue, for all of you pseudo-historically literate people). 

And Bejing = Peking, who cares about native tongue, as long as we all  
understand each other.

> I would
> suggest you'd have to search long and hard to find someone with more
> diffuse sensibilities. 

Oh, not more than a few feet, I wouldn't think.  I'm sorry IF your paternal  
grandparents died in Oswiecym or Aushwitz, which is easier to say than prove,  
but if so, the lesson they paid thier lives for was wasted on you.

> Just tootin' my own horn.

You are the expert.  I often feel compelled to brag about the circumstances of  
my grandparent's death.  8-}

> 
> > > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> > > who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.
> > > 
> 
> I don't care about *cults*. There's no language problem here. My problem is
> with religious fanatics (claiming to be God is just a *little bit*
> unsettling) stockpiling several years' supply of canned foods and enough
> weapons to hold off a company (not to mention the ATF, which %&^#ed up in
> the first place) and talking about how they're going to "take care" of all
> of the "unbelievers." But granted, up to that moment, he'd done nothing
> wrong. I recognize and respect that.
> 
> Then the ATF discovers he doesn't have proper permits for some of his
> purchases and failed to pay some taxes on them. 
> 

A BATF offense, if true.

> Then several parents come forward and demand that previous charges of child
> abuse be refiled. There have been interviews with some parents whose
> children were in the compound at some point. These parents claimed
> psychological and sexual abuse. The childrens' statements supported these
> charges.

A LOCAL offense, if true.  Totally outside the BATF's domain.

> 
> Was it a 'no-knock?' I really haven't heard anything on that. But clearly
> he was not just another guy minding his own business. Hell, give them all
> the guns in the world if they don't bother anyone. But he was a scary sort,
> don't you think? 

I didn't know the man.  Just what the TV chose to tell me.

> The sort of person you'd want your daughter to date? 

I thought there were prejudicial undertones here.  I would trust my daughter's  
judgement.

> I
> didn't think so. Reason number one to doubt the legal statements made by
> some of the survivors. (Note that some of them were made by his 'guard,'
> well-[hesitate to say expertly] trained killers).

I don't believe either side blindly.
> 
> Then he fired on the ATF. That's not just a little mistake, or some
> red-white-and blue American defending his home against Big Brother. 

IF they fired first, without announcing in a beleivable way who they were ( I  
can pound on your door and claim to be the police, will you just lay down and  
take it if I do?), then he could be justified in firing on the ATF in  
self-defense.

> That
> shit doesn't fly. Anyone with his background that will shoot and kill
> Federal Law Enforcement officials is not some good citizen whose crusade
> enjoys our support. He's a loose cannon. Just my opinion...

"His background"?  What law has he been convicted of breaking in the past?
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55260
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Two Questions

In article <16BB8C820.SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
 
>I'd appreciate any help anyone could give me on these two questions:
>
>The Brady Bill was in the news throughout 1992 but what actually happened to
>it in Congress?  Did Bush veto it?  If so, when?
 
       The Brady Bill passed the House in 1992, but failed to reach a
vote in the Senate.  As such, it never reached Bush.  (Sarah Brady's
condemnation not-withstanding).
 
       It'll probably pass the House again, and will probably pass the
Senate if they can get it to a vote.  Whether of not they'll be busy
with other things will be the question.  I don't expect gung-ho opposition
on the part of Senate Republicans, since they won't want to over-use their
fillibuster trump card.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55261
From: michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn  michaelh@btr.com)
Subject: CNN tape shows tank starting fire

A friend recorded CNN news during the gassing and incineration of
the BD's.  I went through it carefully today, and found something
very interesting.  A tank is pulling out of the house, and there
is a fireball, maybe 24" across that lasts for about 1 second.
Exactly ten minutes and thirty nine seconds later, the smoke starts
billowing out of that area of the building.
Now, I'm no govt. spokestwinkie, so it might really have been a
weather balloon or something.  Perhaps someone would check it out
and comment.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55262
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>}    They assembled a frightening arsenal of weapons 

>What, exactly, did you find frightening about their weapons?

    The lethality in small part, but mostly what I found frightening 
was the fact that they were wielded by people who believed that they 
ate breakfast every morning with Jesus Christ. Now I wasn't there in 
Galilee back in the Roman occupation, so I don't know for certain that 
David Koresh was not Jesus Christ, but I strongly suspect that he was 
not (even aside from the fact of never having seen them in a photograph 
together).

>}by circumventing laws which were intended to prevent such a buildup. 
>
>Which laws are you making reference to?

    I admit I can't cite a specific, but if there isn't a law against 
purchasing grenade components and assembling them into functioning units 
then perhaps we need one. All second ammendment arguments aside, I'm just 
not sure that I like the idea of private citizens with hand grenades.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55263
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <121415@netnews.upenn.edu> egedi@ahwenasa.cis.upenn.edu (Dania M. Egedi) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.222604.18331@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes:

>>>wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the
>>>systemic effects of cumulative individual actions.  If you want fire
>>>insurance on your house that's prudent and it has no effect on me; but
>>>if you and a bunch of other paranoids are packing handguns in the
>>>backcountry it makes me, and anyone else who doesn't chose to protect
>>>himself in this manner, pretty f**king nervous. 
>>
>> Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.
>> 
>
>Aha.  That's the part that makes me nervous too.  Who gets to decide if
>I am a threat?  

	When I might possibly be on the receiving end of a violent gesture, 
	then *I* get to decide for myself.  If someone does not like it, too
	bad.  I would be doing exactly what YOU  or any other living creature
	would do in terms of evaluation.  What's the big deal?

>Based on appearance?  

	Sometimes.

>Would someone feel more threatened when approached by a very dirty, smelly, 
>slightly-maniacal looking person with a slight glaze to the eyes, muttering 
>to himself?  

	I might.

>Doesn't this describe most backpackers after they've been out more than a 
>couple of days?  

	Not in my experience.  And let us not forget that context is often an
	important factor in evaluating a situation.  Seeing disheveled persons
	on a hiking trail is not likely to be evaluated equally with meeting
	a grimey sort, as described above, on a lonely city street at 3 am.
	Anyone that cannot properly discriminate between these two different
	situations is legitimate fodder for the old "survival of the fittest" 
	principle.

>Or based on something else?  Proximity?  No room to pass on the trail
>without getting *real close* to someone.  An inner sense?  Now I'm really 
>getting nervous.

	Sounds like you doubt your own abilities.  You sound pretty
	typical in this respect.  You also seem to think that you'll
	be safe or safer if others are unarmed.  This is dangerous 
	fantasy.

>Twice when I was hiking the A.T. I came up on a shelter that I was planning
>on staying at and saw someone sitting there cleaning his gun.  Softly I backed
>away, and hiked another 5 miles to get *out of there*.  I'll freely admit it here:
>I'm not afraid of guns; I'm afraid of people that bring them into the backcountry.

	Then you are in need of some form of therapy.  Not necessarily that
	of an analyst, but maybe you should learn about guns.  Your fear is
	seems to be based in ignorance and false knowledge.  You see a person
	with a gun and you feel threatened.  Why is this so?  Have you any
	legitimate basis for this?  Any first-hand experience that lends
	validity to your fears?  Or are your fears based on mediated experience,
	i.e. the anecdotes of others such as network news?  I trust you can
	see the lack of legitimacy in such mediated inputs?

	And why are you afraid of the PEOPLE as mentioned above?  Forgive me,
	but you sound afraid to the point of paranoia.  Perhaps you should talk
	to someone about this.  I am not saying this to be rude or fascetious,
	but I think anyone with fear as deep and baseless as yours *seems* to
	be needs some sort of help.  Living in fear really sucks, even if it
	is only when around people with guns in the back country.

	Tell me: would you be as fearful of a park ranger who was right in 
	front of you with their side arm in clear view?  Why or why not?

	-Andy V.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55264
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Violations

>> Eighth Amendment:
>> 1) The Davidians suffered cruel and unusual punishment when:
>> 	f> Thoes who escaped were imprisoned without bail without a  
>hearing.
>
>Happens all the time, they were arraigned the next day, I'd doubt
>you'd have any luck on this point.


	I had heard that not all were arraigned yet, some were being
	held as "material witnesses."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55265
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: guns=Amex AND new name.....



I have NEVER spoken for a ban against guns in America !
What I've said is that there seems to be to MANY of them, and especially
to many in wrong hands....

Now IF you would like to reduce the number, how would you do it without affecting
good/responcible gun owners ??


I DO believe in a persons freedom.
What I don't believe is that you can have it all and don't pay for it.

MOST europeans believe in a society of individuals, and that you HAVE
to give 'a little' to make that society work.

Cars and guns should really not be mixed, I just tried to make a point.
Like America, Norway has some spaces you have to cross to get from a to b,
so a car is essential in most parts....

Guns on the other hand are not essential in Norway, so we don't 
argue that IF we 'banned' guns we HAVE to ban cars.....


EVERYONE who believe that Hitler and WW2 could be avoided if there were
more guns in Germany in the 30's: PLEASE read some HISTORY!


Is this discussion about

1. Banning weapons for ALL Americans
            or
2. Making it harder for criminals to get one ??



Change of name.......
Wrote that one after reading the first postings about the Waco 'incident'.
I still think there are 'some' posters should move their post to alt.conspiracy
or make a new newsgroup.
(If you read the first postings after the Waco fire you should see who I mean......)

Did the BATF get the warrant for a gun search only or was there other reasons.
(Child abuse for instance)

Doesn't the people reading this newsgroup have access to the clari.news.* hierarcy ??
(Some seems rather mis/unInformed)

(Or is the clari.news.* hierarcy ruled and censored by the corrupt facist goverment??)



                                    Thomas Parsli


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55266
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr26.174819.13707@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:
>
>> > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
>> > who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.
>> > 
>
>I don't care about *cults*. There's no language problem here. My problem is
>with religious fanatics (claiming to be God is just a *little bit*
>unsettling) stockpiling several years' supply of canned foods

No crime here.

> and enough
>weapons to hold off a company

No crime here.

> (not to mention the ATF, which %&^#ed up in
>the first place) and talking about how they're going to "take care" of all
>of the "unbelievers."

No crime here.
Also no substantiation of your claim that Koresh said this.  I for one have
never heard this mentioned before.  Where did you hear it?

> But granted, up to that moment, he'd done nothing
>wrong. I recognize and respect that.

Up to which moment?  The one where you decided that anyone who claims to be
God no longer has the protection of the Constitution?
What happened to the separation of church and state?

>Then the ATF discovers he doesn't have proper permits for some of his
>purchases and failed to pay some taxes on them. 

I have yet to see any evidence of *this*, either.  From what I hear the
*original* warrant (the reason for the Feb. raid) is still sealed.  What are
"unsealed" seem to be warrants taken out after the initial raid.

>Then several parents come forward and demand that previous charges of child
>abuse be refiled. There have been interviews with some parents whose
>children were in the compound at some point.

Funny, I haven't seen any of these "interviews."
Interesting that when the social services agencies investigated Koresh on
these previous charges, they found absolutely no evidence of abuse.

> These parents claimed
>psychological and sexual abuse. The childrens' statements supported these
>charges.

Funny, I don't remember hearing anything about childrens' statements,
either.  Where did you say you heard all this?

What *I* heard was that none of the children who left the compound early in
the seige exhibited any signs typical of abuse, physical or mental.  This
from the newspaper and national TV news.

Did you also hear that it's the job of the BATF and the FBI to lay siege to
homes where child abuse is suspected?  I thought you did.

>Was it a 'no-knock?' I really haven't heard anything on that. But clearly
>he was not just another guy minding his own business.

"Clearly?"  Please tell us what Koresh was doing that can be construed as
other than "minding his own business" before the BATF raided the place.

> Hell, give them all
>the guns in the world if they don't bother anyone. But he was a scary sort,
>don't you think? The sort of person you'd want your daughter to date? I
>didn't think so. Reason number one to doubt the legal statements made by
>some of the survivors.

Your logic just amazes me.  I think your grandparents who died in
Auschwitz would be turning over in their graves if they could hear how
cavalierly you throw away people's protection of law because you think
they're "scary" and "not the sort of person you'd want your daughter to
date."  What sort of people do you suppose the Nazis thought your
grandparents were?  Probably not the sort they'd want their little
frauleins dating...

> (Note that some of them were made by his 'guard,'
>well-[hesitate to say expertly] trained killers).

And next I suppose you'll tell us exactly WHO these "well-trained killers"
have killed?

>Then he fired on the ATF. That's not just a little mistake, or some
>red-white-and blue American defending his home against Big Brother. That
>shit doesn't fly.

Because you said so, right?  Right.

> Anyone with his background that will shoot and kill
>Federal Law Enforcement officials is not some good citizen whose crusade
>enjoys our support.

So someone with a different background, say someone who didn't claim to be
the Messiah, in your book COULD shoot and kill Federal Law Enforcement
officials WOULD be a good citizen whose crusade enjoys our support?

> He's a loose cannon. Just my opinion...

Worth the paper it's printed on.

You're amazing, simply amazing.

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55267
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Waco "Inside Story" (AP) (Was Re: ATF BURNS....)

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
: 
: Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.
: 

No, they probably couldn't.  If you had ever been tear gassed, you 
wouldn't be so quick to condem.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55268
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

[Joe, why don't you put your username on your account?]

On Mon, 26 Apr 1993 17:48:19 GMT, joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu wrote:

> Then the ATF discovers he doesn't have proper permits for some of his
> purchases and failed to pay some taxes on them. 

Or claims to have discovered so...  It would hardly be the first time
they raided someone based on incorrect evidence.

> Was it a 'no-knock?' I really haven't heard anything on that. But clearly

It was a "no-knock", according to the Associated Press report.
Here's something I found in my collection:

    Excerpts from an article in the Knoxville News-Sentinel Final
    Edition Monday, March 1, 1993 (the byline is associated press):

    WACO, Texas - Fierce gun battles erupted Sunday as more than 100
    law officers tried to arrest the leader of a heavily armed
    religious cult.  At least four federal agents and two cult members
    were reported killed.  [...]

    The gun battles began when federal agents hidden in livestock
    trailers stormed the sect's head-quarters Sunday morning,
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    witnesses said.  The agents had warrants to search for guns and
    explosives and to arrest Howell, said Les Stanford of the ATF in
    Washington.  [...]

    Witnesses said the law officers stormed the compound's main home,
    throwing concussion grenades and screaming "Come out," while three
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    National Guard helicopters approached.  For a moment, there was no
    response.  Then the shooting began. 

I think "storming the sect's head-quaters" and "throwing concussion
grenades" qualifies as a no-knock (or perhaps an illegal assault).

> he was not just another guy minding his own business. Hell, give them all
> the guns in the world if they don't bother anyone. But he was a scary sort,
> don't you think? The sort of person you'd want your daughter to date? I
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably not.  But then again, neither are you.

> Then he fired on the ATF. That's not just a little mistake, or some
> red-white-and blue American defending his home against Big Brother. That
> shit doesn't fly. Anyone with his background that will shoot and kill
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And just what is "his background"?  What prior crimes had he been
CONVICTED of?

> Federal Law Enforcement officials is not some good citizen whose crusade
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, BATF are "Federal TAX Enforcement officials".  They're not
police, nor do they have police powers.

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...  The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.  The part
which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance
of the facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty.  ..."   Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55269
From: lilak@peaks.enet.dec.com (Rod Lilak)
Subject: Bennett : Banned, Bayonet 



I wrote a letter the other day to Empower America - the organization
which claims to be championing conservative issues, esp. in the wake 
of the Republican defeat last fall. 

Some might consider them just a an organization to create a network of 
support among conservatives for some individuals in prep. for '96 run.

You'd be close to the truth.

Their two leading spokesmen are Bill Bennett, former 'Drug Czar' who heartily
supported Bush's semi-auto import ban, and wondered if it went far enough - 
who helped put the big lie about 'sporting use' into the public's eye - and
Jack Kemp - who recently came out in support of semi-auto bans. 

These are conservatives ? 

Anyway I thought it interesting that when I ran Word Perfect's spell check
against my letter - it came up with the following corrections for 'Bennett' :

1. Banned
2. Bayonet


Needless to say, I found these choices rather amusing.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come
close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell
after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The
savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
    -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55270
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <nate.1507.735856109@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    I admit I can't cite a specific, but if there isn't a law against 
>purchasing grenade components and assembling them into functioning units 
>then perhaps we need one. All second ammendment arguments aside, I'm just 
>not sure that I like the idea of private citizens with hand grenades.

Are you aware you can make a grenade with gunpower and metal water pipes?
Maybe we should outlaw hardware stores and ammo reloading.

Are you aware that you can make a firebomb with gasoline? etc.

-- 
 Justin Ngai, 8 pounds, 2 ounces,
 born 4/24/93

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55271
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Here's the number to call for CA bills...

I made a few phone calls today, and found that if you call the Bill Room at
the Sacramento State Capitol, you may order free of charge any bills that
are currently being pushed.  I was told that they will only fill an order of
five bills per phone call, but when I asked kindly and told the nice lady that
it was very important, she filled my order for ten.

California State Bill Room
916-445-2323

Subject:  Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers
 
Sorry I forgot to include this in my previous letter but we also
have to worry about State bills.  These are the ones that I am
currently aware of:

SB 292
SB 247
SB 67
SB 89
SB 180

AB 117
AB 155
AB 166
AB 482
AB 501

My thanks to Bob Hale for providing the bill numbers!

/------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Peter D. Nesbitt |   Air Traffic Controller   | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM   |
|                  |     Oakland Bay TRACON     |                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  CBR600F2 Pilot  |     NRA Member CCX1380F    | S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/

Hey!  I fixed my sig.file!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55272
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BATF Achieved Objective; Wants to "Move On"

In article <1rh9soINNimh@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>
dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
 
>In article 26844@convex.com, langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:
>>feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>>Everyone discussing why the BATF did this or didn't do that is missing
>>>the point. BATF wanted to destroy Koresh.  Everything they did was
>>>consistent with that objective.
>>
>>    And having done that, they've declared victory by flying their flag
>>    over the ruins. Regardless of who started the firefight or fire,
>>    I see the flag as nothing but arrogant.
>>
>
>        Not only arrogant, but in plain bad taste.  As though they had
>        defeated a difficult foe, and done so with honor.
>
>        I understand Reno does not own the BATF... doesn't Bentsen, a
>        Texas boy at that, I believe?  Why is not Bentsen from Treasury
>        as much out front as Reno is?  Is he hiding behind her apron strings?
 
 
       The BATF got sat on pretty early on.  After the initial shooting
was over, it pretty much become the FBI's show.  (Even that BATF guy
stopped showing up next to the speaker at the daily press conferences).
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55273
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Waco Questions


| The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
| citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
| the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
| only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
| elimination of personal freedom.

I think this is a little extreme, i am concerned about a couple of things
i've seen lately. It seems to me that the government is *beginning* to 
enforce political correctness. the first King verdict was polically incorrect
so the hell with constutitional protection from double jeopardy, try the cops
again. the BD's are far as i can tell didn't do anything wrong. nothing that
would justify the horrable end they were subjected too. they were simply
polically incorrect in the extream. i can't help but wonder "who's next"

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55274
Subject: Repeat violent criminals--is reform often impossible?
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)



From the Boston Globe, Thursday April 22 1993

p. 44

Walpole man, 32, guilty in rape

Kenne, N.H. -- A Walpole man
charged with kidnapping a
mother of two from her home, then
raping and beating her, has pleaded 
guilty.  Roger Santaw Jr. also plead-
ed guilty to an attempted escape
from Cheshire County jail last win-
ter.  Santaw, 32 is scheduled to be
sentenced next week.  The rape last
fall came six months after Santaw
was released from prision, where
he spent 15 years for a rape he commit-
ted when he was 16.  (AP)


 
[end of article]

Any reactions?  Did he do enough time?  What should his penalty
be?  

BTW, Walpole is a town in Massachusetts.  Of course, New
hampshire is close by.
J. Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55275
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1993Apr21.091130.17788@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>
>This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.

	This was not stated nor implied.  Try asking.
>
>Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
>gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
>is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
>research purposes on such chemicals.

	This is laughable.  Licenses?  Right.  So then I would need a
	license to possess chlorine gas?  It is a weapons grade poison.
	Would I be breaking the law then if I were to, say, pour Chlorox
	on the spot where my cat pissed on the floor?  The reaction of
	ammonia and bleach liberates pure chlorine gas.  Do I go to jail
	for this?  Why or why not?

	Would I need a license to possess other chemical agents?  What about
	nicotine?  Deadly poison, and rather fast acting.  Must I now become
	licensed to posess tobacco?  And what about nicotine sulphate, an even
	deadlier poison?  Will I need a license to possess this type of 
	insecticide?  What about Raid(tm)?  Black Flag?  Gasoline?  Benzene?
	Hydrazine (a violent poison)?

	Will I go to jail for possessing a can of tomatoes that went bad with
	botulinus?

	What about my mom & pop QC lab where I use cyanogen bromide (mustard
	gas) to do lot analysis on certain non-prescription pharmaceuticals?

	What if I wish to use potassium cyanide to recover gold from aqua
	regia?  A license? 

	Would I need a license to possess Beryllium, perhaps the most poisonous
	non-radioactive metal?  How about Beryllium-Copper alloy?

	Do I need a license for nitrate fertilizers which *could* be used to
	make VERY powerful explosive devices such as the one that the IRA
	recently detonated, killing 1 and injuring 45?

	Can I have vinegar without license?  Hydrogen peroxide?  Where is the 
	line drawn?    

>I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
>definitions.

	Yes they could, but are they good ideas?  Are they needed?  Is there
	any shred of sanity in them?  Scarcely, I trust.
>
	-Andy V.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55276
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: newbie

In article <0096B9BF.EB6A4220@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>
icsgh339@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
 
>This is my first time on the network, but I am very concerned with this
>incident in Waco.  I will refrain from stating my opinions until after I have
>read the FAQ.  Could someone tell me how to get this?  I must say that I
>believe the Govt. was wrong in the actions that they took in this situation.
 
        As far as I know, there is no FAQ for tpg.  Somebody was working
on one, but I think it "died in committee."
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55277
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1rgudtINN3it@apache.dtcc.edu> bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes
:
>In article <2099@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>>I want to see an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full prosecuting and
>>subpoena powers.  With felony prosecution where felony acts are found.
>>Fat chance, I bet.  I bet the Justice Dept will have an internal
>>investigation which will turn up at most 'poor judgement'.
>
>  OOOHHHHHHHH, can you say "INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR", geee, maybe ol'
>Mr. Walsh can do something useful after all.....
>
> (Right, fat chance...)
>

I'm responding at the risk of misreading your response, but I do have to tell 
my fellow conservatives to give it up, attacking Reno/Clinton/ATF/FBI.

They may have botched an operation, but they didn't kill anybody who never shot
at them first.  David Koresh was a frigging lunatic.  His followers had the 
combined I.Q of a Geraldo audience.  The kids probably would have been those
fucked up social rejects who go to Freshman dances in high school, never to be
seen again (except maybe in the band) until prom, when they show up like 
animals boarding the ark.  Then it's bowling till 3 in the morning..... 
(WHY....WHY?? did it happen to me??!!)

Anyway, the point is Janet Reno/Bill Clinton were only following the advice of 
trained, law enforcement officials who were experts in their fields.  I'd 
rather have our leaders do that then micro-manage every crisis that comes 
along.  Then you'd really see trouble no matter what party or ideology the 
President and her (er.. I mean his) Attorney General is.
-- 
Ryan C. Scharfy

rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55278
From: awe@pimms.mit.edu (Ari Epstein)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <viking.735373292@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> In <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com> mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary) writes:
> 
> 	
>                                         
> 	
> 	  LDS and RLDS
> philosophy is that all other religions have strayed from the true
> Church as set down by Jesus, but that God will judge each on his
> own merits.  In addition, the RLDS also contend (and the LDS may
> as well) that ignorance of the True Way (tm) is an excuse.  You
> can only be condemned if you had been tought the way and rejected
> it.  In short, LDS and RLDS suffer everybody from Lutherans to
> Buddhists, secure in the knowledge that though they are wrong they
> will not be penalized for ignorance.  


I believe that this is not quite correct. My understanding is that LDS is
engaged on a project to "convert" the souls of deceased persons of other
religions, in order to spare them from damnation and gain them entrance into
heaven. To this end, the Church has compiled extensive genaeological records, so
that they will know the names of people to convert. A long article in the New
Yorker a few years ago described the LDS research methods in some detail (for
example, some researchers pay visits to local native storytellers to learn the
names of people long dead). This sounds like just the sort of lie that would be
made up about any unusual religion, but the New Yorker story convinced me that
there is some truth to it (the New Yorker used to do extensive fact-checking, and
the story was quite detailed).

Ari



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55279
From: jtrascap@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jim Trascapoulos)
Subject: Re: Denver Post Classifieds: No assault weapons

eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes:



>I came across the following notice in the Denver Post classified secctio

>this morning (April 26, 1993):

>\begin{quote}

>NOTICE:

>The Denver Post will no longer knowingly accept any advertisement to buy
>or sell assault weapons.  The Denver Post finds that the use of assault
>weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of its reader
.

>\end{quote}

>Now I suppose the Post is within its rights to refuse such ads.  However

>the second sentence is so noxious, I feel compelled to bring it to the 
>attention of the t.p.g/c.g readership.  

>I called the Post classified number (825-2525) and expressed my displeas
re. 
>According to the supervisor I spoke to, the Post was reacting to public
>complaints regarding the running of assult weapon ads.  However, she sai

>the paper was keeping track of the reaction to the change in policy.  I 
>strongly encourage Denver Post readers to call and make their feelings k
own.

>Eric E. Snyder                            
>Department of MCD Biology              ...making feet for childrens' sho
s.
>University of Colorado, Boulder   
>Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347
 
Will do! I appreciate the thoughtfullness of the Post to not be an
intermediary for such sales. The "Right to bear arms" is one of the most
misapplied rights in our Constitution, and assault weapons go way beyond
what is, or rather should be (imho), a "natural" right in America. Just
ask the family of that boy shot back in September - the papers are full of
stories about a child with an assult weapon with a "angelic face" (Post)
who committed the murder without ever thinking.
 
This has all got to get under control. I applaud the Post for their bravery
 
Jim Trascapoulos * jtrascap@nyx.cs.du.edu * "So, what size id do YOU wear?"


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55280
From: karl@dixie.com (Karl Klingman)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

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

>>*	The tanks were collapsing interior walls and ceilings putting people
>>	at great risk.

>Dear, dear. They could have COME OUT.

Then by your logic, the Jews in Europe in the 1930's were the cause for
the Holocaust.  Hitler told them to leave and because they didn't they
brought the whole thing on themselves.  Because as you say, they could
have COME OUT of Germany.

>>*	There was no group instruction of any kind from Koresh or his 
>>	aids after the tank invasion (referring to any kind of suicide
>>	pact or counter-assault efforts.)


>It's ultimately irrelevant who "lit" the fire.  They had ample opportunity
>to LEAVE.

Same for the Jews in Europe 1930's.

>While he was there.  Anyway, outsiders RARELY see abuse.  It's a secretive
>thing.  All we have to go on are the court documents in the Jewell case
>and the mistrial in California.

You don't see any evidence of the abuse -- therefore it must be taking place?
As you point out everwhere but here, it is irrelevant to this case.  The
ATF is not in charge of investigating child abuse.

>>*	No one was ever held against their wills and could have left at any
>>	time.  The people who were murdered in the fire were there by their
>>	own choices.

>EXACTLY.  By their OWN CHOICE.

In obvious contradiction to the statements made by the F. B. I.

>I have NEVER judged them by their religion, but by their ACTIONS.

And just what are those actions that you are judging them by?
Their refusal to let the government control their lives? Their refusal
to submit to unconstitutional laws?  Their refusal to behave like
cowards?  Some of Texas' heros could have taken the cowardly way
out too and surrendered the Alamo.  After all, all they had to do was
COME OUT.  They stayed as you say by their "OWN CHOICE".  Problem
is not everyone chooses to act like a groveling dog in the face of
insurmountable odds.  But as you point out, they certainly do have
that right.  

>If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
>have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
>of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
>IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
>shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

Bull.  They did, in fact, live a quiet, religious life -- as they claimed.
The warrant was not issued because they "stockpiled weapons".  It is
not against the law to own as many guns as you want -- yet (Except in 
Virginia).The warrant was issued for some "gun parts" that are about the size 
of a half-dollar.  Certainly worth the lives of so many people, don't you 
think?

>Just as we don't blame a cop who shoots a kid who had pointed a toy
>weapon at him, I don't think the FBI deserves blame in this case.

You can forget that WE business.  I certainly do blame them.

-- 
He who would trade his liberty for  |  Karl Klingman
security deserves neither.          |  American Research Group, Inc.
                                    |  karl@dixie.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55425
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: guns=Amex AND new name.....

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

	Remember me, Tom?  I hope you'll respond, and I seem to
be a Voice of Reason or some such (I've been recieving fan mail,
so naturally my ego is somehwat inflated of late), and hope to
make a few points here.

>I have NEVER spoken for a ban against guns in America !
>What I've said is that there seems to be to MANY of them, and especially
>to many in wrong hands....

	And our argument is that you cannot remove them from the people
who need restricting and not remove them from the people who don't.  A
fairly simple problem, given our size and numbers.  Do you agree?  We
all believe criminals, particularly violent criminals, should not have
firearms.  The problem is making a law that does this without trodding
upon the rights of the vast majority.  Nobody here seems to be able to
do it, and I doubt anybody in Norway can either.  Thus, we are left with
a philosophical difference: does the safety of a few justify restricting
the many?  We say "no," while others say "yes."

>Now IF you would like to reduce the number, how would you do it without
>affecting good/responcible gun owners ??

	Can you provide a method that cannot be abused?  I doubt it.

>I DO believe in a persons freedom.
>What I don't believe is that you can have it all and don't pay for it.

	Of course.  This is not in contention.  What is in contention
is how much one has to pay.

>MOST europeans believe in a society of individuals, and that you HAVE
>to give 'a little' to make that society work.

	It is this "giving a little" that makes Americans wary...
We have seen this argument before.  You might remember how a
Chamberlain "gave a little" to a particular fascist/short asshole,
and how such "appeasement" worked.  While it might work in some
instances, it doesn't work in others, and since we cannot predict
the future we must be cautious in using actions that have a
history of failure.

>Cars and guns should really not be mixed, I just tried to make a point.
>Like America, Norway has some spaces you have to cross to get from a to b,
>so a car is essential in most parts....
>Guns on the other hand are not essential in Norway, so we don't 
>argue that IF we 'banned' guns we HAVE to ban cars.....

	Cars are not essential in Norway any more than they are in
the USA.  I'm willing to bet that you have neighbors that would be
willing to drive you anywhere you wanted to go for a price.  Thus,
cars are not essential for your transportation.  However, the
arguments presented show that, since cars are used to kill far more
people than guns in the USA, it makes much more sense to restrict
cars than it does guns.  How one defines "essential" often depends
upon what one is willing to go through for that service.  When we
look at the raw data, such comparisons are not individually weighed.

>EVERYONE who believe that Hitler and WW2 could be avoided if there were
>more guns in Germany in the 30's: PLEASE read some HISTORY!

	This depends upon what the populace was willing to do.  As
Desert Storm proved, even an armed populace won't just revolt even
when given a chance.  Still, would Hitler have done all that he did
with an armed populace?  We have to wonder, as some of his first
acts were to confiscate firearms.  Other points in history show
that dictators were overthrown by arms in the hands of the populace.
Thus, we're left wondering if Hitler would have been overthrown
or if King George was just unlucky in keeping the USA as a colony.
One can argue both sides; one also has to live with each action.

>Is this discussion about
>1. Banning weapons for ALL Americans
>            or
>2. Making it harder for criminals to get one ??

	It is about #2, but so far all proposals to curtail #2 have
wound up enforcing #1 as well.  I only wish that "or" was so logical.

>Change of name.......

	That was, on my part, purely in jest.  I merely pointed out
how we were from similar backgrounds racially, but of wholly different
backgrounds politically.  I thought this would underscore my point on
how our cultures were so different despite similar heritage.

>Did the BATF get the warrant for a gun search only or was there other reasons.
>(Child abuse for instance)

	BATF can *only* enforce gun/tobaccco/alcohol violations.  Child
abuse is a matter for the individual states and local authorities.

>Doesn't the people reading this newsgroup have access to the clari.news.* 
>hierarcy ??  (Some seems rather mis/unInformed)

	That hierarchy is a paid-for feed at many sites.  Most people do
not get it for this reason, and I suspect money, not censorship, is the
main reason.  Do you get alt.sex* at your site?  I can't read it here
because of censorship and legal fears, so again our differences show.
You have topless sunbathing, and in the USA we can watch a murder every
fifteen seconds and yet breasts are forbidden on television.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55426
From: carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the

I'm not sure were this thread has been before i popped in, but I've never
thought of waiting periods as having anything to do with training or
competence. I just can't imagin any valid reason for having a gun that
can't wait a few days. I can think of plenty of bad reasons for not
wanting a waiting period: I want to buy a gun and kill so-and-so right
now, I've crossed the state line to buy a gun illegally and I can't
afford to spend the night here, etc.

I'm not a big fan of guns, but I feel that it is important to guard
American's rights to own them. On the other hand, we license and regulate
many things without seriously impeding anyones constitutional rights.

Carl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55467
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C6548v.JHA@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>In article <1993Apr27.032401.28156@news.acns.nwu.edu> brice@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Benjamin Rice) writes:
>>The reason the fire department couldn't fight the fire is that bullets were
>>whizzing throughout the area.  Had koresh not had such a "frightenly large
>>arsenal" maybe the feds would not have decided that having the firedepartment
>>on the scene would have been a useless waste of taxes and potentially
>>dangerous had a different fire broken out in Waco
>
>So, how come the fire department had been at the compound area for
>49 days, only to be sent away two days before the FBI attack?

(Whatever the above comment has to do with the hazards of fighting a
fire in the midst of ammo cooking off...)
Maybe the fire department was loudly complaining the whole time about
being diverted from their other duties, and the FBI said "FIne. Go home
and we'll call you if we need you."  A million things could have happened,
we don't know.

BTW, this is the first time I have heard that the Waco FD was on scene
for all but the last 2 days...  what's the source (out of curiosity)?



-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55468
From: mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum)
Subject: Re: Community Spirited Drug Dealers (Was: Strippers...)

sylvain@netcom.com (Nicholas Sylvain) writes:
>>value gun shops where all the city's many fine community spirited drug
>>dealers arm themselves....
>
>Such a fine posting, with the exception of these particular lines. I hope
>you don't *REALLY* think that your average drug dealer actually purchases
>his gun(s) from a legal source.

	As a matter of fact, I know it.

	There were several shootings recently in which the guns had
been purchased at the Baltimore Gunsmith, on Broadway - a favorite
place to get cheap "popular" pieces. By "popular" I am referring to
the kinds of guns our local youth gangs like: pistol grip shotguns,
cheap magnums, and Tec-9s.

	I hate to poke a hole in your bubble, but I was referring
to a specific gunstore, and specific incidents. Any other questions?

mjr.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55470
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

As quoted from <nate.1504.735838830@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> by nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle):

> >What did those people do wrong in the first place? that is what i can't 
> >figure out. 
> 
>     They assembled a frightening arsenal of weapons by circumventing laws 
> which were intended to prevent such a buildup. Then later they used some 
> of those weapons to kill representatives of the Federal government. I'm 
> sure they were frightened when they saw all those BATF officers closing 
> in, but in retrospect I can't see how their subsequent gunfight could be 
> expected to improve the situation.
> 
What laws did they circumvent?  Being "frightening" isn't a crime.  Some people
are afraid of young Black males.  That doesn't make the mere status of being a
young Black male a crime.

The BATF itself admitted leading off by throwing handgrenades.  There is no
evidence that they properly identified themselves as law enforcement 
personnel.  Under those circumstances, other persons have been found to be
acting within their legal rights to exercise self defense against unidentified
armed intruders.

>     At this point I place little or no credibility on any of the charges 
> of child abuse or molestation, but I would remind you that the Branch 
> Davidians aren't the only ones burying their dead.
> 
The charges are irrlevant anyway, since the BATF has absolutely no jurisdiction
in such matters anyway.  Of course that hasn't stopped them from making other
such spurious charges, such as the existence of mythical "meth labs".  Of
course they whole "cult" thing indicates the level of contempt that they have
for the 1st amendment.

> >sure they were crazy, no dought about it, but what did they do wrong? 
> 
>     They attempted to stage an armed resistance to federal authorities 
> under conditions that placed dozens of unarmed and innocent people in the 
> line of fire. 
> 
That armed resistance, at least initially, may well have been LEGAL.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55471
From: bd474@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill McDonald)
Subject: Re: HB 1776 passes the Texas House!


In a previous article, dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) says:

>
>From memory, today's Houston Chronicle (27 April 1993) reported that
>HB 1776 PASSED in the Texas House of Representatives with (approximately,
>this is from memory) 95 votes for and 45 votes against.

What does this bill do?

>However, in an effort to go into CYA (that's cover your ass) mode,
>they wrote the bill in such a way as to make the law subject to a
>statewide referendum in November.  However, the paper reported that
>this is actually unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution, which
>only allows referendums for constitutional amendments, not for plain
>old laws.
>
>If the court does not permit the referendum the bill will probably
>go into effect with little fanfare.
>
>All of the above is subject to the Texas Senate's voting for
>the bill as well.  Time to start calling the state senators now!!
>
>Daryl
>             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
>               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura
>

McD
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bill McDonald                | "Le coeur a sas raisons que la raison ne
St. Louis, MO                |  connait point" -- "The heart has its
wm2237@rapa1!texbell.sbc.com |  reasons that reason cannot understand"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55472
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: My sig


My sig has generated more mail than any of my posts.

Robin Hood is a school financing plan wherein property rich school districts
will have a portion of their tax revenue taken from them and given to property
poor districts.  The laudable plan is to equalize the per student spending. 
IMHO, however, it is a disaster waiting to happen.  Taxes will go up in 50% of
the districts and we will lose control of how OUR tax money is spent.  It
penalizes districts that have excelled.

And the election is Saturday. Along with city council, school board and the
unfinished Senate term.  And after I exercise one right, I'm going to exercise
another!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55473
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


Gun clubs:
If you are a member you CAN borrow weapons....(Suprised??)
You are supposed to train with a .22 for the 6 months, THEN
you can start with anything bigger.

Drivers licence:
Forgot that USA is THE land of cars.....
Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy.
Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......
But we think this is acceptable because a car is NOT a toy, and
bad drivers tend to hurt OTHERS.
(If you are really bad, you WON'T get a lincence!)

Abuse by the goverment:
This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should
get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

Guns 'n Criminals:
MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.
And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe),
we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.

Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!
Someone said that if we 'ban' guns we'd have to ban cars to, because they 'kill' to...
I don't think we should argue on this one..... ;)

The issue (I hope..):
I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem.
Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)

I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia:
They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them
to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.

If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
it's the 'axer' ??
(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)

Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

Don't flame the Englishmen because of Northern Irland, they have gun control that works
(in England) and fonds from USA are one of the reasons why IRA can bomb innocents...
(Something about throwing stones in glass houses...)
Don't flame them because of what to (three?) children did either.
(Can an Jugoslav have an oppinion on guns or even peace??) (YES!)

(My numbers about crime rates after restrictions on shot-guns are from the police
and the Statistisk Sentralbyraa) (understood that one Sorenson??)

LAST WORD:
Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if you want to protect 
your citicens.



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55474
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

As quoted from <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:

> The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
> you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

Kind of sounds like Plessy v. Ferguson, huh?  Of course as in that case,
things change, huh?

> Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
> are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
> be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
> 
No, if your little fantasy comes to pass, the country will have gone
TOWARD the KKK.  You're of course being a little disengenuous.  Violent
solutions are never passe FOR THE GOVERNMENT and CRIMINALS (who frequently)
cannot be distinguished).

"Avoid situations which encourage criminals"?  You mean don't be a woman?
Don't be Black?  Don't be gay?  I'm quite certain that having a surfeit of
unarmed victims will discourage your beloved KKK from engaging in "violent
solutions"....


-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55475
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: The Real Reason Politicians Want Guns Confiscated

Politicians want to eliminate private ownership of guns before the
general public starts violently resisting the tax increases needed
to fund the federal government as an ever higher percentage of tax
revenue goes to pay interest on the national debt (currently 57 cents
out of every tax dollar collected and rising).

-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55476
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: Repeat violent criminals--is reform often

In article 23303@husc3.harvard.edu, kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:
> 
> 
> From the Boston Globe, Thursday April 22 1993
> 
> p. 44
> 
> Walpole man, 32, guilty in rape
> 
> Kenne, N.H. -- A Walpole man
> charged with kidnapping a
> mother of two from her home, then
> raping and beating her, has pleaded 
> guilty.  Roger Santaw Jr. also plead-
> ed guilty to an attempted escape
> from Cheshire County jail last win-
> ter.  Santaw, 32 is scheduled to be
> sentenced next week.  The rape last
> fall came six months after Santaw
> was released from prision, where
> he spent 15 years for a rape he commit-
> ted when he was 16.  (AP)
> 
> 
>  
> [end of article]
> 
> Any reactions?  Did he do enough time?  What should his penalty
> be?  
> 
> BTW, Walpole is a town in Massachusetts.  Of course, New
> hampshire is close by.
> J. Case Kim
> kim39@husc.harvard.edu
> 


   Some women might say, "Death".  How about "life, with no hope of parole"?

   David N. Bixler
   Auburn University         All standard disclaimers apply


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55482
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Bomb Laws (Was: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!)

In article <C64CpI.M1F@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
> ...
>The primary purpose of fertilizer is not to explode or kill
>people.  Maybe just a law saying you cannot use this stuff
>to make a bomb would be good?

  Even better, let's pass a law making it illegal to kill people
with bombs of *any* sort.

--henry schaffer

P.S. Thanks for explaining the primary purpose of fertilizer.  
Now I can stop worrying about the World Trade Towers bombing.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55483
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Why are we being censored in a free America? This node specificaly

In article <1993Apr23.072224.13478@mixcom.mixcom.com> you write:
#
# Which Article of the Constitution gives me the right of revolution if things
# seem to be going cockeyed??
#
# Hmmm...
# --
# Peter G. White, President, Synthesis 93 Inc.
# Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
# Peter.White@mixcom.com


Dunno if you'll find it in the Constitution, but that other document of American
liberty, that kids are taught to hallow in school, is the Declaration of
Independence.  That document is in fact a justification not just for the right
if revolution, but of the DUTY of revolution by the people, once the government
gets too oppressive.  It is a very radical document, and I recommend all
Americans... especially those in office... read it once a year.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55484
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

>
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:37:34 GMT, R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu wrote:
>
>>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
>> ages 14 and under.
>
>From the rkba archive, "rkba.004":
>
>   "Total firearm deaths for children (<1 through 14) at 587 (1988) is
>    one of the SMALLEST causes of deaths in children. Cars, falls,
>    burns, drowning, food ingestion are all much larger cause of
>    deaths (7,988)."
>
>So, firearms are the 6th leading cause, after drowning and choking on
>food (at least for 1988).
 
Sorry Charles...According to the National Safety Council, ACCIDENT FACTS,1991
"In 1990, gun accidents were the fifth-leading cause of accidental death
for children ages 14 and under."
 
>> I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
>> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
>> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
>
>The difference is that a rational person would address the leading
>cause _first_, and address the lesser causes later.
>
 That thinking is so screwed up, I don't even know how to respond to it.
A rational person would concentrate on motor vehicle deaths, and not attempt
to affect childhood falls, drownings, gunshot injuries, etc.????????????????
So this so called rational person, (using your definition), if he or she
were attempting to affect the leading causes of deaths for adults aged 25
through 64 would only worry about cancer, and would not try to decrease
LESSER CAUSES such as heart disease, injuries, stroke, suicide, liver disease,
chronic lung disease, homicide, HIV infection, or diabetes.  Oh, okay Charles,
that makes a lot of sense.  I tell you what Charles, I'll call the Heart
Foundation and suicide hotlines and tell them that they are not acting rational
and that they can all go home because they are addressing the LESSER CAUSES
of death.  And you call your local police homicide department, liver foundation
and diabetes foundation and tell them to stop addressing these lesser causes.
Please, quit wasting my time with this silly shit Charles.
 
I've got an idea Charles, why don't you start a talk.politics.caraccidents
group or talk.politics.fall group?  This is talk.politics.guns.  Don't
confuse the issue.  Just because a social problem may not claim as many
victims as another, we should not try to address it?  I don't agree.
I'm not posting to t.p.g to debate the supposed severity of causes of
childhood deaths. I am really getting frigging sick of having to respond
to the irrational statements of people who assume that someone who
wants to discuss youth gun violence or unintentional youth gun deaths
is trying to make a political issue out of it.
 
 
>> I assumed that any humane
>> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
>> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
>
>A "humane person" who keeps a firearm in the house with a 10 year old
>would also teach this child how to safely handle the firearm;
>Ignorance is our greatest enemy.
>
 Again Charles, you tend to confuse the issue and take things out of context
for your own purposes.  The statement that you responded to above is actually
in reference to a previous post by another person who, like you, expressed
concern over making youth gun violence a priority.  I guess, maybe Humane
person and Rational person could be interchangeable huh? Both would be defined
as "a person who only addresses the social problem that causes the greatest
number of childhood deaths."  If that is the case, I'm extremely glad that I
am inhumane and irrational.
 
>>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What _other_ sources of information do you have which confirms their
>data?  These folks are well known for misrepresenting the facts.
>Perhaps you can verify their data with the Uniform Crime Report...
>
Sorry Charles, the FBI Uniform Crime Report is WELL known for misrepresenting
the facts.  But if you insist, according to the 1990 UCR, "Firearm murders
of youngsters 19 and under increased 125 percent between 1984 and 1990"
 
Is the National Center for Health Statistics good enough for you?  They state
that "Every day, 12 American children ages 19 and under are killed in gun
accidents, suicides, and homicides.  Many more are wounded".
 
Or how about the National Pediatric Trauma Registry?  They say "Gunshot
wounds to children ages 16 and under nearly doubled in major urban areas
between 1987 and 1990."
 
Do you also doubt the American Academy of Pediatrics Charles???  They state
that "Gunshot wounds among children in urban areas increased 300% from
1986 to 1988."
 
Charles, I hope you don't need to be convinced that youth are increasingly
victims of gun injuries and that they have easy access to guns.  If you don't
realize this fact, (I don't care if you go by CDC or FBI data, or if you go
into the homes, schools, and streets where these kids are and take a poll
by yourself), I'm not going to bother to try to convince you.  Its obvious
that you have ruled out any idea of discussing this issue in a sane fashion
and that you are so focused on trying to make this a gun control and political
discussion.  I really don't want to do that.
 
>> or the Centers for Disease Control.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>They have firearm statistics?  Are firearms a disease?
>
 Charles, it's obvious that you know nothing about the CDC.
They don't just study cancer and heart disease.  I've got news for you,
interpersonal gun violence IS an epidemic.  In 1984, Surgeon General
C. Everett Koop declared that gun violence is as much a public health
problem as cancer, heart disease, or auto accidents.
 
>> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
>
>In "the lives of youths" or in their schools?  I know a number of
>youths who have firearms present "in their lives".  Is is quite
>appropriate to teach children to safely handle firearms (this is a
>"presence", right?).  What are you trying to say?  This innuendo
>reminds me of listening to Bill Clinton.
 
WHO THE F**K SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TEACHING CHILDREN TO SAFELY HANDLE
FIREARM CHARLES??? In the future, if you are going to post to t.p.g and jump
into a previous discussion, please read the entire posting, not just 1
sentence that you decide to respond to. What the hell are you saying here???
You're wasting time and space trying to make a political and gun control
issue out of a discussion that isn't.
>
>> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
>> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.
>
>I wouldn't trust their statistics without *independent* verification.
>
>> The CDC estimates
>> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
>> in 1990.
>
>Based on CPHV statistics?  Based on UCR?...  Based on what?
>
>> The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
>> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
>> to guns in their home.
>
>Therefore?...  What is the purpose of this claim?
>
Charles buddy, I'm getting really tired of this.  Do you live on the planet
Mars???  As a physicist, I realize that you probably don't come into contact
with many youth, but I REALLY think you need to make a trip to your local
urban high school and discover the joy of guns in schools.  In addition
spend a few minutes talking to these kids.  Ask them if they have ever heard
gunshots in their neighborhoods, whether they know anyone who has been shot,
whether they know anyone who has a gun, whether they have ever held a gun, and
whether they themselves have ever been shot.
 
Believe me Charles, THAT will be your *INDEPENDENT* VERIFICATION.
 
###########################################################################
Rodney W. Thomas                    R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Urban Child Research Center
Cleveland State University
Cleveland,OH. 44115
###########################################################################
>--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55485
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr27.154255.18227@synapse.bms.com>
hambidge@bms.com writes:
 
>
>In article <C65E95.D7u@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr27.071223.3508@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes:
>>>James P. Dusek (dusek@rtsg.mot.com) writes:
>>>> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>>>
>>>>     They did, they used CS that would NOT harm children.
>>>
>>>i REALLY hope you're being sarcastic here, but i've seen so many
>>>stupid things said in complete seriousness that it's hard to tell
>>>without a smiley.
>>>
>>>do you actually believe there's a CS gas that can discriminate based
>>>on the age of the target?
>>
>>Yes, the gas used was a mild concentration or formulation compared to
>>the 'heavy duty' stuff.
>
>You know this for a fact? How do you know? Or, are you just making
>things up for flamebait?
>
The FBI has claimed from the begining that it wasn't standard use
tear gas. How do you know it was? Or do you just assume it was
for flamebait?
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55486
From: wondertr@fraser.sfu.ca (wondertree learning center)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the FREE State,
the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.

I know that as a Canadian, I don't have much to stand on...

But, I think that the right to KEEP and BEAR arms is very important to
maintaining a FREE society. The America is still the most enviable
place to live on this Earth (by anyone with their head on straight)
and will stay that way only if more people stand-up PUBLICLY for what
they believe!!

Remember, that if you stand for nothing... You'll fall for anything...
including "well-meaning" socialists, they did in Canada.

later
TED


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55487
From: oldham@icd.ab.com (Daniel R. Oldham)
Subject: More propaganda

Just saw on CNN that the independent team that examined the Waco fire
and reported that it was started inside by the BDs is now under question.

The attoneys for the BD's are claiming that it's not an impartial team
for the team leader is the wife of one of the BATF agents. HA!

The goverment continues with it's propaganda.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-	This is not a secure line.                                       -
-	Daniel R. Oldham			oldham@heron.icd.ab.com  -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55488
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: No cost to gun waiting periods???

In article <1rhr7s$fg1@access.digex.net>
carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron) writes:

>I'm not sure were this thread has been before i popped in, but I've never
>thought of waiting periods as having anything to do with training or
>competence. I just can't imagin any valid reason for having a gun that
>can't wait a few days.

You can't think of any valid reason to own a gun that can't wait?

Either you have a very limited imagination or a strange definition of
the word "valid".

Here are a few reasons you might want a gun *right now*:

You're a Korean greengrocer in LA and a riot has just started in a
nearby neighborhood.

You've received a death threat.

Your SO has just broken your arm and you fear for your life if you
stay with him and he's said he'll kill you if you leave him.

A psychopath is breaking into people's houses in your neighborhood and
robbing and killing people inside.

A violent mugger is operating on the route you have to take to get to
your night job.

There are lots of dangers you might be in that won't wait for the
waiting period for you to purchase a gun.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55489
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: HB 1776 passes the Texas House!

HB 1776 is for Concealed Carry in Texas.  It provides for licensing
citizens to carry concealed firearms if they pass an instruction
course (30 hours, if I remember correctly), pay a $140 fee (good for
4 years), and meet several other criteria related to personal
character, etc.

While I don't agree with all of the criteria, I feel it's high time
that pro-gun types fight the same way HCI et al. do -- by getting
incremental changes in the law.  

Daryl

             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
document_id: 55490
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C65E95.D7u@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1993Apr27.071223.3508@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes:
>>James P. Dusek (dusek@rtsg.mot.com) writes:
>>> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>>
>>> 	They did, they used CS that would NOT harm children.
>>
>>i REALLY hope you're being sarcastic here, but i've seen so many 
>>stupid things said in complete seriousness that it's hard to tell 
>>without a smiley.
>>
>>do you actually believe there's a CS gas that can discriminate based
>>on the age of the target?
>
>Yes, the gas used was a mild concentration or formulation compared to
>the 'heavy duty' stuff.

      I heard it was delivered in high concentration to counteract the
      wind at 30 mph blowing it away.  What is your source for the
      quoted low concentration?



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53293
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

hambidge@bms.com wrote:
: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
: 
: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.

: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
: latter.  Simple enuff?

For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

			handgun homicides/population
			----------------------------
	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
Your choice.
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53294
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
: > many people with baseball bats.

: You just can't compare this way!  All homicides must be shown, per capita, not  
: just handguns.  The availability of them in the USA makes them the preferred  
: murder weapon, but ban them, and some other weapon will step in as the  
: favorite.

As a "favorite", sure.  As lethal, not likely.  A study of violence in
Chicago produced this table:

		Percentage of Reported Gun and Knife Attacks
			    Resulting in Death
			    
	Weapon				Deaths As Percentage of Attacks
	---------------------------------------------------------------
	Knives (16,518 total attacks)		 2.4
	Guns (6,350 total attacks)		12.2

	Source: Firearms and Violence in American Life
	
It might be contended that if gun murderers were deprived of guns
that they would find a way to kill as often with knives.  If this were
so, knife attacks in cities where guns were widely used in homicide
would be expected to show a low fatality rate, and knife attacks in
cities where guns were not so widely used (like Vancouver) would show
a higher fatality rate.  But the Nat'l Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence Task Force analyzed the data and found this
not to be the case.  It appeared to them that as the number of knife
attacks increased in relation to the number of firearms attacks
(which presumably happened where guns were less available to assailants),
the proportion of FATAL knife attacks did NOT increase relative to the
proportion of gun attacks.  In fact, the reverse was true.

What was found was that most homicides did not show a determination on
the part of the assailant to kill.  Fatalities caused by knife tended
to show a single-mindedness on the part of the assailant to do grave
physical injury: multiple stabs wounds, wounds concentrated about the
head neck and chest, etc.  Most gun homicides did not show this
pattern.  Rather, more fatal attacks were committed during a moment of
rage and not the focused intent to kill the victim.

	Source: Report on Firearms and Violence

: Then, since England != USA (my ancestors left because of the oppression) you  
: must compare England before strict gun laws to England after strict gun laws to  
: be able to draw any meaning at all.  England has essentially legalized drugs,  
: so there are no drug gangs battling for turf, etc., there.  If you drop out the  
: drug related killings here, the USA would look a whole lot more peaceful.

There are a lot of factors which make a difference.  Actually, I'm not
fond of making ANY kind of social parallels between Europeans and
Americans. There are more cultural, beahvioral and economic
differences between us than similarities.  I just sort of found
myself backed into that corner over the last couple of weeks.  I
don't think we could ever attain the low levels of European violent
crime here in the US, whether we banned guns or required every
law-abiding citizen to carry a loaded Uzi.

On the other hand, we can draw lessons from neighbors who are more
culturally similar, namely the Canadians.  In fact, an exhaustive,
seven-year study has already been done of the respective crime rates
of Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington... cities
with roughly the same population, urban economy, geography
and crime but with decidedly different approaches to gun control.

In Seattle, handguns may be purchased legally for self-defense.  After
a 30-day waiting period, a permit can be obtained to carry a concealed
weapon.  The recreational use of handguns is minimally restricted.

In Vancouver, self-defense is not considered a valid or legal reason
to purchase a handgun.  Concealed weapons are not permitted.
Recreational uses of handguns (target shooting, collecting) are
regulated by the province.  Purchase of a handgun requires a
restricted-weapons permit.  A permit to carry may be obtained in
order to transport the weapon to licensed shooting clubs.  Handguns
transported by vehicle must be stored in the trunk in a locked box.
In short, gun control but not unreasonably so.

Both cities aggressively enforce their gun laws.  Convictions for
gun-related offenses carry similar penalties.  The researchers
studied all cases of robbery, assault (simple and aggravated),
burglary and homicides occurring in Seattle and Vancouver from
1/1/80 to 12/31/86. In defining the cases, they used the same
standard: the FBI's Unified Crime Report.

Results: during the seven-year study the annual rate of robbery in
Seattle was found to be only slightly higher than that in Vancouver
(1.09 / 1.11).  Burglaries occurred at nearly identical rates (.99).
18,925 assaults were recorded in Seattle versus 12,034 in
Vancouver.  The risk of being a victim of a simple assault in
Seattle was found to be only slightly higher than Vancouver (1.18 /
1.15) and the risk of aggravated assault was also slightly higher
(1.16 / 1.12).  However, when aggravated assaults were subdivided by
weapon and the mechanism of assault, a clear pattern emerged.
Although both cities reported nearly identical rates of aggravated
assault involving knives and other dangerous weapons, firearms were
far more likely to be used in Seattle.  In fact, 7.7 times as often.

Over the seven-year study, 388 homicides occurred in Seattle
(11.3 per 100,000) vs. 204 homicides in Vancouver (6.9 per 100,000).
After adjustment for differences in age and sex among the populations,
the relative risk of being a victim of homicide in Seattle, as
compared to Vancouver, was found to be 1.63.

When homicides were subdivided by the mechanism of death, the rate
of homicide by knives and other weapons (excluding firearms) in
Seattle was found to be almost identical to that in Vancouver.
Virtually ALL of the increased risk of death in Seattle was due to
a more than fivefold higher rate of homicide by firearms.  Handguns
accounted for roughly 85% of homicides involving firearms.  Handguns
were 4.8 times more likely to be used in homicides in Seattle than
in Vancouver.

The authors of the report also investigated "legally justifiable"
homicides (self-defense).  Only 32 such homicides occurred during
the seven-year study, 11 of which were committed by police.  Only
21 cases of civilians acting in self-defense occurrred: 17 in
Seattle and 4 in Vancouver.  Only 13 involved firearms.  After
excluding these cases, there was virtually no impact on these
earlier findings.

-------

This is, I feel, a very fair report.  One might even make the
argument that it is biased against Canada as a whole because
Vancouver reports annual rates of homicide two to three times
that of Ottawa, Calgary and Toronto while Seattle reports
annual homicide rates only half to two-thirds that of NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Critics of handgun control always argue that limited legal access
to handguns will have little effect on the rates of homicide because
persons intent on killing others will only try harder to acquire a
gun or will kill by other means.  This report shows differently.
If the rate of homicide in a community were influenced more by
the strength of intent than by the availability of weapons, we
could expect the rate of homicides by weapons other than guns to
be higher in Vancouver than in Seattle.  However, during the study
interval, Vancouver's rate of homicide by weapons other than guns
was not significantly higher than that in Seattle, suggesting that
few would-be assailants switched to homicide by other methods.

As well, ready access to handguns for self-defense by law-abiding
citizens was not endorsed in this report.  Although Seattle did
experience a higher rate of firearm death for self-defense, these
cases accounted for less than 4% of the homicides in both cities
during the course of the study period.  And, as was reported,
Seattle apparently didn't enjoy relief from any crime category
over Vancouver because citizens may legally arm themselves for
self-defense.

	Heavily quoted source: Handgun Regulation, Crime,
	Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities.

	John H. Sloan, Arthur L. Kellerman, Donald T. Reay,
	James A. Ferris, Thomas Koepsall, Frederick P. Rivara,
	Charles Rice, Laurel Gray and James LoGerfo
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53295
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

Steve Kao (k@hprnd.rose.hp.com) wrote:
: Frank Crary posted:
: : Sure, but the difference in per-capita crime rates predates the
: : gun control laws: The homicide rate in England was a tenth that
: : of America, back when anyone in England could buy a gun without
: : any paperwork at all.

: Steve Manes asks:
: > Got a citation for this?

: Colin Greenwood from Scotland Yard did a study that showed that gun
: control has had no effect on crime or murder rates in the UK.  His book,
: _Firearms_Controls_, has been published in London by Keegan Paul (name
: may be misspelled).

Others dispute that, like Richard Hofstadter, <America As A Gun Culture>,
and Newton and Zimring's <Firearms and Violence in American Life>.  But,
again, statistics between too dissimilar cultures are difficult to
quantify.

I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).

If Mr. Greenwood believes that Brits are much too sober and
coordinated to make such mistakes I'd like to introduce him to my
friend, Amanda from Brighton.  I used to have some pretty nice
crystal in my place until she moved in.  I've gotten used to the
snide comments from guests about the clown motif on my rubber
wine glasses.

-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53296
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Vancouver/Seattle Study Critiques


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Open letter by Dr. Paul H. Blackman, Research Coordinator for
NRA-ILA. NRA Official Journal 1/89.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear sir:

By now, we are used to the New England Journal of Medicine's publication
of small-scale studies related to firearms from which conclusions are
drawn which are quantum leaps from the data, followed by announcements of 
momentus "scientific" findings. These are regularly released to the press
without the caveats which riddle the conclusory paragraphs, and
often accompanied by an editorial calling attention to the findings.
Generally, while they at least present a few interesting data, however
meaningless, the studies misinterpret statistics, and ignore or belittle
serious studies by criminologists.

The latest effort -- "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide:
A Tale of Two Cities," by J.H. Sloan, et al., with the accompanying 
editorial, "Firearms Injuries: A Call for Science," by two employees
of the Centers for Disease Control (November 10), however, is an insult
to the intelligence of any serious scholar in any field and have so few
data and so many flaws that I feel compelled to write at some length
to call attention to various major and minor failings, in no particular
order.

	1. The authors misleadingly cite Wright, et al. (Ref. 1) to 
	support the statement that "some have argued that restricting
	access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate
	of homicide." Wright, et al., in fact studied and rejected that
	contention.
	
	2. The authors pretended that Vancouver and Seattle are very
	similar cities with similar economic circumstances, histories,
	demographic characteristics, and the like. In fact, the cities
	are very different with very different demographic characteristics
	which appear to explain completely the higher homicide rate in
	Seattle. Both cities are over three-forths non-Hispanic white
	and *the non-Hispanic white homicide rates are reported to be
	the same in Seattle and Vancouver*. It is the different back-
	grounds, problems, circumstances, and behaviors of the various
	ethnic minorities which explain the difference in homicide.
	
	3. The authors pretend they are evaluating Canada's gun law,
	compared to Washington State's. But they do not examine at all
	the situation in Vancouver prior to the gun law taking effect
	in 1978. As it happens, in the three years prior to that (1975-
	1977), Vancouver averaged 23 homicides per year, one-eighth
	involving handguns, (Ref. 2) and in the seven years of the NEJM
	article there were 29 homicides per year, one-eigth involving
	handguns. Surely even the medical profession recognizes that
	one must look to see the prior situation was before concluding
	that a change made a difference? Would a physician conclude that
	a patient was benefiting from eating oat bran muffin each day
	for seven years because his cholesterol level was 200 without
	at least seeing if it was 180 before he started the regimen?
	
	4. The authors pick two medium-sized cities to evaluate a national
	gun law. Nothing can be learned from such a tiny and arbitrarily
	selected sample. Seattle appears to have been selected because
	it was convienient for the authors rather than for any scientific
	reason. Would physicians call something a scientific study which
	involved one experimental subject and one dissimilar "control"?
	Had different arbitrarily selected cities been chosen, opposite
	"scientific" conclusions would follow: Vancouver's homicide
	rate *exceeds* that of such "wild west" cities in Texas as
	El Paso, Corpus Christi, Austen, and, in Colorado, Colorado
	Springs. (Ref. 3)
	
	5. The authors fail to clearly demonstrate that firearms or
	handguns "are far more commonly owned in Seattle than in
	Vancouver." They use two surrogate approaches in pretending
	to study the availability of firearms/handguns. The first is
	an apples-and-oranges effort to compare the number of carry
	permits in Seattle to the number of registered handguns in
	Vancouver. But the number clearly understates the number of
	handguns in Seattle, and counts primarily *protective* handgun
	owners. The second, however, tells nothing about the number
	of handguns in Vancouver, and counts *non-protective* handguns
	for the most part. Where is it difficult to obtain handguns
	legally for protection, registration figures are
	meaningless. There are 66,000 registered handguns in New York
	City (New York Daily News, Sept. 27, 1987). Comparing the two,
	that method suggests about 930 handguns per 100,000 population
	in New York City compared to 960 in Vancouver, meaning Vancouver
	has a greater "prevalence of weapons" than New York City.
	
	The second method of measuring gun density is "Cook's gun
	prevalence index, a previously validated measure of intercity
	differences." But the validation was by Cook of his own
	theory. (Ref. 4) Normally, second opinions are sought from a
	different doctor. More significantly, the Cook index is
	based on the average of the percentage of firearms involvement
	in suicide and homicide. So the authors are basically taking
	a measure of misuse. Unsurprisingly, gun misuse in homicide
	(42% in Seattle, 14% in Vancouver) is related to gun misuse in
	homicide plus suicide, divided by two (41% in Seattle, 12% in
	Vancouver). The authors are not measuring the relative avail-
	ability of firearms, or of handguns, in Seattle and
	Vancouver.
	
	6. The authors misstate the laws of both Washington and
	Canada. They neglect to mention the significant fact that
	Washington has a waiting period and background check prior to
	the purchase of a handgun, and that provisions exist in Canadian
	law for owning and carrying handguns for personal
	protection. The authors also make it appear that it is more
	difficult to get a handgun legally in Canada than is actually
	the case.
	
	7. The authors ignore all other factors which might explain
	the differences in crime rate, beyond some vague mention of the
	penalities provided by law and the roughest of estimates of 
	clearence for one particular offense -- homicide involving a
	firearm. There is no measure of: the differences in the number
	of law enforcement officers; their aggressiveness in making
	arrests for gun law violations in the two jurisdictions; arrest
	rates for other offenses; conviction rates; actual sentences
	imposed for gun-related crimes, violent crimes without guns,
	or gun law violations; or incarceration rates. Whereas social
	scientists would attempt to measure and hold for such differences,
	the authors of the NEJM "tale of two cities" fail even to mention
	most factors related to crime control.
	
	8. The authors dismiss claims that handguns are an effective
	means for protection unless the criminal is killed. Such is not
	the case. Criminologists (Ref. 5-8) have found that almost
	650,000 Americans annually use handguns for protection from
	criminals, and that using a gun for protection reduces the
	liklihood that a crime -- rape, robbery, assault -- will be
	completed by the criminal and reduces the likelihood of injury
	to the victim. It is interesting, nonetheless, that the authors
	reported the same number (four) of civilian justifiable homicides
	without firearms in each city but that less restrictive Seattle
	accounted for 100% of the reported civilian justifiable homicides
	involving firearms.
	
	9. The Centers for Disease Control, which funded the "study,"
	editorially praised the paper, (Ref. 9) saying it "applied
	scientific methods to examine a focus of contention betweeb
	advocates of stricter regulation of firearms, particularly
	handguns." There is nothing in the paper which could possibly
	be mistaken for "scientific methods" by a sociologists or
	criminologists. The Vancouver-Seattle "study" is the equivolent
	of testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by finding
	two ordinary-looking middle-class white males, one aged 25
	and the other 40, and without first taking their vital signs,
	administering the experimental drug to the 25-year-old while
	giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking their blood pressure
	and, on finding the younger man had a lower blood pressure, 
	announcing in a "special article" a new medical breakthrough.
	It would be nice to think that such a "study" would neither be
	funded by the CDC or printed by the NEJM.
	
	Since the longstanding anti-gun biases of the NEJM and the CDC
	make them willing to present shoddy research as "scientific
	breakthroughs" in "special articles" and editorials relating
	to firearms, we are obligated to correct the record by notifying
	the news media and those with congressional and executive oversight
	over the activities of the Centers for Disease Control about
	the distortions contained in "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults,
	and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities" and "Firearm Injuries: A Call
	for Science." Clearly, all scientific standards go by the wayside
	whenever the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine seize
	an opportunity to attack firearms ownership in America.
	
				REFERENCES

1. Wright JD, et al, *Weapons, crime and violence in America*: a literature
review and research agenda, Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice,
1981.

2. Scarff E. *Evaluation of the Canadian gun control legislation*: final
report. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, 1983,
p. 87.

3. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, *Crime in
the United States*, 1987 (Uniform Crime Reports). Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1988

4. Cook PJ. *The role of firearms in violent crime*. In: Wolfgang M.
Weiner NA, eds. *Criminal violence*, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982:
236-90, pp. 270-271.

5. Kleck G. *Crime control through the private use of armed force*.
Social Problems 1988: 35:1-21.

6. Ziegenhagen EA, Brosnan D. *Victim responses to robbery and crime
control policy*. Criminology. 1985: 23:675-695.

7. Lizotte AJ. *Determinants of completeing rape and assault*. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology. 1986: 2:203-217.

8. Sayles SL, Kleck G. *Rape and resistance*. Paper at the American Society
of Criminology convention, Chicago, 1988.

9. Mercy JA, Houk VN. *Firearm injuries: a call for science*. 
NEJM: 319:1283-1285.
==========================================================================

                             GUNS AND SPUTTER
                            by James D. Wright
          (from July 1989 issue of REASON, Free Minds & Free Markets)

      Someone once wrote: "Statistics are like a bikini.  What they real is
   suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."  The problem is demonstrated
   by the most recent entry in a long line of scientific research purporting
   to show a causal link between gun availability and homicide.  Funded by
   the federal government and published last year in the New England Journal
   of Medicine, the study compared homicide rates in Seattle and Vancouver and
   suggested that a handgun ban "may reduce the rate of homicide in a 
   community."
      The nine medical doctors who published "Handgun Regulations, Crime,
   Assaults, and Homicide" essentially reasoned in three steps: (1) Despite
   many historical, social, and demographic similarities, (2) Vancouver
   has a markedly lower homicide rate (3) because its stricter gun regulations
   make guns less available.  The second step in their reasoning seems
   indisputable.  The overall homicide rate in Seattle (for the period
   1980-86) was 11.3 per 100,000 popuation, compared with 6.9 in Vancouver.
   Homicide is definitely more common in Seattle.  The question then becomes,
   Why?
      The authors present a believable although not entirely accurate case
   to support the notion, as claimed in the third step of their reasoning,
   that Vancouver's handgun regulations are much more stringent.  But their
   evidence on the difference in gun *availabilty* is indirect and 
   unpersuasive; indeed, they acknowledge that direct evidence on the point
   does not exist.  They offer two fragments of inferential data in support
   of the claim that guns are more available in Seattle; but for all anybody
   knows as a matter of empirical fact, the opposite could be true.  We
   are therefore being asked, at the conclusion of the study, to believe that
   a difference in gun availability explains the difference in homicide rates
   when a difference in gun availability has not itself been established.
      Indeed, the situation is even more troublesome.  The first of the two
   indirect bits of evidence is a difference between the number of concealed-
   weapons permits issued in Seattle and the number of restricted-weapons
   permits issued in Vancouver.  Differences between the two cities in the
   permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable.
*     The second bit of evidence is "Cook's gun prevalence index," which stands
*  at 41 percent for Seattle but only 12 percent for Vancouver.  Cook's index
*  however, does not measure the relative prevalence of gun ownership in 
*  various cities.  It measures gun misuse--it is an average of the percentage
*  of homicides and suicides involving firearms.
*     In the present case, the index shows only that in homicides and suicides,
*  firearms are more likely to be used in Seatte than in Vancouver.  To take
*  Cook's index as a measure of general firearms availability, it must be
*  assumed that the proportional involvement of guns in homicides and suicides
*  is directly related to their relative availability in the general 
*  population.  But this is exactly what the authors are seeking to prove. To
*  assume what one is seeking to prove, then to "prove" it on the basis of
*  that assumption does ot constitute scientific evidence for anything.
      Even if we were to grant, on the basis of no compelling evidence, that
   guns are less common in Vancouver, we might still question what causes what.
   The authors attribute Seattle's higher crime rate to a higher rate of gun
   ownership.  But it might well be argued that low crime or homicide rates
   reduce the motivation for average citizens to obtain guns--in other words,
   that crime rates explain the variation in gun ownership, not vice versa.
      In fact, it was once commonly argued that Great Britain's low rate of
   violent crime was a function of that nation's strict gun laws and the 
   consequent low rate of gun ownership--until British researcher Colin 
   Greenwood found that Great Britain had enjoyed low rates of violent crime
   for many decades before strict firearms controls were enacted.  To invoke
   an ancient methodological saw, correlation is not cause.
      Nor do the problems with this study end with its lack of direct data
   on gun ownership.  The authors say Seattle and Vancouver are "similar in
   many ways," implying that they differ mainly in gun availability, gun-law
   stringency, and crime rates.  This is an evident attempt to establish
   the ceteris paribus condition of a sound scientific analysis--that "all
   else is equal" among things being compared.
*     Clearly the two cities are similar in some ways, but a closer look 
*  reveals differences in ways that are relevant to their respective crime
*  or homicide rates.  The cities are closely matched in what percentage
*  of their population is white (79 percent and 76 percent).  But Seattle
*  is about 10 percent black, while Vancouver is less than 0.5 percent.
*  Vancouver's minority population is overwhelmingly Asian.  So although the
*  authors show that th two cities are approximately comparable on a half-
*  dozen readily available demographic indicators, they have not shown
*  that all potentially relevant sources of variation have been ruled out.
*     In fact, the differences in racial compositions of the two cities is
*  particularly relevant in light of the study's breakdown of homicide rates
*  according to the race of the victim.  For the white majority, the homicide
*  rates are nearly identical--6.2 per 100,000 in Seattle, 6.4 in Vancouver.
*  The differing overall homicide rates in the two cities are therefore due
*  entirely to vastly different rates among racial minorities.  For blacks,
*  the observed difference in homicide rate is 36.6 to 9.5 and for Hispanics
*  26.9 to 7.9.  (Methodoligical complexities render the Asian comparison
*  problematic, but it too is higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.)  Racial
*  minorities are much more likely to be the victims of homicide in Seattle
*  than in Vancouver; the white majority is equally likely to be slain
*  in either city.
      Since the nearly 2:1 initial difference in homicide reates between the
   cities is due exclusively to 3:1 or 4:1 differences between minority 
   groups, it is fair to ask why postulated difference in "gun availability"
   (or gun-law strigency) would matter so dramatically to minorities but not
   matter at all to whites.  Can differential gun availability explain why
   blacks and Hispanics--but not whites--are so much more likely to be killed
   in Seattle than in Vancouver?  (Studies in the United States, incidentally,
   do not show large or consistent racial differences in gun ownership.)
      Or are other explanations more plausible?  Could the disparity between
   Canadian and American rates of poverty among racial minorities have 
   anything to do with it?  What are the relative rates of drug or alcohol 
   abuse?  Of homelessness among each cty's minority population?  (The city
   of Seattle runs the largest shelter for homeless men west of the 
   Mississippi.)  Unemployment among young, central-city, nonwhite men in the
   United States usually exceeds 40 percent.  What is the comparable Canadian
   percentage?
      The crucial point is that Canada and the United States differ in many
   ways, as do cities and population subgroups with the two countries.  Absent
   more detailed analysis, nearly any of these "many ways" might explain part
   or all of the difference in homicide rates.  In gross comparisons such
   as those between Seattle and Vancouver, all else is *not* equal.
*     The authors of this study acknowledge that racial patterns in homicide
*  result in a "complex picture."  They do not acknowledge that the ensuing
*  complexities seriously undercut the main thrust of their argument.  They
*  also acknowledge that "socio-economic status is probably an important
*  confounding factor in our comparison," remarking further that "blacks   
*  in Vancouver had a slightly higher mean income in 1981 than the rest of
*  Vancouver's population."  Given the evidence presented in the article,
*  it is possible that all of the difference in homicide rates between Seattle
*  and Vancouver results from greater proverty among Seattle's racial
*  minorities.  But the authors pay no further attention to this possibility,
*  since "detailed information about household incomes according to race
*  is not available for Vancouver."
      The largely insurmountable methodological difficulties confronted in 
   gross comparative studies of this sort can be illustrated with as simple
   example.  If one were to take all U.S. couties and compare them in terms
   of (1) pervalence of gun ownership and (2) crime or homicide rates, one 
   would find an astonishing pattern: Counties with more guns have less crime.
   Would one conclude from this evidence alone that guns actually reduce 
   crime?  Or would one insist that other variables also be taken into
   account?  In this example, the "hidden variable" is city size: Guns are
   more common in small towns and rural areas, whereas crime is a big-city
   problem.  If researchers failed to anticipate this variable, or lacked the
   appropriate data to examine its possible consequences, they coud be very
   seriously misled.  In the study at hand, the authors matched two cities
   for size but not for minority poverty rates or other hidden variables,
   and their results are impossible to interpret.
      In the editorial "Firearm Injuries: A Call for Science" accompanying
   the study, two officials from the Centers for Disease Control lauded the
   authors for applying "scientific methods" to a problem of grave public
   heath significance.  But in attempting to draw causal conclusions from
   nonexperimental research, the essence of scientific method is to anticipate
   plausible alternative explanations for the results and try to rule them
   out.  Absent such effort, the results may well seem scientific but are
   little more than polemics masquerading as serious research.  That this
   study is but one of a number of recent efforts--all employing practical
   identical research designs and published in leading scientific journals--
   is cause for further concern.

   [James D. Wright is professor of sociology at Tulane University.  He has
   researched extensively on the relationship of firearms and crime.]

Reason published monthly except combined August-September issue by the Reason
Foundation, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization.  Subscription rate: $24.00 
per year.

Reason Foundation
2716 Ocean Park Blvd.
Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA  90405

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53297
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Waco dates - are these coincidental?


The ATF agent interviewed on "Street Stories" reported that the raid was
ill planned, and went ahead even when they (the BD's) knew the ATF was 
coming. WHY?

I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it,
and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part
in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even 
suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the
context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda, 
as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof
might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests
for sufficient fire power. 

Important dates: 
Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban.
Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.	   

On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon
ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate
in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have
an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated
agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or some
group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were initially
at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent 
on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get 
ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued, 
even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top 
down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to
come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely.

...rich 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53298
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
>>Ever notice that people in these cases are always described by clever
>>handles such as "eccentric", "religious wackos", "gun nuts", "cultists",
>>"survivalists", etc. so the general public will *not* identify with them?

       The San Jose Mercury News described him as "a 61-year old retired
chemical engineer".

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53299
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

>hambidge@bms.com wrote:
>: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

>: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
>: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
>: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
>: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
>: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
>: 
>: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
>: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
>: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
>: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
>: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.

Killed by handgun, or killed?  If I'm dead, I don't much care if it
was by being shot or stabbed to death.

>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?

>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

>... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.
>-- 
>Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
>Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o

I don't think you can get an accurate indicator of how safe England is
compared to Switzerland by concentrating only on handgun murders and  
completely ignoring murders by other weapons, not to mention the rate of
other violent crimes.  If there are more guns in circulation, if follows
that more people will be killed with them 'cause they are available to
the person intent on committing a crime _regardless_ of whether they
have to do it with a gun, knife, or bare hands.  

The gun control lobby doesn't seem to understand this point.  If people
are intent on committing a crime, they will do it with whatever means
are available to them.  

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53300
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: WACO: The Militia Assembles


        Dumb move.  

        The smart move would be to sneak in someone with a TV camera
and video transmitter.  

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53301
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Gun Nuts and Holly Silva

In article <C4tsD1.1vA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1993Apr1.010834.4326@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>>Both the " Gun Nuts" and the gays are aggressively defensive and quite
>>hostile to any one trying to deprive them of their rights.  Just like
>>any group trying to protect their rights.
>
>The fallacy of this whole thing is that YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT IN JEAPARDY
>BY THESE POSTS.  

How can you say that?  I presume that you mean that talking about
restricting rights is not the same as restricting those rights.  Well,
arguing for those restrictions may lead to implementation, much
the same way as assault can lead to battery (legal definitions).

>Most t.p.g people and the homosexual groups won't even
>discuss the subject at all in a polite form.  The mere raising of a question
>as to why the rights are there or what exactly the 'right' encompasses
>bring shrill posts and angry/hostile traffic.  

Well, I can't speak for the homosexuals, but I've seen ALOT
of polite discussion on t.p.g.  Please, everyone, don't take
this guy's word, or mine for that matter, on it.  Read t.p.g.
for a while, and try to determine from which direction most of
the flameage originates.  If you post without flamebait, you
will generally receive reasoned responses.  True, there are
those who tend to lose their tempers quickly, as there are on
all newsgroups, but they really do feel their rights are in jeopardy.

Oh, and neat trick talking derisively about another newsgroup while
not crossposting to allow them to defend themselves.

>I think a lot of t.p.g people have very thin skin when it comes to 
>discussing these subjects.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

				Dave Schabel



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Schabel         | Opinions and comments contained herein are mine and  |
schabel@calspan.com  | do not necessarilly reflect those of Calspan Corp or |
Located in Western NY| its customers.                                       |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53302
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: ACLU (was Re: Waco Shootout ...)

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:

>In article <1993Mar31.140529.10843@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager"  
><hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> 
>> As an old post of mine came up in a collection of posts about
>> the ACLU's position on gun-control, I would like to note that my 
>> own position has been evolving.  But, I'm still not sure how to
>> answer the question, "does the 2nd allow me to have my own nuclear
>> device?"  

>The second amendment does not prohibit it, but it can probably be argued that  
>there is no way you can operate one without severely impacting on the safety  
>and rights of others, and so might not be permitted on that basis.

The existence of the weapon in and of itself (and this is also
true for biologics and chemical weapons, but for slightly different
reasons) poses a threat to living critters.  Can you say "neutron
and other radiation flux due to radioactive decay", boys and girls?

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53303
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT HOLLY SILVA INFORMATION

In article <1pkojmINNmuq@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
> In a separate post over on soc.culture.usa she explicitly said that while
> she cross-posts to t.p.g and sets follow-ups to there, she does not READ
> talk.politics.guns. If you think about it, it's a clever way of keeping
> some of the politer respondents who will edit their newsgoup line, or
> properly use the follow-up: from being heard over there. It also makes it
> easier for her to claim all she ever sees is "squeaky weasels".

> So if you want her to see your insiteful analysis, e-mail it. If you
> want to point out her flaws in public, make sure your newsgroup line
> includes soc.culture.usa.

To keep from flooding s.c.u, I e-mailed it.  However, I agree that it's
quite the sneaky trick.  No more than I would expect, however.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53304
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: ATF suspects drug lab in compound

>In article <1993Mar28.180629.21574@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>>A Associated Press News story 3/28/93 reports:
>> 
>>"    In other developments Saturday, David Troy, intelligence chief for
>>the ATF, confirmed reports that authorities suspected the cult had a
>>methamphetamine lab.  He said evidence of possible drug activity
>>surfaced late in the ATF' investigation of the cult's gun dealings.

Wow, the scope of the mission of the ATF continues to expand.  Besides
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they now seem to be involded in Child
Protective Services, Drug Enforcement and Tax Evasion.

They look to be on the road to being the nations *boys in blue*!
No Knock in one hand, M-16 in the other.  Zeik-Heil!!!

Lance



-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53308
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: Threatening Gun Owners

In article <7178@blue.cis.pitt.edu> gswst@cislabs.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs) writes:
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm writing a story on the future of Gun Control.  There are a
>few points I would welcome your opinion on.  It's wonderful having a
>resource like this newsgroup to take advantage of and I thank you in advance
>for your feedback!
>
>1. What do you believe are the most serious threats to gun-owners in the
>future?  
	* The Government
	* Liberals
	* BATF, FBI, DEA, etc.  (see #1)

>2. Are you concerned that the 2nd ammendment could be reinterpreted to
>apply to the armed forces only, barring civilians from owning arms of
>any kind?
	Well...
		contributions == taxes
		abortion == elimination of fetal tissue
		Clinton == president
		faggot == spouse
	It could happen...

>3. If you did have control over what types of arms people would be allowed
>to buy, which types would you feel compelled to restrict to military
>uses only (ie. bazooka, M16, grenade, atomic bomb, etc.)
	Hydrogen Bomb, perhaps.
	
>4. Would you describe HCI and all other gun control activists as being
>determined to make it illegal for a civilian to own or use a firearm?
	Yep.

>5. Have you personally read the Brady Bill in its entirety?
	Yep.

>Thank again,
>
>Gary


-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53309
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the


In a previous article, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) says:

>Come on, guys, looks like its time to move that juvenile public-post
>either to E-mail or to a different newsgroup (alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva?).

No, Brent that would be
alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva.goofy.anti.semite.... :)

-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53310
From: "George Guillory" <wk04942@worldlink.com>
Subject: Tx. Senator Bob Krueger RTKBA statement

For those of you interested, I just finished talking with a 
representative of Senator Bob Krueger's reelection campaign about his 
position on the RTKBA.  Krueger was appointed by the  Democratic Governor 
of Texas to complete Lloyd Bentsen's unexpired term.

The representative said that Senator Krueger did not have a position and 
would only comment on specific legislation that was pending.  No comment 
was available on the various versions of the Brady Bill.

Be warned and vote accordingly.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53311
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Govs. Florio, Wilder Hit Airwaves In Support of Brady Bill

In article <1993Apr1.015043.5662@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.

>    "It is ironic that Jim and I are observing this March 30 in a
> country that finds America's level of gun violence not only
> unacceptable, but unbelievable," said Mrs. Brady, chair of Handgun
> Control Inc.

So where was she?  And would she consider staying there?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53312
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: I believe in gun control.

In article <1993Apr3.221837.2324@news.duc.auburn.edu> bixledn@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>In article 16193@cbnews.cb.att.com, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>> No, you haven't read it very closely .  It says you may answer "No" if your
>> civil rights have been restored; that can be done either by the feds' or a
>> a state.  I think the feds stopped doing this for those convicted of violent
>> felonies.  At least a dozen states still restore a felons civil rights, some
>> immediately upon release, some after a waiting period.  I will post a list
>> of the states later.
>> 
>
>  A quick question, then Larry, If a person's civil rights have been restored, 
>  then are they still considered a felon?

Good question; I don't know what the law considers them.

>  IMO, if rights have been restored, then it makes sense to me that the
>  record of the felony, and everything else has been purged, and the
>  person in question is no longer a felon.

I believe this is what happens in some states.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53313
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Lavishly Funded "Gun Epidemic" Propaganda Campaign to Commence

In article <C4txEK.FCq@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
> Morris the Cat (rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com) wrote:
> 
> : Well, as Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition points out, the full
> : force of the anti-gun ruling class, their multi-millions, their
> : polling organizations, their schools, their news media, their
> : "entertainment" media
> 
> The entertainment media... a "force of the anti-gun ruling class"??
> Is this the same media that's made billions producing films and
> television that glorify guns and gun users?  Or is that another
> anti-gun media?
> 
> You've got to be kidding.

By this, do you mean that you consider it absolutely impossible for the
media to be guilty of hypocrisy?

Note that the film industry in California traded their political support
for an "assault weapon" ban in the state for an amendment to the bill
exempting the entertainment industry from that very ban.

Note that the very issue of the Batman comic book ("Seduction of the Gun")
that was produced as a tool for gun-control organizations carries a back-
page ad for a "Terminator II" video game extolling the numerous and
varied sophisticated weapons available to the player.

Note that Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, publisher of the NY Times -- one of the
oldest and most incessant gun-control grinders -- himself carries a
concealed handgun.

Still, you find it completely incredible that these folks live by the 
aphorism, "Do as I say, and not as I do."
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53314
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Govs. Florio, Wilder Hit Airwaves In Support of Brady Bill

In article <1993Apr5.015209.29431@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.231109.23378@msc.cornell.edu> srussell@msc.cornell.edu (Stephen Russell) writes:
|> >ObGuns:  I'm moving to Arizona; everyone carries guns there.  If I don't, what
|> >are the approximate probabilities that I'll get shot by the end of six months?
|> 
|> Under 1 in 20,000 assuming FBI statistics are meaningfull.

Of course, if you're a criminal, or hang around with criminals, or
flash large wads of cash in the wilder parts of town, or utter verbal
bigotry in the right public places, your chances of being shot are much
higher.

Avoiding these behaviors, on the other hand, decreases your chances of
being shot.

Something like 60% of all murders are criminals killing criminals. 
Over 90% of murders are committed by people with a prior *known*
history of violence.

Simplistic moral, suitable for my three year old, and most inane
posters:  "Bad people do bad things - repeatedly."

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53315
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: Waco dates - are these coincidental?

Richard Cower (cower@csli.stanford.edu) wrote:
: 
: I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it,
: and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part
: in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even 
: suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the
: context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda, 
: as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof
: might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests
: for sufficient fire power. 
: 
: Important dates: 
: Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban.
: Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.	   
: 
: On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon
: ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate
: in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have
: an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated
: agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or
: some: group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were
: initially
: at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent 
: on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get 
: ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued, 
: even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top 
: down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to
: come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely.
: 
: ...rich 


   I don't know Rich. Last year when the congress was debating the Bushmans
'Crime Bill', the incident at Lubys' cafe occured. Most of the anti-gun
crap was amended out of the bill anyway. 

   
   Could a president 'order': go find some 'assault weapons' and bring the
media". I hope not.  Frankly, the Toon-meister* scares me. Of course 
having a Democratic majority in congress doesn't help. (Apologies to all 
Demos' who support RKBA)

( *definition: toon-meister - a characatureic name for the current 
president of the U.S.:   Clinton aka, Clintoon aka Toon-meister.)

Rob P.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53316
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: NRA Fucks Up Bigtime

In article <1993Apr5.042450.2071@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.93Mar29232337@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>>In article <xw1twyl@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>>> No, actually I'm a lot more familiar with the libbers than I
>>> care to be.  I'm a bit hesitant to continue this thread because
>>> it brings back horrible memories of my first encounter with the
>>> libbers in the LaRouche branch.  I made the mistake of buying a

>>Any connection between Lyndon LaRouche and the Libertarian Party
>>is a pure product of your own fertile imagination.  

> Naw, perhaps he reads Time magazine.

It's a fair stretch of anyone's imagination to expect them to
attach any credibility to anything written in Time magazine in
the past twenty years, I'd imagine.  The Enquirer at least gets
the names attached to the right body parts.

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53317
From: jyoung@Cadence.COM (John Young)
Subject: FFL&gunsmithing questions

I have a few questions I'd like to ask;
First,How would someone(me)be able to get a dealers license    
and second,besides dear old departed gramp's,where would I
find a good place to learn gunsmithing.
		all replies appreciated!
			John



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53318
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tr3M.Eqw@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>On the other hand, we can draw lessons from neighbors who are more
>culturally similar, namely the Canadians...

I don't think such a Canada is any more "culturally similar" to
the United States than England. In terms of laws regarding individual
rights, restrictions on police searches, etc... (all closely
related to crime) Canadian laws parallel England's and differ
greatly from those of the United States.
  
>...In fact, an exhaustive,
>seven-year study has already been done of the respective crime rates
>of Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington... cities
>with roughly the same population, urban economy, geography
>and crime but with decidedly different approaches to gun control.

Actually, they do not have "roughly the same... urban economy", 
and extremely different ethnic composition.

>Over the seven-year study, 388 homicides occurred in Seattle
>(11.3 per 100,000) vs. 204 homicides in Vancouver (6.9 per 100,000).
>After adjustment for differences in age and sex among the populations,
>the relative risk of being a victim of homicide in Seattle, as
>compared to Vancouver, was found to be 1.63.

However, if you account for economic and ethnic differences,
the difference disappears completely: Seattle's minorities are
predominatly poor, while Vancouver's are middle or upper class.
The rates for whites in both cities were found to be identicle,
while the rate for poor, Seattle minorities was almost three
times as great as for the well-to-do minorities of Vancouver.
The pattern seems to be one of poverty and race relations, not
one of gun control.

>The authors of the report also investigated "legally justifiable"
>homicides (self-defense).  Only 32 such homicides occurred during
>the seven-year study, 11 of which were committed by police.  Only
>21 cases of civilians acting in self-defense occurrred...

That is a gross distortion: "Self-defense" does not mean killing
the attacker. There were 21 cases of civilians killing their 
attacker in self-defence. But such cases represent less that
0.5% of the crimes prevented by armed self-defence; for every
case you cite, there were over 200 other cases of self-defence
where the crime was prevented but the attacker was not killed.
(0.5%, by the way, is the most conservative possible figure,
based on the National Crime Survey's estimate of 80,000
crimes prevented by armed self-defence each year. Most other 
studies on the subject put the figure at 500,000 to 600,000.
Those figures would imply less than 0.08% of sucessful self-defences
involve killing the attacker.) 

So, more correctly, there over 4000 (possibly as many as 25,000) 
cases of civilians acting in self-defence, only 21 of which resulted
in the death of the attacker. This is a significant factor, in
comparison to the 592 homicides. If memory serves, homicides
make up approximately 1% of the violent crimes the study
considered, so the fair comparison would be 40 - 250 homicides
prevented and 592 homicides. Clearly, the study can not be
close to accurate, since it ignored these cases of self-defence.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53319
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Subject: Re: Bill 'Blame America First' Clinton Strikes Again.

jeddi@next06pg2.wam.umd.edu (Anheuser Busch) writes:
 >This argument sounds very stupid.. if the ability to make guns from
 >"simple metalworking" was easy,  then Drug dealers would make their own 
 >wouldn't they???.. why spend hundreds of dollars buying a gun that
 >somebody else made cheap and is selling it to you at an
 >exorbitant markup???... The simple truth of the matter is, that regardless
 >of how easy it is to make guns, banning guns will reduce the 
 >the number of new guns and seriuosly impede the efforts of a 
 >killer intent on buying a weapon....
 >To show why the tools argument is the silliest i have ever seen.. take an
 >analogy from computer science... almost every computer science major
 >can write a "wordprocessor" yet we(comp sci majors)  would willingly pay 3  
 >to 400 bucks for a professional software like wordperfect... why don't we  
 >just all write our own software???...... Because it is highly  
 >inconvinient!!!..
 >Same with guns... secondly.. how does one get this gunpowder for the 
 >"home made gun" ??? Take a quick trip to the local 7-eleven???.
 > If guns were really that simple to make... the Bosnian muslims would
 >be very happy people (or is it the case that metalworking tools are
 >banned in bosnia??? (deep sarcasm)  ).
 >
 >well this is my two cents..
 >   i will now resume reading all these ridiculus post from people
 >     who must make their living doing stand-up comedy.
** END OF FORWARDED MATERIAL **

-- 
And so, the rubber spheroid arced beneath the brilliant lights.
Headed for a hoop of dreams he'd dreamt of all those nights.
The crowd gasped as the ball descended; Would it grant their fondest wish?
There was no doubt in Casey's mind, He knew it was a *SWISH*!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53320
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Fwd: FREE NRA MEMBERSHIP OFFER

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>The NRA supports anyone who's pro-gun and has a chance of winning
>election, regardless of their other positions.  Is it their fault that
>some drug-legalizers are anti-gun?  Is it their fault that the
>drug-legalizers who are pro-gun can't get elected?

     It's not the NRA's fault; but it is something to consider if you are
considering contributing to the NRA. If candidate B is a complete asshole
whose only saving grace is that he opposes unnecessary restrictions on
firearms, I wouldn't want my membership dues funding efforts to get him
re-elected.

     I have other problems with the NRA (as an organization; the individual
members I've met have been loyal, trustworthy, honest, brave, etc.,
especially my boss who probably reads this newsgroup B->); they are
definitely pro-hunting, and I recall seeing a pro-Desert Storm NRA bumper
sticker. Sometimes they come on too strong in the political arena, which
contributes to their reputation as "bad guys" amoung many people.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
     This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent
 less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her
 sweetness and respecting her seniority." -- E.B. White


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53321
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: the usual

kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes:

>I just heard some anti-gun-control people giving the usual arguments:
>It's everyone's right to bear arms, and the way to solve the problem
>of people getting killed by guns is better law enforcement.

>It strikes me that this argument could be logically extended as follows:

>A nuclear weapon is an "arm", hence anyone has a right to have 
>nuclear weapons. And if someone uses his nuclear weapons to blow
>up New York, L.A., and Chicago, that's okay as long as we have a
>good police force capable of finding him and putting him in jail, 
>which will serve as a deterrent to others.

>Do any anti-gun-control people disagree with this, and if so,  why?

Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
(Can you say "neutron flux"?)  Plus these things have no self-
defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
(translation:  cities and population centers).  Not to mention that
for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live
requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53322
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)

>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?...
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.

No. The issue is reducing crime, not guns. If gun control doesn't
lower crime overall, then is doesn't address the issue.

>...Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...

Does that matter if assaults with a baseball bat become much
more common? Muggers using a gun rely primarily on the
threat of the gun, and rarely shoot their victim. A mugger
using a knife is much more likely to start by stabbing his victim 
in an effort incapacitate him. So, while a knif may not
be as deadly as a gun, criminals are more likely to actually
_use_ the knife (as opposed to threatening the victim with it.)
It isn't at all clear that replacing the criminal's gun with a
knife would reduce murders. Stabbings might just become more
common. That's why it is important to look at the overall
(not the with-gun) homicide rate. It avoids the issue of
substitution, different criminal techinques of using different
weapons, etc... and measures what we want to prevent: Murders.

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.  

"Face"? Possibly. However, facing knife-welding attackers isn't
too common: Stabbing without warning and by supprise is the
usual tactic. Very few criminals shoot from cover: It attracts
to much attention and they don't have a chance to go through your
pockets. Overall, I'd much rather be threatened with a gun
than actually stabbed with a knife.

>...Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

Actually, the exact same statement is true of guns: Training in
unarmed self-defence will let you disarm an untrained gunman 
without much problem.

You also ignore the criminal's reaction: The National Crime
Survey clearly shows that criminals (unarmed, armed with a
knife, gun or whatever) are unwilling to risk their lives
in a confrontation. If faced with a serious threat, almost
all prefer to leave and find an easier target. Therefore,
using (or threatening to use, as is much more commonly the case)
a weapon _is_ the best defence against an attacker, regardless
of how he is armed. Knives, however, are much less effective
than guns: Criminals don't consider knifes as a "serious threat"
nearly as often as they do guns.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53323
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
>effect on homicide rates.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there would be no effect. But
there would be no _net_ _positive_ effect. You also have to 
consider the negative side: Law abiding citizens, armed with 
fireamrs (pistols for the most part), prevent between 80,000
(National Crime Survey) and 1,000,000 (Dr. Kleck) crimes
each year. (Those are the extremes. Most studies find
the number to be 500,000 to 600,000.) About 1% of those crimes are
homicides, so private ownership of firearms _saves_ approximately
5,000 lives each year. There are roughly 12,000 criminal homicides
and fatal accidents involving guns each year. For there to 
be any net benefit, you would have to show that gun control measures
would disarm over 40% of the criminals currently using guns.
That would be very hard to do: According the the federal BATF,
only 8% of criminals buy their guns over the counter. Since
gun control laws, by their very nature, only effect legal
sales, such a law would remove all the benefits of armed,
law-abiding citizens while having only a minimal effect on
armed criminals (who, by and large, get their guns illegally.) 
That doesn't sound like a net benefit to me.
  
>...There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
>homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.

Since most were with licensed weapons, I assume you are not
supporting "reasonable" laws (i.e. waiting periods, background
checks, licenses, etc...). Since only a complete ban would 
alter the statistic you refer to, I assume that's what you
are supporting.

By the way, 1135 people dies in 1986 from falling down stairs.
250 accidental handgun deaths isn't significant next to 
other household accidents.

>...More
>American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
>than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.

1080 children under the age of 10 died by drowning, 69 from 
drinking poisonous household chemicals (like Drano), 139 from
falls. If the real goal is to reduce the tragic, accidental
deaths of children, wouldn't a ban on drain cleaners be a 
better palce to start? (Or, perhaps, restricting ownership to
professionals like plumbers?)

>...Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
>TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).

While you might call it "emphasis", refering to completely two
statistics in the same sentence _implies_ a comparison. If it
isn't valid, and you put the numbers together to convince people
you are right, the kindest thing I could call it is propaganda.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53324
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?

>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:

>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000

>... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.

Because there are about 40 homicides total (i.e. using guns, knives,
tire-irons, baseball bats, bare hands, etc...) in Switzerland
each year and 850 homicides, total, in England. That's three
times worse per capita in England than in Switzerland. Since
dead is dead, it really doesn't matter that 60% of the Switz
murders involved a gun or that only 0.9% of the English murderers
do. 

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder    

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53325
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Bill 'Blame America First' Clinton Strikes Again.

In article <12741@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> >This argument sounds very stupid.. if the ability to make guns from
> >"simple metalworking" was easy,  then Drug dealers would make their own 
> >wouldn't they???..

They do. According the the Los Angeles Police Department, illegal
manufacture is one the three primary sources of machine guns and
submachine guns used in crimes (sumggling and theft from the
police and military being the other two.) Washington D.C. police
have stated that 40% (If I'm remembering the figure correctly) of
the guns they conficate were illegally built.

> >...why spend hundreds of dollars buying a gun that
> >somebody else made cheap and is selling it to you at an
> >exorbitant markup???...

It takes about 6 hours and a few tools to make one (at least one
of reasonable quality). Unless the drug dealer enjoyes messing
around on a lathe (say, as a hobby), he's going to have to 
pay someone anyway. Materials plus six hours of a machinist's
time for something legal would run about $100. The blackmarket
prices for guns are usually in the $50 to $200 range (at least
those few I've seen cited in newspaper articles were...)

> >...The simple truth of the matter is, that regardless
> >of how easy it is to make guns, banning guns will reduce the 
> >the number of new guns and seriuosly impede the efforts of a 
> >killer intent on buying a weapon....

Washington D.C. has a total ban on handguns and prohibits assembled
rifles within city limits. It's homicide rate is almost ten
times the national average. It is also illegal for a D.C.
resident to drive to the Virginia or Maryland suburbs and
buy a gun (dealers are required by federal law to check IDs
and make sure the buyer isn't from another state) so the ban 
can not be easily side-stepped.

> >To show why the tools argument is the silliest i have ever seen.. take an
> >analogy from computer science... almost every computer science major
> >can write a "wordprocessor" yet we(comp sci majors)  would willingly pay 3  
> >to 400 bucks for a professional software like wordperfect... why don't we  
> >just all write our own software???...... Because it is highly  
> >inconvinient!!!..

Sure. But it you couldn't buy one, you would write your own (in
fact, people _did_ write their own 15 years ago...) More likely,
you would find a friend who was a particularly good programer
and get him give you a copy of his. Software is a _very_ bad
example for your case: How many people do you know with illegal
copies of $400 word processors? If people want something, and
it isn't available (or affordable) legally, they will usually
get it illegally.

> >Same with guns...

Quite.

> >secondly.. how does one get this gunpowder for the 
> >"home made gun" ???

13-3-2. The formula has been around for half a million years.
Or are you going to restrict sales of sulpher, charcoal and
saltpeter? That's alot cruder than modern smokless powder, but
it works very well. The only real problems are a ~25% reduction
in energy (so a .357 magnum would "only" be as deadly as a 9mm)
and it makes alot more smoke... Of course, a smart black marketeer
could just make the gun in 9mm and steal the ammunition from the
police (the police are often corruptable, and things are known
to disappear from police evidence rooms and armories and
reappear on the streets...)

> > If guns were really that simple to make... the Bosnian muslims would
> >be very happy people (or is it the case that metalworking tools are
> >banned in bosnia??? (deep sarcasm)  ).

Perhaps you weren't watching the news two years ago, but the Serbs 
also tried to invade Slovinia. They were driven out after a few
weeks by partisans armed with home-made _anti-tank_ weapons.
The Afghan rebels frequently made their own rifles. 

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53326
From: franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the
family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before
the raid.

This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property;
any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.

In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time
that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
standards at least as moral as the military's.

Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children.
Government greed.

It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions.


Fred Franceschi   (These are my own opinions!)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53327
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

J. Spencer (J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk) wrote:
: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

: >Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: >: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
: >: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
: >: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
: >: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
: >: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
: >: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
: >: > many people with baseball bats.

: [snip]

: If you examine the figures, they do. Stabbing is favourite, closely
: followed by striking, punching, kicking. Many more people are burnt to
: death in Britain as are shot to death. Take at look and you'll see for
: yourself. 

It means that very few people are shot to death in Great Britain.
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53328
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve  
: Manes) writes:
: [...]
: > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
: > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
: > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
: > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
: > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
: > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
: > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
: > 

: You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them
: to  be superior,

I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any
posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information.
It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while
others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that
you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.  

: then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying  

Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted
numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have
any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar
gratuitous shots at?

: to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major population  
: differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone might  
: attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not  
: comparison"?  Emphasis of what?

Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim.

: Anything else is blowing smoke.

You seddit, brudda.
 
-- 
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53329
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: A universal RIGHT to bear arms? NOT!

nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.080842.3554@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu  
(KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> >In article <1993Apr1.173759.4636@cs.yale.edu>  
nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu writes:
>> >>In article <C4sK5w.Lsr@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)  
writes:
>> >>> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>> >> >
>> >>> >I suppose that's true if you maintain that AK-47s and AR-15s are hunting
>> >>> >weapons.  I think they are fun to "plink" cans/targets/random VC with,
>> >>> >but not suitable for "real" hunting.  
>> >>> 
>> >>>  Wrong. Both are legal to hunt with here in Kentucky. I have a picture of
>> >>>  a friend with a nice 8-point buck which he shot with his AR-15 rifle.
>> >>
>> >>I don't think many deer hunters would condone your friends choice of
>> >>rifle. 
> 
>> >I must agree with Nathan. As a deer hunter, I find it inhumane to use
>> >underpowered weapons for deer hunting. To kill cleanly with the little
>> >.223 requires extremely good marksmanship. Most hunting situations don't
>> >allow for "perfect" shots. Hunters should use sufficiently powerful
>> >weapons to drop the deer with a single hit to the chest. The 7.62x39
>> >from the AKS-47 or SKS is adequate to this task, having similar ballistics
>> >to the familiar 30-30, but the little .223 is very marginal. In the
>> >hands of the expert, or the lucky, it will do, but hunters really
>> >should have more respect for their quarry. 
> 
>> >Gary
> 
>> I'll agree that the popular 55 gr. loading for .223 rem.  is too small for
>> deer-sized game.  However, if you use a 70 gr. semi-spritzer or the Sierra
>> 63 gr. semi-pointed bullet this would be suitable (like any round,
>> you keep your shots within a reasonable range).  It would still be on the
>> lower end of what I'd consider acceptable performance, especially those
>> long distance shots out West hunting Monster Mule Deer.  The .223 rem. has
>> been declared legal for deer hunting in Oklahoma.
> 
>> The .223 is excellent for varmit hunting and pest control.  The AR-15 in
>> particular is well suited, given its heavy barrel and heat shielded foregrip.
>> Add a high-power scope, and you're in "Dog heaven".
> 
>> However, I don't think Nathan Janette was refering to the specific chambering
>> of the rifle in question.  Maybe he thinks self loading rifles have no
>> place in deer hunting.  That may (or may not) be his opinion, but many
>> sportsmen do use self loading rifles and shotguns.

>Wrongo, NRA man.  I was definitely referring to the round, not the
>auto-loading aspect of the rifle.  I have no problem with *responsible*
>hunting.  That doesn't include machine guns from choppers, but a semi is
>fine.  My uncle has bagged several deer with 12 gauge slugs.  I would prefer
>that a hunter use as much of the catch as possible, and I don't condone
>hunting for "sport" only. 

>IMHO, of course.  

Two questions:

1)  You asserted that both the AR-15 and AK-47 are not suitable for
   "real hunting".  If you have no problem with hunting, or using
   self loading rifles for hunting, why did you say this?  If not
   for deer, then what about other, smaller game?

2)  When did I get the nickname "NRA man"?  Notice I have never referred
   to you as "Janette" which you don't seem to like.  Do I get any
   super-powers, like Spider Man or Powdered Toast Man?

Scott Kennedy    Brewer, Patriot, and now NRA-Man, defender of Truth,
                 Justice, and the 2nd Amendment.

kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53330
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com>, franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
|> On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the
|> family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's
|> Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before
|> the raid.

The briefing documents for the raid had a notation on them about a
similar local property which had sold for $800,000 prior to the
raid, if recent TV coverage can be believed.

|> This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property;
|> any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.

The Ventura County DA came to the same conclusion in the report he
released, which lambasted the Sheriff's Office.

Too bad the old man was nearly blind, and didn't take a few
goose-stepping Drug Warriors (TM) with him.

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53331
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: a universal RIGHT to bear arms? NOT!

rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:


>||	Wrong again, but if you want proof: turn on your TV and look
>||for a show starring Chuck Connors.  It was called, "The Rifleman."
>||Time how fast he can fire that old lever-action rifle.

>|Believe it or not, I remember seeing an advertisement for someone
>|selling one of these; apparently Winchester produced a bunch of
>|these commercially to commemorate the television show. I believe it was 
>|being sold as a handgun because of the barrel length and lack of a stock.

>I might be mistaking the above weapon for the gun used by Steve
>McQueen in "Wanted: Dead or Alive." If so, sorry. Did Winchester
>make any commemorative models of the rifle used by Chuck Connors
>in the movie? Chuck Connors was an NRA member before he died recently...

I don't know for sure if Winchester made any commemeratives.  If I
recall correctly, the rifle itself was a .44-40 Model 92 with an
oversized loop lever.  I don't think Winchester makes this rifle
any more.  Rossi make a Model 92 look-alike in .38 Special and
.357 Magnum.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53332
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: ACLU (was Re: Waco Shootout ...)

"Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>>The 2nd Amendment does say "keep and bear."  If "bear" is defined to
>>mean "carry," then most people are physically unable to carry a several
>>hundred pound nuclear device.

>As I understand it, sub-kiloton nuclear demolitions are man-portable
>and carried in a backpack.

As I recall, in the 60's the Kennedy Administration had sub-kiloton
nuclear weapons withdrawn from Europe and destroyed.  They were man-
portable and made for use in shoulder-mount rocket launchers.  The
smallest nuclear test I've seen data for was a .1 (yes, one-tenth)
kiloton weapon tested either in the late 40's or early 50's.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53333
From: Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> ,
franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
> In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
> troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is
time
> that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
> standards at least as moral as the military's.

No, Lt Calley was later acquitted. His troops killed 400-500
people, including kids, elderly and women... I sure don't want
to see the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country
adhere to those "military standards"... If they did, we're
all in big trouble...(The My Lai massacre was covered up
by high-ranking officials and ALL who were involved were
ACQUITTED).

  == Minh ==

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Minh Lang, Software Engineer  - Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 Instrumentation Systems Group - Instrumentation section 375
 Note:  My employer has nothing to do with what I said here...
+------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53334
From: alleyja@yang.earlham.edu
Subject: <None>

In article <1993Apr4.4332.33144@dosgate>, nigel.allen@canrem.com (nigel allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.
> 
>  Sarah Brady Calls On Governor to Veto NRA Bill; Bayh Urged to
> Follow Clinton's Lead
>  To: State Desk
>  Contact: Cheryl Brolin of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792
> 
>    WASHINGTON, April 2 -- In a letter today to Indiana Gov. 
> Evan Bayh, Sarah Brady, wife of former White House
> Press Secretary James Brady and chair of Handgun Control Inc.,
> called on the governor to veto NRA-backed "preemption" legislation
> (S.B. 241), which would wipe out existing local gun laws and
> prohibit localities from enacting future regulations governing the
> sale, possession or transfer of firearms.
>    "I'm counting on Gov. Bayh to show the same kind of political
> courage President Clinton showed as governor of Arkansas, when he
> twice vetoed this type of special-interest legislation," Mrs. Brady
> said, referring to Clinton's veto of NRA-backed preemption bills in
> 1989 and 1991.
> 

I knew that Cutie would sell us out.  Full-blooded Democrat, he is :-)

Seriously folks, if it can happen here (remember?  we all got gun racks on
our 4x4s), it can happen anywhere.  Now to get that letter ready.  `Dear 
Cutie, as one who didn't vote for you, I can sincerely say I am unhappy...'


>  -30-
> -- 
>  Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada  nigel.allen@canrem.com
> --
> Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
> 416-629-7000/629-7044

Those who know what's best for us
Must try to save us from ourselves
-- RUSH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jason Alley                  || The opinions expressed were given to me      |
| Earlham College, Richmond IN || by aliens living in my pancreas.             |
| AlleyJa@Yang.Earlham.Edu     || The Empire never ended.                      |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53335
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: the usual

hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

>The possession of nuclear arms (actually weapons grade fissionables) is
>currently regulated only by market forces.  I.e.:  To own them you have to
>either make them, buy them or steal them.  The only thing that stops you
>is the staggering cost (more than most nations can afford), the fact that
>no one who has them wants to sell to you and the tight security maintained
>on existing stocks. (Just ask Saddam Hussein).

I was under the impression that to obtain fissionable materials (i.e.,
plutonium or reactor/weapons-grade uranium) one was required to obtain
a federal permit to own such materials.

>Given a source of fissionables, you can build a bomb in your garage with
>parts from hardware stores and electronic junk supplies.  You might have
>to engage in some shady dealings to get the explosive charge, but that's
>trivial compared to getting the plutonium.  The basic information on the
>design was declassified years ago and can be dug out of any technical
>library by a physics grad student.

Actually, why bother looking it up?  From the material we covered last
term (in 10 weeks) of Ge/Ch 127 (Nuclear Chemistry), I could *derive*
what it would take to build a bomb.  And as far as the explosive charge,
I (as a chemist) could synthesize a variety of explosives from commonly
available chemicals in the garage if I felt like.  The electronics 
behind the detonator and the shaped charges are a little trickier,
however . . . but not impossible using a few "tricks of the trade."
And if I really wanted to be nasty, I could include a core of 
hydrogen and deuterium . . .

Of course, the hardest part is getting the fissionable material
to start with, and living long enough to put a bomb together. 
(Plutonium has some *nasty* properties . . .)

>The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
>Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                      Laws define crime.
>3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483       Police enforce laws.
>Santa Monica, CA  90405                            Citizens prevent crime.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53336
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Another NYTimes Yellow-Sheet Editorial (4/4/93)

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:


[other uninformed, purposefully ignorant gun control ranting deleted]

>*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the
>effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap
>and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help
>investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing
>- trace the explosives involved.

I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the 
explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the 
consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based
one.  Ammonium nitrate, to be exact . . . of which about
90,000 tons disappears per year (if I recall the stat correctly;
I don't have it here.)  Just one more disregarding of reality
to push a point.

[more bunk deleted]

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53337
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Waco dates - are these coincidental?

I do not think it is at all unlikely that Clinton ro his policy
wonk facilitators arranged the Waco raid as a display piece for  the
Gun War on the Constitution.  Look at what the Bush administration did to
get material for the Drug War on the Constitution--remember that baggie of
crack George waved at the cameras?  They took a dealer from the ghetto
and brought him to the White House so they could say drugs had been
dealt onb the White House Lawn.
And I don't think anybody could honestly think Clinton would have any
moral qualms about the raid...
The only really worrisome thing is that the BD's heroic defense of
their ranch will make Clinton's Gun War on the Constitution _more_
successfull--exactly as he wanted.  The media and politicians will
filter this so that the general public will think the BD's
are bad guys!  Don't help them.  Stand up for the BD's with your
friends and family adnd in public anytime you can--their supposed
moral qualms are not important to the issue.  They are heroes in the
fight against oppressive government;  it could just as well have been
you.
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu  (Brian E Watkins)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53338
From: dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure. 
Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
world. We'd do well to emulate them on that and forget about getting more
rifles on the street. Let's disband the NRA and start a National Investment
Banking Association, replete with red and black sticker for the back window
of Bubba's Mercedes 600! We could fire Charlton Heston and get Paul Volcker
for a spokesman.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53339
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Questions to Ponder

The Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus in Fort Collins, Colorado,
submitted this as a questionnaire to the city council candidates
in the upcoming election. As expected, very few of the candidates
(3 of 13) responded, but they know we're watching.

Feel free to use any and all of these questions that strike your 
fancy or use them as inspiration for your own.

                                *****
       
   1.  Would you be willing to state, in writing, that if you are
       publicly demonstrated to have violated your oath of office
       you would resign and never run for office again?
       
   2.  Under what circumstances do the rights of the group come
       before the rights of the individual?
       
   3.  Would you support a city charter amendment prohibiting the
       city government, its officials, agents, and employees from
       initiating force against any human being for any reason?
       
   4.  Please put the following list in order of precedence (from
       lowest to highest): a) city ordinance, b) city resolution, 
       c) state law, d) federal statute, e) U.S. Constitution, 
       f) state constitution.
       
   5.  Do you believe that it's appropriate for any city official or
       employee to be paid more than his or her average private
       sector constituent?
       
   6.  Do you believe that involuntary contributions are a legitimate
       means of funding council programs?
       
   7.  Would you support a program recognizing the right of
       taxpayers to "earmark" their taxes (either as "must be used"
       or "must not be used") for specific programs?
       
   8.  In the event that the candidate "None of the Above" were to
       win a city election, which option do you believe most
       appropriate? a) The candidate with the next highest vote total
       fills the office. b) A special election is held to fill the 
       office, with none of the previous candidates eligible to run 
       again. c) Let the office remain unfilled and unfunded until 
       the next election. d) Abolish the office.
       
Please return your questionnaire to: [address of your choice]

A signature and date line were added here.
    
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.

                                 ******

The questionnaires were sent with self-addressed, stamped envelopes.

P.S. One person _did_ get a perfect score on the questionnaire, and,
no, he didn't help write it.

Cathy Smith

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53340
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
>Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
>because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
>500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
>picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
>sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure. 

The Swiss population is (and well was) far larger than that. I think
your question should be, "...losing sleep over a million expert
riflemen?" Certainly he could have conquered Switzerland, but
a million armed militiamen (especially in a mountainous area, 
where tanks' effectiveness is limited) would have made it a
real pain. The question a conqueror would ask, is "is it worth 
the trouble?" The more difficult an invasion is, the more likely
the answer would be "no." Certainly a million riflemen (as
opposed to a professional army of only ten or twenty thousand, the
best a country the size of Switzerland could support), makes
invasions more difficult.

>Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
>world.

Really? In 1939? I'm not even sure you could prove that today (despite
the steriotype.) Certainly the Swiss bankers were not essential
to the German war-time economy.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53343
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: the usual

arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:

>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)

	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?

>  Plus these things have no self-
>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
>(translation:  cities and population centers).

	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.  They
won't be too useful in certain areas, but leveling the Pentagon
would be a "good thing" for said overthrow and it's likely one man
carrying a backpack would stand a better chance than one thousand
armed with Colt Peacemakers.  Don't let self-defense become the
only reason you can have a gun and your sole means of justification.
Myself, I won't overthrow my government until it ceases to be my
legal government, but if I need to I want every weapon I can get.

	One can just as easily say no rifle larger than a .22 is
needed to kill a human being.  They are right.  When that human
being is wearing armor and riding in an APC, things get a bit
different.  I don't see where the weapon is a problem.  It's not.
Only the manner of use is in contention here.

>  Not to mention that
>for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live
>requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .

	I guess you either don't have an alarm clock or have never
heard the terms "timer" or "martyr" either.  Don't forget remote
detonation devices.  That CB radio in the pickup next to you can
easily transmit ten miles in decent weather.  That's out of the
blast radius of many portable nuclear devices.

	Just what is it about radioactive decay that has you worried?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53344
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: the usual

arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:

>I was under the impression that to obtain fissionable materials (i.e.,
>plutonium or reactor/weapons-grade uranium) one was required to obtain
>a federal permit to own such materials.

	No, you merely have to start working on yellowcake or else
devise a system to get it from other sources.  BTW: the DOE handles
reactor fuel, and merely leases it to reactors.  The NRC certifies these
reactors.  The military have their own sources.  A private citizen has
none of these official sources.

>Actually, why bother looking it up?  From the material we covered last
>term (in 10 weeks) of Ge/Ch 127 (Nuclear Chemistry), I could *derive*
>what it would take to build a bomb.

	That's freshman-level chemistry.  Big deal.  Can you make it
work?  That's PhD-level physics.  Big difference.

>  And as far as the explosive charge,
>I (as a chemist) could synthesize a variety of explosives from commonly
>available chemicals in the garage if I felt like.  The electronics 
>behind the detonator and the shaped charges are a little trickier,
>however . . . but not impossible using a few "tricks of the trade."
>And if I really wanted to be nasty, I could include a core of 
>hydrogen and deuterium . . .

	So you admit that there's no law that could stop you?  Physics
aside, could you make one if you had the funds and time?  The answer
is yes.  So, do we lock you up now because of this?  Surely you can
see where the comparison with anti-gun laws comes into play here?

>Of course, the hardest part is getting the fissionable material
>to start with, and living long enough to put a bomb together. 
>(Plutonium has some *nasty* properties . . .)

	Precisely why it's not as readily utilized as you seem to have
been lead to believe.  BTW: 98% U235 is far better for home-made bombs
than trying to use plutonium.  The laws of physics make the creation of
a device without serious manufacturing facilities very low in probability.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53345
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the

In article <1993Apr5.213034.10706@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1pdmgaINN95f@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> 
>> >> If she *needs* a gun right now, why doesn't she already have one?  
>> 
>> >You are the victim of a cut-and-run purse-snatcher.  He makes off 
>> >with your purse, containing your ID, your house keys... and your gun.
>> 
>> So you're saying she can RUN RIGHT INTO A STORE, BUY A GUN, RUN BACK
>> OUTSIDE AND SHOOT THE GUY IN THE BACK AS HE RUNS OFF?  This doesn't
>
>No, he's saying she just lost her gun and she wants to buy another
>so that as she sits home alone tonight, she's not a sitting duck to
>any bastard who wants to break in.

In fact, the situation is more grim that that, even. The purse snatcher
now has her home address. If the woman lives alone, she is in great
personal danger.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53346
Subject: Re: Washington State
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

In article <1993Mar30.191157.8338@synapse.bms.com> hambidge@bms.com writes:
>In article <93088.191742U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>What is a CCW
>Acronym for Concealed Carrying of Weapon; basically, a permit to carry
>a concealed pistol or revolver.

I phoned Licensing Division in Washington State to ask for an application
for a CCW.  Instead they promptly sent me an applicationfor becoming a 
firearms dealer in Washington!

They even sent me a firearms safety pamphlet.
-Case Kim



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53347
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)

In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
>In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
>troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time
>that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
>standards at least as moral as the military's.
	Here! Here!  But any call for responsibility and accountability 
	from police is invariably interpreted as being "soft on crime".
	Being "tough on crime" and building more prisons and seizing more
	property is the politically astute thing to do these days.


>Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children.
>Government greed.
	And citizen complacency!

>It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions.
	Don't forget the politicians that write the laws that make it
	easy for the police agencies to become corrupt.  The War on Some
	Drugs brought us this corruption and only an end to it (legalization)
	will stop the corruption.


						smg



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53348
Subject: thanks to poster of NY Times article on ATF in Texas
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)


good job to whoever posted the article.  I'd
been saving that NYTimes edition for a while, planning to ytpe it
in myself, but now I don't have to.

For all of those people who were worried about whether or not
the media would even question the raid, we owe it to the
NY Times (despite their rabidly anti-gun editorials) for 
being willing to talk to these 4 BATF  agents.

-Case Kim


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53349
From: greg@puck.webo.dg.com ()
Subject: Re: RKBA on NYC radio station

|> Actually, the real reason that Stern was getting a bigger rating share was that
|> he was new in D.C., not because of the quality (if you can call it that) of 
|> his show. After the Fine was issued he started to get better ratings because 
|> of the curious individuals who wanted to see how bad he actually was. Since
|> he came to D.C. he has had a greater turn over of listeners than the "Grease"
|> has. In other words, more people get sick of him sooner than they do of the
|> "Grease". After all, saying vagina or penis on the air is hilarious at first, 
|> the second time it is still a little funny, but when you do it all the time, 
|> and at the same time, think you are the greatest man on the planet (and tell
|> everyone so) than you are going to get old really quick. 
|> Give it up Mark you are WRONG.
|> 
Excuse me, but if you really new what the show was about, you'd know that he
doesn't just say vagina and penis and that is how he get's his ratings. He
also addresss real issues as well as being outrageous. I don't hear any of these
other idiots doing a funny show and getting into some serious topics at the
same time, he get's people to think and entertains them at the same time, 
so try listening to his show a little closer before you tell them that they are
WRONG, and by the way, if he is such a flash in the pan, why do his ratings sustain
so well? Hmm?




-- 
-----------------------------------------------
Greg W. Lazar             greg@puck.webo.dg.com

J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS
-----------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53350
From: pspod@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: Founding Father questions

arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>Wasn't she the one making the comment in '88 about George being born with
>a silver foot in his mouth?  Sounds like another damn politician to me.
>
>Ain't like the old days in Texas anymore.  The politicians may have been
>corrupt then, but at least they'd take a stand.  (My apologies to a few
>exceptions I can think of.)  
>
>News now is that the House may already have a two-thirds majority, so 
>her "opposition" out of her concern for image (she's even said this
>publicly) may not matter.

Do people expect the Texans congressmen to act as the N.J. Republicans did?
-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@gonzo.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53352
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C519Mt.Apq@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve  
Manes) writes:
> Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
> : In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve  
> : Manes) writes:
> : [...]
> : > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
> : > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
> : > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
> : > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
> : > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
> : > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
> : > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
> : > 
> 
> : You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them
> : to  be superior.  I'm not aware of using any numbers from the ozone, unless  
you consider those I got from you to be such.
> 
> I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any
> posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information.
> It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while
> others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that
> you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.  
> 

Yes, You state the reference, and then YOU claim it's a good or fair treatment.  

> : then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying  
> 
> Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted
> numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have
> any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar
> gratuitous shots at?
> 

You fail to see the differences between absolute numbers and rates.

> : to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major  
population  
> : differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone  
might  
> : attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not  
> : comparison"?  Emphasis of what?
> 
> Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim.
> 

No, you just miss the point.  By your methods, I can prove gun control to be a  
total failure.  New York's total homocide count, with it's strict gun control,  
is MUCH higher than Rhode Island's, with it's less strict gun control.  FAR  
more folks are killed in New York, than Rhode Island.  Therefore, according to  
Mane Logic(tm), gun control has made New York a much more dangerous place than  
Rhode Island.  Remember, it's "Nitpicking" and "a whiney debating style" to  
point out the differences between New York and Rhode Island that might defeat  
my argument.

> : Anything else is blowing smoke.
> 
> You seddit, brudda.

Now you agree?  Wow, a break-through!
>  
> -- 
> Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
> Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o


--
Jim

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53353
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C518B1.AMF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: >: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
>: >: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
>: >: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
>: >: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
>: >: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
>: >: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
>: >: > many people with baseball bats.

>: If you examine the figures, they do. Stabbing is favourite, closely
>: followed by striking, punching, kicking. Many more people are burnt to
>: death in Britain as are shot to death. Take at look and you'll see for
>: yourself. 

>It means that very few people are shot to death in Great Britain.

And I'm sure that is a great comfort to the widows and children of
those stabbed, beaten and burned to death. The real question is,
"Did the crime rate in England go down, after they enacted 
gun control laws?" If you look at the rates before and after their
first such law in 1920, you will see no effect.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53354
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Armed Citizen - April '93


THE ARMED CITIZEN
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
Armed Citizen.  Shooting usually can be justified only where
crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life or limb
or, in some circumstances, property.  The accounts below are from
clippings sent in by NRA members.  Anyone is free to quote or
reproduce them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Retired Las Vegas deputy police chief Larry Bolden initially
tried to defend himself with a steering wheel bar lock when a
criminal attacked him in his car.  But then the intruder wrestled
it from him, Bolden pulled his pistol and fired several times,
wounding his attacker and stopping the incident.  "He was just a
citizen defending himself," a police official said.
	(The Review-Journal, Las Vegas, Nev., 11/11/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   A pair of teenaged robbers armed with a sawed-off shotgun and
handguns took the day's receipts from Brooklyn bodega owner Hector
Martinez.  As they made their getaway, Martinez grabbed his
registered 12-gauge shotgun and gave chase.  When one fired,
Martinez returned three blasts, slightly wounding his assailants.
They fled but were apprehended when they sought medical attention.
	(Newsday, Long Island, N.Y., 01/05/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   A sign posted on the door of Roman Paras' shop reads "The 
owners of this property are armed and highly skilled to protect
life, liberty and property from criminal attack."  Apparently, a
pair of robbers didn't pause to read it as they threatened Paras'
wife in their Oxnard, Calif., convenience store.  Hearing her
scream, Paras grabbed his .38, ran to the front of the store and
shot it out with the masked and armed men, killing one criminal.
	(The Times, Los Angeles, Calif., 12/04/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Anne Marie Sullivan was showering in her Portland, Oreg., home
one morning when she heard the front door crash in.  She jumped
out of the shower in time to see a man entering the home.  Running
to the bedroom, Sullivan retrieved her boyfriend's pistol and
fired two shots, mortally wounding the intruder.  The dead man had
a lengthy police and prison record.
	(The Oregonian, Portland, Oreg., 01/07/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Mike Baranelli would have let two robbers who burst into a
Birmingham, Ala., barber shop keep his money.  But the 75-year-old
retired teacher was unwilling to surrender his life.  When the
intruders ordered Baranelli, the shop owner, and another man to 
lie on the floor, Baranelli pulled his pistol and shot both men in 
the head, killing one.  "I felt sure there was going to be three 
dead people in there.  I think I had some divine help," Baranelli 
said.
	(The Sunday Advertiser, Montgomery, Ala., 01/03/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Believing an elderly Harvey, Ill., couple would again be easy
prey, a knife-wielding home invader instead met death when the
76-year-old homeowner loosed three rounds from a semi-automatic
pistol.  Police said the dead man had been charged several times
for thefts from the couple's home.
	(The Star, Chicago Heights, Ill., 01/07/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   The criminal's profile was scheduled to appear on "America's
Most Wanted," but his shot at fame was abruptly canceled by a
Hallandale, Fla., service station clerk.  The Michigan prison
escapee walked into the station and announced a robbery.  Instead
of cash, he got bullets in the head and chest from station clerk
Gary McVey.  Police said McVey acted in self-defense and would not
face charges.
	(The Sun-Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., 12/04/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   A Bridgeport, Conn., oil delivery man handed over the few
dollars he had.  But the thug, apparently unsatisfied with his
take, turned his gun on his victim and demanded more money.  
Instead of more cash, the deliveryman instead pulled his own
pistol and fired, mortally wounding the robber.  Police said the
dead man had held up a nearby market just before the fatal
incident.
	(The Courant, Hartford, Conn., 01/13/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   After repeated burglaries at her San Marcos, Calif., home, Joan
Vessel, 64, was ready with a .38 and a cordless phone when she
heard glass breaking one afternoon.  When she found two teenagers
attempting to get into her woodshed, Vessel fired a warning shot
over their heads, marched them into the front yard and called
police.
	(The Times Advocate, Escondido, Calif., 12/25/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Angry that his auto insurance had been canceled, a client used
brass knuckles to take it out on Brandon, Fla., agent Steven
Taylor.  When his assailant walked out of the office, Taylor
grabbed a pistol kept there and held the former client at gun-
point until police arrived.
	(The Tribune, Tampa, Fla., 01/14/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Dozing one evening at his Exeter, Pa., office, Jim Pisano was
awakened by the barking of his dog.  Sitting in stunned amazement,
he watched as two men smashed out his office window, reached in
and grabbed one of his hunting rifles.  Reaching a pistol on his
desk, Pisano fired several shots, apparently wounding one of the
burglars, and putting them to flight.
	(The Times-Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 12/09/92)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Trying on a pair of shoes was just an act for a criminal who
then pulled a knife and demanded money.  When the man advanced,
the Flint, Mich., shoestore owner drew his pistol and fired,
critically wounding the would-be robber.
	(The Journal, Flint, Mich., 01/13/93)
==================================================================
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
   Disarmed and pistol whipped after struggling with a pair of
shotgun-toting thugs, Brooklyn, N.Y., pharmacist Soel Melero 
continued fighting and managed to retrieve a second-also licensed-
hidden pistol.  Firing three times, the druggist killed one of his
assailants.  The other fled empty-handed.
	(The Daily News, New York, N.Y., 01/18/93)
==================================================================
-- 
*************************************************************
*Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
*Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
*Intergraph Electronics                                     *
*381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
*Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
*************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53355
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Founding Father questions


In article <1993Apr5.153951.25005@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, pspod@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) writes:
>arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>>Wasn't she the one making the comment in '88 about George being born with
>>a silver foot in his mouth?  Sounds like another damn politician to me.
>>
>>Ain't like the old days in Texas anymore.  The politicians may have been
>>corrupt then, but at least they'd take a stand.  (My apologies to a few
>>exceptions I can think of.)  
>>
>>News now is that the House may already have a two-thirds majority, so 
>>her "opposition" out of her concern for image (she's even said this
>>publicly) may not matter.
>
>Do people expect the Texans congressmen to act as the N.J. Republicans did?

There is a (likely) veto proof majority in the house.  The Senate,
unfortunately, is a different story.  The Lt.Gov. has vowed that the bill will
not be voted on, and he has the power to do it.  In addition, the Senate is a
much smaller, and more readily manipulated body.

On ther other hand, the semi-automatic ban will likely not live, as at least
fifty per cent of the house currently opposes it, and it is VERY far down in
the bill order in the Senate (I believe it will be addressed after the CCW
bill).

And I thought my TX Political Science class was a waste of time!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53356
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>hambidge@bms.com wrote:
>: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
>: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
>: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
>: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
>: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
>: 
>: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
>: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
>: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
>: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
>: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.
>
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?
>
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>
>.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.

       If you want to talk "less likely to get killed with a handgun"
you'd have a point.  "Safer" includes other things than simply handguns,
and you can't conclude "safer" by ignoring them.

       Now if somebody's got the total homicide rates...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed." - Lazarus Long

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53357
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)
>
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun
>control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will
>live in a homicide-free world?

       The relevance is that if you've got x homicides and reduce
the number of gun homicides in that group, but x doesn't decrease
by a significant amount, have you made an improvement, and is that
improvement worth what you've paid?

>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
>certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.

       If a baseball bat is a tenth as likely to kill a victim as a gun,
is that any comfort to that tenth?

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks. 

       I've faced a knife.  And I was damn annoyed I didn't *have*
a gun.  All the statistics in the world didn't change the fact that
*he* was interested in cutting *me*.

>Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

       "Anyone trained in self-defense." 

       Unarmed self-defense isn't for everyone.  What's more, it requires
substantially more training to be safe and effective than a firearm.
It requires physical proximity and thus a greater threat to the victim,
which is a primary problem with stun guns.  You have to actually touch
your assailant.  Unless you're *very* good, a large, stronger assailant
can simply ignore your blows long enough to incapacitate you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53358
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: the usual

In article <viking.734084516@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
>>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
>>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
>>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
>>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)

>	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
>Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
>next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
>warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
>don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
>cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
>are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?

But whatever the neutrons hit has a good chance of absorbing the
neutron and becoming radioactive itself. Mostly, that means water
turning into (harmless) heavy water. But some neutrons would 
also hit bones, and the resulting harmfull, secondard radioactives
would remain in the body for decades. I think an unshielded nuclear
warhead could reasonably be considered a public health hazard.

As for a shielded warhead, I think a fair amount of maintaince
is required for it to remain safely shielded (e.g. storage in
a dry, temperature-regulated facility, etc...) For private
ownership to be unregulated, I think a single individual must
be able not only to keep the weapon, but keep it in a safe
condition. If any random private citizen could not properly
keep, maintain and store a nuclear weapon, then some regulation
is clearly appropriate.

>>  Plus these things have no self-
>>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
>>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
>>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
>>(translation:  cities and population centers).

>	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
>government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.

I disagree with this purpose: The job of the militia is to defend
themselves and their community. If you look at the American 
revolution as an example, the militias won by seperating themselves
from, and becoming independent of, a repressive government. They
didn't overthrow it, and those communities (Canada and England, for 
example) that didn't defend themselves were still under that same
old regime. If the role of the militia were offensive, to go out and
destroy repressive governments, nuclear weapons _might_ be appropriate.
But their jobs is defensive, and nuclear weapons aren't suited
for that.

There is also the question of personal and collective arms: The
Second Amendment definately protects ownership of personal
weapons (since the very nature of the militia requires members
to provide their own arms.) But it isn't clear if it covers
other arms. Certainly, not all members would supply (for example)
a tank, only a few could or (if they were to be used effectively)
should. However, those providing the heavy weapons have a 
disproportionate control over the militia and its fierpower.
The militias, as the framers envisioned them, were extremely
democratic: If only 50% of the members supported the cause, only
50% would respond to a muster, and the militia's firepower would
be proportionately reduced. Militia firepower and the popular
will were, therefore, linked. But if a small minority of the
members supplied a large fraction of the firepower (in the
form of heavy weapons) this would all change: The militia's
firepower would depend on the will of a small minority, not
of the general public. Worse, that minority would be quite
different from the general public (at the very least, they
would be much richer.) As a result, I think the nature and
character of the militia requires that each member provide
a roughly equal share of the militia's firepower: His personal
weapons, and some equitable fraction of a squad's heavier firepower.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53359
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Subject: Re: Statement of Sarah Brady Regarding Texas State Carrying Concealed Legislation


In a previous article, nigel.allen@canrem.com ("nigel allen") says:

>
>Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.
>
> Statement of Sarah Brady Regarding Texas State Carrying Concealed
>Legislation
> To: State Desk
> Contact: Susan Whitmore of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792
>
>   WASHINGTON, March 25 -- Following is a statement of Sarah 
>Brady regarding Texas state carrying concealed legislation:
>
>   "A handful of lawmakers in Austin today have told the public that
>their safety is of less importance than the interests of the National
>Rifle Association.  This action comes as local, state and federal law
>enforcement officials continue their stand-off with a religious cult
>that has highlighted the need for tougher gun laws, not weaker ones
>like the carry concealed bill.

   "A handful of anti-gun zealots are telling the public that their
right to self-defense is of less importance than the interests of
Handgun Control, Inc.  This action comes as local, state and federal law
enforcement officials continue their assault on the Branch Davidian
compound--an assault which has already resulted in the death of one
two year old child at the hands of federal agents.  This has highlighted
the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves and their children
against the excesses of their own government."

>   "Any suggestion by proponents that this bill will help to reduce
>crime is a distortion of the facts, at best.  This so-called
>crime-fighting law has resulted in a 16 percent increase in violent
>crime in the state of Florida, and I have never heard law enforcement
>officials bragging that more guns on the streets is the way to reduce
>crime.

  "Any suggestion by opponents that this bill will increase crime is a 
distortion of the facts, at best.  The aggressive outreach by officials
in central Florida to train and arm women has led to a dramatic drop in
the level of assault and rape in that area.  Of course, this program is
a rare gem, as many law enforcement officials apparently believe that an
unarmed citizenry will be easier to control, and thus favor tighter 
restrictions."

>   "The vote today is an insult to the law enforcement officials who
>are putting their lives on the line every day to end the standoff in
>Waco.  The entire country now knows just how easy it is for an
>individual bent on destruction to amass an arsenal of weapons.  Texas
>lawmakers who voted for this concealed handgun bill have shown total
>disregard for those law officials on the front lines, and the
>families of those who have fallen.

   "The vote today is a tribute to the good sense of the public at large
who are putting their lives on the line every day as they go about their
lawful affairs.  The entire country knows how vulnerable the average 
citizen is, both to attacks from criminals and from armed assault by our
own police.  Texas lawmakers who voted for this concealed handgun bill have
shown total understanding for those innocent, law-abiding citizens on the
front lines, and the families of those who have fallen."

>   "I urge the House of Representatives to listen to the 70 percent
>of Texans that oppose this measure, and reject this ill-conceived
>legislation."

   "I urge the House of Representatives to pay attention to the needs
of their constituents, and not be stampeded by ill-conceived arguments
from ideological fanatics."

> -30-
>-- 
> Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario     nigel.allen@canrem.com
>--
>Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
>416-629-7000/629-7044
>
Ain't propaganda fun?

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53361
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: What if the Dividians were black?

As quoted from <1993Apr5.172734.8744@icd.ab.com> by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):

> oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
> 
> > Questions for the media and the politically correct:
> > 
> > Try asking people who don't understand why anyone would worry about
> > the tactics used against the "child molesting, drug dealing, gun running, 
> > cop killing religious wackos in Waco" (1) these questions:
> > 
> > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits
> > charging in with assault weapons and grenades were LAPD 
> > what would you think?
> 
> 
> The charges are essentially the same they used against Operation MOVE
> in Philadelphia a few years back, where the cops dropped an incendiary
> bomb on the roof of a tenement and burned down a whole block.
> 
> MOVE was a black group.

There were some significant differences.  Whereas the Branch Davidians are
reported to have gotten along rather well with their neighbors, the MOVE
people are generally conceded to have gone far out of the way to antagonize
their BLACK neighbors, using loudspeakers to all hours of the night, keeping
large piles of garbage, promoting rat and insect infestation, and allegedly
threatening to kidnap their neighbors' children.

Still the same sort of questions regarding use of force remain in that case.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53362
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>
>.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.

Please, PAY ATTENTION.
I, and others, were referring to TOTAL HOMICIDE DEATHS, NOT JUST
HANDGUN HOMICIDES.  In terms of how likely are you to be killed,
(regardless of how it's done, 'cause DEAD is DEAD), the UK has a
higher homicide rate. Period.  You are more likely to be killed in the
UK than in Switzerland.  If you were to be murdered with a handgun,
then yes, Switzerland has a higher rate.  But, to belabor the point,
you are MORE LIKELY to be murdered in the UK. In that sense, the
weapon is irrelevant.  The UK is more violent, period.

Al
[standard disclaimer]

>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53363
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:

>
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun
>control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will
>live in a homicide-free world?

They sure make it sound like that.

>
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
>certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.
>

Even a simpleton knows a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon. 
If one cannot run away (e.g. old, infirm, even middle-aged if the
assailant is younger), a handgun is the most effective means of
defense. You won't even have to fire a shot 98% of the time.

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.  Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

Any real streetfighter (and there are LOTS of them), with or without a
knife, will kick the living sh** out of most people "trained in
unarmed self defense".  For the majority of people, a gun is the most
effective form of self defense.

Al
[standard disclaimer]



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53364
Subject: Re: Nazi memoribilia
From: cmay@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Christopher C May)

In <1993Apr2.232511.10711@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

>Swatikas were also common in American Indian markings/painted walls etc.  Is
>it the Swastika that is bad?  

Just want to back this up with a personal anecdote.  My grandparents
have a Navajo rug made in the 1920's, which they received in trade 
from the weaver while living in Flagstaff, Arizona.  The decorative motif
consists of 4 large black swastikas, one in each corner.  What's more, the
color scheme is black, white, and red.  To the casual glance it would
undoubtedly appear to be a Nazi relic of some kind.  Yet they owned it
ten years before Hitler and the National Socialists came to power.  

As I recall, they took it down in the 30's, and didn't feel quite right
about putting it back up until the 60's.  It still draws comments from 
those who don't know what it is.

--ccm

-- 
Christopher C. May * U. of Ariz. Coll. of Medicine '93 * cmay@ccit.arizona.edu
+=============================================================================+
| Do your part for Liberty: Teach your children to hate Big Government.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Do you care about freedom? Dreams may have inspired it, and wishes promoted | 
|     it, but only war and weapons have made it yours. -- Robert Ardrey       |
| Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt. -- Ovid                              | 
| The wise man's understanding inclineth him toward his right hand, but a     |
|     fool's heart turneth him to the left. -- Ecclesiastes 10:2              | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Christopher C. May * U. of Ariz. Coll. of Medicine '93 * cmay@ccit.arizona.edu
+=============================================================================+
| Do your part for Liberty: Teach your children to hate Big Government.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53365
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Nazi memoribilia

In article <cmay.734085409@helium>, cmay@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Christopher C May) writes:
|> In <1993Apr2.232511.10711@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:
|> 
|> >Swatikas were also common in American Indian markings/painted walls etc.  Is
|> >it the Swastika that is bad?  
|> 
|> Just want to back this up with a personal anecdote.  My grandparents
|> have a Navajo rug made in the 1920's, which they received in trade 
|> from the weaver while living in Flagstaff, Arizona.  The decorative motif
|> consists of 4 large black swastikas, one in each corner.  What's more, the
|> color scheme is black, white, and red.  To the casual glance it would
|> undoubtedly appear to be a Nazi relic of some kind.  Yet they owned it
|> ten years before Hitler and the National Socialists came to power.  
|> 
|> As I recall, they took it down in the 30's, and didn't feel quite right
|> about putting it back up until the 60's.  It still draws comments from 
|> those who don't know what it is.

Having lived, played, and worked on and near the Navajo reservation
for a number of years, I can confirm this is an ancient pattern,
found in petroglyphs dated 800 to 1200 years old.

Also, the Indians never stopped making rugs with this pattern - they
just stopped selling them after the Nazi's pre-empted the swastika.

Note also that the Indian versions use both clockwise and
counter-clockwise swastikas.

Ob guns:  It's the rare Navaho family that doesn't own a rifle. 
They remember being "relocated" by the US Army, and don't intend to
do it again.  The Hopi, on the other hand, have a dislike for
weapons, from my experience.  Perhaps they just hide them better
from strangers.

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53366
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: National Crime Survey

      Well, I dropped by the library yesterday, and picked up back copies
of the National Crime Survey (1986-1990) in an effort to examine what
it said about self-defense with a firearm.

      I haven't ground through much in the way of numbers yet, but a couple
of things jumped out at me.  First only 1986 and 1987 specify the type of
weapon used in self defense.  1988, 1989, and 1990 refer only to "weapon."
The second is that while assaults rose about 3% from 1986 to 1987, w/gun
defenses reported *fell* by almost 25%.  Unless there's an explanation for
this, I'm tempted to mark it as a reporting problem, and as such going 
ahead with any examination of the numbers would be a waste of time.

      Anybody have an idea what might have cause a real difference, and
not just a reporting difference?  The survey doesn't appear to have
changed significantly between 1986 and 1987.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53367
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Do they really believe?

In article <1993Apr5.150031.3123@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:
>
>	Q: Do you think that HIC et al really believe that the laws
>that they are trying to get passed are for the good or are they just
>lying through their teeth and trying to disarm the populace?

I think that HCI people honestly believe that passing more gun control
laws will be in the best interests of public safety.  Why do I think
this?  Because I used to buy the HCI line.  During my freshman year (1987),
their line made so much sense -- only people who "need" guns should be
able to get them, and the people who "need" them are the police and
other elites.  Unfortunately for us, this position is highly emotional
and not well thought-out.  They never stop to think that HCI's position
basically says that the non-elite are incompetents (that's you and me,
folks!) and that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with
hunting or other "legitimate" uses (which excludes overthrowing tyrannical
governments and defending yourself when the police have proven they
can't protect you).

>	We all know that the end result, regardless of the intention,
>will be to have a MUCH easier to subdue population for the UN/NWO.
>This is definitely a motivation of many in power, but I wonder to
>what degree this is planned vs just duped.

Every pro-control person I've talked to is always left  stumped when I
simply argue the facts of gun control (that it has yet to be proven to
lower crime rates) and weapons terminology (and I'm no expert -- but
explaining exactly how an "evil" semiautomatic weapon really works
does wonders).

I hvae personally found well-reasoned arguments to be most effective
against the emotional pro-control people.  The trick is to get them to
realize that the Second Amendment exists not for hunters but for the
oppressed and the terrorized.

Daryl
             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53368
From: dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
: The Swiss population is (and well was) far larger than that. I think
: your question should be, "...losing sleep over a million expert
: riflemen?" Certainly he could have conquered Switzerland, but
: a million armed militiamen (especially in a mountainous area, 
: where tanks' effectiveness is limited) would have made it a
: real pain. The question a conqueror would ask, is "is it worth 
: the trouble?" The more difficult an invasion is, the more likely
: the answer would be "no." Certainly a million riflemen (as
: opposed to a professional army of only ten or twenty thousand, the
: best a country the size of Switzerland could support), makes
: invasions more difficult.

   Hitler invaded Yugoslavia and occupied it.  The mountainous portions were
sometimes patrolled by the wermacht, but they were certainly not in control.
There were two major native factions opposing each other and the germans,
It was basically useless to the germans (no production) and a drain on their
resources (a armored division and a couple of infantry divisions) Which if
my memory is correct, were kind of stuck there up until the allies accepted
their surrender.  (I think that the allies also let the germans keep some 
of their weapons for self defense unitil they were able to get to the 
lowlands, away from the resistance factions.  This is from memory, and 
it is unreliable.  

--Dale Farmer


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53369
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: I believe in gun control.

In article <C4vG3F.Kx3@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>I believe in gun control.  How about you?
>
>  I believe in gun control, too . . . assuming by "gun control"
>  you mean always being able to hit your target.
>
>
>---peter
>
   Or, how about the Clint Eastwood line in "Pink Cadillac" -
      "I believe in gun control.  If there's a gun around, I wanna be
       the one controlling it."

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53370
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Lavishly Funded "Gun Epidemic" Propaganda Campaign to Commence

In article <C4txEK.FCq@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>Morris the Cat (rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
>: Well, as Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition points out, the full
>: force of the anti-gun ruling class, their multi-millions, their
>: polling organizations, their schools, their news media, their
>: "entertainment" media
>
>The entertainment media... a "force of the anti-gun ruling class"??
>Is this the same media that's made billions producing films and
>television that glorify guns and gun users?  Or is that another
>anti-gun media?
>
>You've got to be kidding.

I'm afraid he isn't.  They are a hypocritical lot.  

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53371
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck

In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
>Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
>because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
>500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
>picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
>sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? 

Not just because of the riflemen.  They also have many hard bunkers in
the mountains that would be nearly impossible to penetrate. As for
tanks, they would be rather useless in such mountainous terrain.  

>Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
>world. 

Gee, that's a new one.  He thought it was a different ethnic group.  
Since Hitler was determined to control, at the least, all of Europe,
do you think he gave a damn about international monetary concerns?  
Also, there's a LOT of gold in Swiss vaults.  Don't you think he new
that?  If he could have, he would have taken Switzerland.  However,
crazy as he was, he wasn't totally stupid.  It would have cost him a
hell of a lot to take Switzerland, with no guarantee that an invasion
would be successful.  He probably figured (or his generals did, when
he was listening to them) that it wasn't worth the cost.

Al
[standard disclaimer]



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53372
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control


In article <C51L52.BGo@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>I would be surprised if there weren't contrary studies.  I might add that
>Sloan and Kellerman was endorsed by the police departments of both Seattle
>and Vancouver and is considered by most of the references I have at hand the
>most exhaustive study of its kind, even by those who take issue with some of
>the essay's conclusions.  S&K's statistics speak largely for themselves
>without postulate.

And, I might add, vitamin C has been endorsed by a Nobel Laureate as a
panacea for almost everything from the common cold to cancer.  

> In order to compare violent crime trends, S&K compared >all<
>violent crime categories, from simple assault through various mechanisms of
>homicide.  

Wait a minute. S&K did NOT compare trends.  If they did, they would
have seen that the advent of Canada's gun law had no effect on
homicides, total or handgun.  Without a pre- vs. post comparison, one
cannot speculate as to the utility of anything.  All they have is a
correlation, and correlation DOES NOT prove causality.


>If your point is that non-whites commit more handgun crimes than whites
>then yours is the dubious assumption.  Conventional social theory is that
>economic status, not color, is the primary motivating factor for crime,
>especially violent crime.  What's your point anyway, that white people
>are more responsible gun owners?  Should we assume that it's a coincidence
>that there are comparitively fewer white people earning below the poverty
>line and living in tenement neighborhoods where most violent crime occurs?

Hold it again. You dismiss a point about demographics, then you ask
about socio-economic demographics? Very slick.
>
>:    Differences between the two cities in the
>:    permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable.
>
>On the contrary, it's these differences that are the very basis of the study:
>the easy availability of legal handguns in Seattle and the much more
>difficult "restricted-weapons" permit required in Vancouver.

Once again, correlation does not prove causality.  Looking at pre-vs.
post data, the Canadian gun law had no effect.

>
>Not so.  Cook measures suicides and assaultive homicides with
>firearms against a survey-based estimate of the number of legal and
>illegal guns in circulation within a city.  

Sir, if you were a Canadian, and owned a gun before the restrictive
gun laws were passed, and decided to hide it rather than turn it in,
would you answer truthfully a question about gun ownership from
someone who calls, writes, or asks you on the street?  That is one
problem with surveys.  Nobody will answer an incriminating question.
Another is that people will often tell you what they THINK you want to
here.

>
>Again, your author misses the core issue: that Vancouver citizens are
>prohibited from purchasing handguns on the basis of self-defense.  They
>don't have a choice in the matter.

Does that mean no Vancouver citizens have handguns? I think not. You
are discounting guns purchased beforehand, and guns purchased for
purposes other than self-defense, which can also be used for defense.

>
>Hmmm... sounds like your author might like a bumper sticker that reads "Guns
>don't kill people, black people kill people!"  Honestly, his conjectures,
>backed up by zero evidence, zero studies and even less common sense, aren't
>worth the considerable time it must have taken you to type in.  His
>assumptions look frighteningly close to those pseudo-scientific "studies"
>that the white supremist assholes love... the crap that takes published
>statistics, twisted around in an attempt to prove the inherent criminal
>nature of black people.

He makes valid points about demographic differences.  You then resort
to the kind of argument that the "Politically Correct" movement often
uses to stifle any debate.  Nice, real nice.


>This author's essay contains 0% independent study upon which to base his
>conclusions, just some strained, disjointed statistical discourse attempting
>to blame Seattle's murder rate on blacks. 

One doesn't have to produce his own data in order to point out the
flaws in the methodology and conclusions of another's study. Again,
you resort to PC tactics.


Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 53373
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Another NYTimes Yellow-Sheet Editorial (4/4/93)

In article <1pmol6INNod9@gap.caltech.edu>, arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
> 
> >*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the
> >effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap
> >and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help
> >investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing
> >- trace the explosives involved.
> 
> I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the 
> explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the 
> consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based
> one. 

Proper counter to this claim:  "Forensic analysis of the WTC bomb by
means of taggants would have been as impossible as semantic analysis
of NYT editorials by means of taggants -- the difficulty in both cases
being to have persuaded the bull to consume the taggants before 
production of either item."
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54116
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes:
> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:
> >Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> >
> >Don't be silly.  Of course you can.  The police have everything 
> >the gangs have and then some.  Plus they've got access to the 
> >National Guard (via the Governor) if things get too rough.  That's 
> >tanks for those of you who've never seen them at play.  Of course, 
> >they've got rifles and helicopters.
> >
> >And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
> >armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
>
> What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally 
> blown out of proportion.  In my post I was referring to your 
> regular patrolman in a car cruising around the city vs. gang 
> members.  Of course the police have access to the things that you 
> mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the time?  Of 
> course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every 
> day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The 
> majority that I see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there 
> is anything wrong with a revolver but if you're a cop that is up 
> against some gang member with a couple of automatics in his coat (I 
> mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a disadvantage even 
> with training.

how so? i think you're making assumptions here that might not 
necessarily be true. -my- personal choice would be a semi-auto, but 
revolvers are just as effective, if not more so.

> I have been at a shooting range where gang gang members were 
> "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing taking out 
> their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target and they 
> weren't doing too badly either.

relevancy, please? you sound shocked, but that hardly proves anything.

> The University cops here (who are are state cops) are armed better 
> than the Chicago police.  It seems most state cops are.  I don't 
> know where you are originally from David but you live in Tennesse 
> and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news and in 
> the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here 
> than there.

wait, doesn't Chicago have -serious- gun control? if so, why do the
police need all that firepower in the first place? (sarcasm alert)

all the patrol cars i've seen around here have shotguns clamped to 
the dash board. IMHO, that's all the police need to outgun just about 
anything.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data  `,`
`,`  is Life -- The Player's Litany, from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54117
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Letter to a Liberal Colleague -- L. Neil Smith

Posted by Cathy Smith for L. Neil Smith

                   LETTER TO A LIBERAL COLLEAGUE

[AUTHOR'S NOTE:  "Adrian" -- name changed to protect the guilty -- 
and the author are science fiction novelists who once worked with 
the same editor at a famous New York publishing house.]

Dear Adrian:  

I'm way behind schedule on my current book again, so this reply to 
your note -- criticizing the recent magazine interview I gave and 
generally attacking gun ownership -- will necessarily consist 
mostly of assertions you're free to believe (or not) I can back 
with evidence and logic I've neither time nor energy to present 
now.  I've written fully on this topic before and will again in the 
future.  When I do, I'll make sure you get copies.  

There are many arguments I might make, from the futility and danger 
of delegating self-defense to the police (see Don Kates in the Jan. 
10, 1985 WALL STREET JOURNAL) to the real effect of prohibition, 
shifting consumers from newly-outlawed handguns or semiautomatic 
rifles to items like sawed-off shotguns or homemade bombs, but I'll 
limit myself here to commenting on the newspaper clipping you sent 
with your note.  

First, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Second, publication of some latter-day "scientific study" doesn't 
alter the fact that the gun prohibitionists I discussed in my 
interview -- annoying you so much in the process -- were lying.  

Third, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Fourth, as often happens with these things, the "study" doesn't 
support the gun prohibitionists' original numerical contentions 
anyway, but simply adds a new layer of spurious claims to an older 
body of lies, omissions, and distortions.  

Fifth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Sixth, the fact that gun prohibitionists have been caught lying on 
countless occasions (Carl Bakal, author of NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND 
BEAR ARMS, even confessed to it publicly) makes the value of this 
present "study" dubious, to say the least.  

Seventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is 
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, 
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic 
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Eighth, given your own lifelong service as a federal bureaucrat 
(not to mention the cynical sophistication of your fiction), you 
should be better aware than most people how "progress" -- in 
designing "studies" to prove whatever you want -- outstrips our 
ability to collect meaningful data.  A case in point we might agree 
on is the fact that it took another kind of prohibitionist 20 or 30 
years to create "studies" "proving" that pornography causes crime.  
More naive (and probably more honest) efforts in the 50s and 60s 
clearly indicate the contrary.  

Ninth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Tenth, another reason to doubt all such "studies" is that human 
behavior (as the Austrian School of economics demonstrates) is far
too complex and unpredictable to be meaningfully quantified.  The 
attempt to do so -- and then create public policy based on the 
resulting pseudo-information -- is wrecking our civilization.  

Eleventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is 
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, 
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic 
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

Twelfth, the "study" is also worthless because it incorporates 
figures for suicide, which is not necessarily a tragedy but 
basically another individual right, sometimes with ancillary social 
benefits.  If anything, perhaps suicide INTERVENTION should be a 
criminal offense.  

Thirteenth and finally, the National Rifle Association officials 
quoted in the article, whatever their shortcomings (and they are 
many), are correct in this instance:  the "study" is meaningless 
because the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a 
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and 
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process 
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.  

And because of that, Adrian, even if the "study" were valid, it 
wouldn't deter me from a lifelong personal objective of seeing that 
anyone can own any weapon he or she prefers and carry it however, 
whenever, and wherever he or she desires without asking anybody's 
permission. In this I'm ably assisted by gun prohibitionists 
themselves, whose yawping invariably moves previously unarmed 
people to go out and buy their first gun "while they still can".  
Before the '68 Gun Control Act, most of the "shooting fraternity" 
viewed handguns (incorrectly, as it turned out) as inaccurate, 
ineffective toys.  There probably weren't six million of them in 
the whole country.  Now, thanks to Kennedy, Metzenbaum, the Bradys, 
and their ilk -- AMERICA'S GREATEST SPORTING GOODS SALES TEAM -- we 
probably manufacture at least that many every year.

The fascinating datum is that Handgun Control, et al. are perfectly 
aware of this -- so I guess you'll have to ask them yourself what 
their real motives are.  

Look:  gun-making isn't an arcane or difficult art (and by the way, 
it's easier to make a fully automatic weapon than a semiautomatic; 
the fact that I can still obtain my own weapon of preference, the 
self-loading pistol, is the only thing which keeps me from pursuing 
this further).  Even if it were difficult, there are already a 
quarter billion firearms in America, with an estimated "half life" 
of 1000 years -- possibly more for stainless steel.  Guns are gonna 
be around a long time, Adrian, whether you like it or not.

As for me, to paraphrase Elmer Keith, regardless of what the law 
provides or any court decides, I'm always going to be armed.  And I 
will always work to see that others are, as well.  The bad news is 
that there are thousands more -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands 
-- where I come from.  We can't be stopped by passing laws, we can 
only be forced to arm ourselves and others secretly and -- given 
both the practical and alleged differences between full automatics 
and semiautomatics -- perhaps more efficiently.  

So what's the point?  

L. Neil Smith
Author:  THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN, 
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54118
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
> 
> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
> 
>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
> 
>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>    No comparison.
> 
> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.

	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation. 
	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.

	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer
	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
	good dollar/pound deal. 

	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
	pay through the nose for it. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54119
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

I wrote :
  Nice strawman indeed.  The discussion is not about whether there were
tanks
  used in sixties riots; instead, it is about whether those tanks fired
their
  main guns in one of those riots.  You claim they did.  That claim is
  ludicrous.

Awesley replied:
     I repeated what I had been told, under what context I had heard it,
  supporting the claim that tanks were indeed used in Detroit in 67.

The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
has been whether they fired their main guns.  You did not merely claim that
tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.  You continue to
back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
disputing.

Awesley went on:
  I
  spent a few minutes in a library today -- found their computer was
  down and they don't have a card catalog.  Anyway, it took about 10
  minutes to find this in _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion and It's
  Victims_ by Sauter and Hines, on page 133, telling of the death of
  Tonia Blanding, age 4.
   
        "When the tank was fired upon by snipers it turned in the direction
  the shots came from. [...] the fifty-caliber machine gun mounted on the
  tank belched fire into the buildings.  After a short round into the front
  of the buildings, the tank guns spit again, tearing apart huge holes out
  of the side of the apartment."
  
       Well, it's not the main gun.  

"Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
now going to admit that you were wrong?

I wrote:
  will I see any pictures of tanks firing their main
  guns?  Will I see pictures of buildings damaged by the shells?  Will I
read
  the reports of the tank fire?  I'll bet you dollar to doughnuts I won't. 
  It will take more than second-hand accounts from a few old National Guard
  sergeants shooting the shit to convince me that tanks shelled American
  cities in the Sixties.

Awesley replied:
    Well, if you bothered to read them, it wouldn't take long at all to
  find reports of tank * fire * -- although not necessarily of the main
  guns.

I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
been *big* news.

Awesley goes on:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

And on:
  I don't
  expect to convince you; you'll have to open your mind and eyes and
actually
  do a little research to be convinced one way or the other.  Let me know
  what you find.

I already know what you found: nothing.  If I claimed that the Marines used
F-4s to launch rockets at buildings in Trenton, New Jersey would you
believe me?  Would you suspend judgment until you had a chance to research
it?  Or would your bullshit filters kick in?

If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
it.  Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 
If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54120
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
[deleted]
[]       And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
[]armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
[]
>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
>gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
>taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
>and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>state cops are.

Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to
3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).

A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.

- A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
  the trigger again.
- A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
  but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.
- A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
  to rotate to the next round.
- A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
  hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
  easy motion, even one handed.
- Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
  on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.

- A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
  first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
  lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
  about clearing it.
- Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
  and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the 
  chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
  this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
  of employment as a revolver.
- There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
  operation of many of them requires more training.

Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
as the timer on a VCR.

Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
equipped for anything short of a riot.

Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a 
wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
criminal encounters is less than 5.

What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police 
prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....

ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they 
        introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
        as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.

-- 
"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
	-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54121
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
[deleted]
>The University cops here (who are
>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
>in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
>and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
>than there.

Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops
right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper
and only option available to the law-abiding citizens?

A factoid:

56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from
around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings
there eh?  :-)

-- 
"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
	-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54122
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qiebiINN1c1@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>[deleted]
>>The University cops here (who are
>>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>>state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
>>in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
>>and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
>>than there.
>
>Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops
>right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper
>and only option available to the law-abiding citizens?
>
>A factoid:
>
>56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from
>around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings
>there eh?  :-)

        Well, if we're going to discuss being a police officer in
America today.       

        The FBI lists 132 police officers killed (feloniously and
accidentally) in 1990.  That's apparently everybody at all levels.

Year        Officers killed       Rate/100,000 police officers
1982             164*                  47.6
1983             152**                 40.2
1984             147                   39.4
1985             148***                37.9
1986             133                   34.9
1987             148                   39.0
1988             155****               41.9
1989             145*****              38.1
1990             132                   32.0


* Includes one officer in Mariana Islands
** Includes one officer each in Guam and Mariana Islands
*** Includes one officer in Guam and two in foreign locations
**** Includes one officer in American Samoas and two in foreign countries
***** Includes one officer in Guam and one Federal officer killed in
Peru


       God, I love the information age!  :-) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54123
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
>> 
>> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
>> 
>>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
>> 
>>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>>    No comparison.
>> 
>> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
>> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
>> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
>> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
>> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
>> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.
>
>	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
>	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation. 
>	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
>	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.
>
>	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
>	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
>	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
>	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
>	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
>	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
>	thus it is economical. 

       Here's a question:  If most marijuana is domestic and
producing it here is economical, why would we expect it to be
imported?

>       Of note though ... domestic reefer
>	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
>	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
>	good dollar/pound deal. 

       Yet it was done.  Done quite successfully for a number of years.
*Somebody* thought it was worth the risk.

>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. 

       Your assumption is that this "low" dollar/pound area is
sufficiently low as to make gun-running unprofitable.  On what
do you base this?  

       And given that smuggling channels are already established,
and given the economies of scale, would it really add significantly
more expense to start smuggling firearms, especially considering
doing so would be less hazardous (in terms of getting caught) than
drugs?

>       All production
>	would have to be local. 

       Now *that* was a jump.  In any case, define "local."  It's
a big country.
 
>       There are not all that many people
>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it. 

       Wow, you gotta love the speculation.

       As I posted before, we import billions upon billions of raw
ores across the Mexican border.  Not only that but ships come in and
out of U.S. harbors every day full stuff.  And customs doesn't even
have the extra advantage of being able to sniff them out.  

       I'd be willing to wager that a shipload of handguns would be
worth more than a shipload of raw ore, *and* you're virtually guaranteed
to get it past customs, because they'd have to hand search every hold of
every ship which came through.

       It's not simply a matter of how much money are they worth, but how
much *more* money are they worth than other goods, based on the likelihood
of being caught.  Less money than drugs, but also a safer thing to smuggle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54124
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1qfrhbINNo80@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>[...]
>this measure as it will prevent the evil Bambi-killers from hunting,
>and another will fight it for the interference with Nature that it is.

Such a measure would also have another benefit. It would relieve the
various states of the thorny problem of what to do with the hundreds
of millions of dollars hunters pour into the economy annually. I'm
sure that, to attain sure a lofty, humane, liberal and ecologically
(not to mention politically) correct goal, the environmental and animal
rights groups/individuals supporting such a measure would be more than
willing to add their names to a list of supporters seeking increased
taxation to replace these lost revenues. I am equally confident that
these same entities, given their noteworthy record in the area of social
responsibility and respect for private property, would feel morally
and ethically bound to raise the necessary funds to acquire the
hundreds of thousands of acres of land now held in private hands
solely for use as private hunting preserves by the landowner(s). To
do less than this would place these same groups/individuals in
the ethically untenable (to say nothing of environmentally and
politically incorrect) position of sanctioning the logging and
subsequent development and urbanization of these former private
hunting lands, which would no longer be useable by, or of any
benefit to, the landowner(s) in such a capacity.

W. K. Gorman

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54125
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?

In article <1993Apr13.221936.28301@watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>In article <shepardC5FtLs.681@netcom.com>, shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard)
>writes:
>|> How effective are personal defense products like mace, pepper-spray,
>|> tasers and other non-lethal "stun" devices compared to handguns?
>|> Any statistics on #'s and types in use?
>|> 
>|> These products seem very attractive compared to handguns
>|> because, being non-lethal, they are more "forgiving" of accident or
>|> mistakes/wrongful shooting (such as the Yoshi Hattori case), and
>|> allow the justice system to deal with the criminal (rather than
>|> criminals simply being _dead_, which has a certain "vigilante feel"
>|> which seems to bother anti-gun people).
>
>The "more forgiving" nature also has its down side; it allows a criminal
>to use them w/o the ADW [assault with a deadly weapon] charge.  They also
>can have lethal or dangerous side effects -
> - some people have violent reactions to mace/pepper sprays
> - stun guns can harm people with weak hearts
> - people have suffered eye damage from mace; the stuff that is available
>   now is less concentrated than it used to be.
> - some of the spray propellents are flammable
>
>|> 
>|> The arguments I see _against_ these non-lethal weapons compared to
>|> handguns are lack of range, lack of "stopping power" or effectiveness,
>|> and limited "ammo".  True?  How about cost?
>
>Sprays
>
>- using any of the spray based [eg mace, pepper] indoors is bound to
>  affect anyone else in the room (like the victim) due to the nature
>  of the stuff.
>
>- using the sprays outdoors in any sort of breeze mitigates its 
>  effectiveness.
>
>- from reading various articles, it appears that mace, especially the
>  mace available to citizens, is pretty ineffective on people under
>  the influence of drugs or alcohol.
>
>- pepper spray appears to be more effective, but has the inherent spray
>  delivery problem.  It still does not appear to be anything better than
>  a distraction that might buy you time to run like hell [if you can].
>
>Consider that running like hell isn't always a viable solution.  For
>example, if you are dressed in boots and the assailent is dressed in
>sneakers .. you might have a tough time outrunning them!
>
>Tasars and Stun Guns
>
>- require contact with skin for max effectiveness; a jacket [like a 
>  leather one] will mitigate its effectiveness
>
>- the user must be extremely close to the assailent; that puts them
>  at a considerable risk of injury. 
>
>- the user must keep the stun gun in contact with the assailent for some
>  non negligible period of time.
>
>- tasar darts can be pulled out.
>
>Consider the problem a small women would have keeping a stun gun in 
>contact with a average size man for any length of time w/o sustaining
>serious injury.
>
>|> 
>|> Have any anti-gun groups suggested non-lethal weapons, to counter
>|> the pro-gun argument that people will be left defenseless?
>
>I haven't heard of any.  Generally they contend that people don't
>need to [or aren't able] to defend themselves.
>
>|> 
>|> And, what legal restrictions/licensing apply to non-lethal devices?
>
>Civilian ownership of stun guns is frequently illegal [NY].  The sprays
>are also illegal in some states.  Believe it or not, they are still 
>illegal in NY, although about half the state thinks they are legal!
>[I believe that NY almost legalized them; i have heard that the reason
>they didn't was due to their ineffectiveness]
>
>I feel that the sprays are better than nothing, but only if the user
>does not believe the hype ["this'll drop 'em in their tracks" stuff]
>and uses it as a diversion o_n_l_y .
>- 
>|> 
>|> 	MarkS
>|> --
>|> Mark Shepard | shepard@netcom.com | Portola Valley, CA
>
>-- 
>Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
>                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
> (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. Would
those work very well in stopping an attack?

						Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54126
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: "High Power" Assault guns

In article <1993Apr14.143825.13476@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
> Alaska with 1 UZI, 1 20 rnd Magazine, and 1 BIG Polar bear @
                                                 ^
I'd make that, "1 BIG, MAD, and HUNGRY with CUBS NEARBY Polar bear @..."

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54127
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <PA146008.711.734832476@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) says:
>>
[stuff deleted]

me:
>>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>>see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
>>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a
>couple
>>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>>disadvantage even with training.
>
David:

>      This is the "arms race" fallacy.  That somehow bigger guns make an
>individual safer.  The problem is that for each corresponding level of
>offensive power the is not an automatic level of defense increase.  The
>problem is that there's a sort of lethality threshold that once you get
>past you're only talking about a metter of degree.
>
>      Regardless of what cops are up against there's really no reason
>for the average beat cop to have anything bigger than a pistol on him
>as a personal weapon and maybe a rifle and a shotgun in the cruiser.
>
>      I mean, think about it.  Carrying a monster pistol or sub-machinegun
>doesn't make the cop any less wounded if somebody shoots him.  A lot
>of police departenments have switched to semi-automatics, as better
>more reliable weapons, and more stopping power, but there's a point
>of diminishing returns.
>
This is a very, very good point.  Who cares what kind of gun you've got if
you're lying on the ground dead.

>      And as far as automatics go, any gang member carrying around "a
>couple" of automatics (an incredible rarity) is going to be far more of
>a menace to himself and innocent bystanders than anything he might be
>tryinh to aim at.  One auto is hard enough to control.  Anybody who
>could control two is going to get the police officer regardless of
>what the police officer is armed with.
>
[more stuff deleted.  mostly mine]
>        My question is this:  What would a police officer gain from
>having a sub-machinegun or similar personal weapon that he already
>doesn't have with a 9mm or 10mm semi-automatic pistol?  I don't see
>as how the police should be hosing around full-auto fire, nor has
>my experience with police officers (or the stats regarding how many
>police officers get killed by other cops) made me feel such would be a
>good idea.  Precise fire is far more preferable.  Nor should they using
>"bigger" guns.  Most standard sidearms have more then sufficient
>stopping power when properly applied.  All more powerful weapons would
>do is make the likelihood of death higher without really giving police
>significantly more options.
>
Another very good point that is well taken.  It seems that when lots of lead
is flying (either the cops or the gangs) someone innocent always gets caught
in the crossfire.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

All points made above are well taken.  I guess I am in the mindset of
"having more makes it better" which is obviously not the correct mindset
to take in this discussion.  Now that I think about the situation a
little more carefully I see your point exactly David and I
wholeheartedly (sp?) agree.  Like I said I'm just assuming that "more
bullets and/or bigger bullets is better".  Once again though I want to
state that I am a pro-gun individual and do NOT believe that gun control
is really a viable option here in the United States regardless of the drivel
that I spout here :-)

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54128
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>
[stuff deleted. all mine]

>Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
>Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
>faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
>guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
>in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to

Aw come on.  It worked great in the 1920's (or the movie version of the '20s
anyways) :-)

>3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
>like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
>often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
>
>A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
>
[stuff deleted about how revolvers are just as good as semi-autos]

All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
I am not really familiar enough with handguns.

>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>as the timer on a VCR.

Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
>the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
>and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
>merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
>with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
>equipped for anything short of a riot.
>
Actually I don't watch those shows :-)  And you're right (at least partially).
I don't know much about handguns.  I'm more familiar with rifles.

>Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a
>wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
>Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
>I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
>to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
>what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
>wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
>extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
>criminal encounters is less than 5.
>
>What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
>.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police
>prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....
>
>ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they
>        introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
>        as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.
>
>--
>"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
> -BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

No flames here.  All your points are well taken.  Guess I still have a
lot to learn but thanks to this discussion I already am :-)  Guess I
assume too many things like more bullets are better and that sort of
thing.  Of course you know what happens when you assume ......... :-)

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54129
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes:
[...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...]

> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic 
> bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack?

last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54130
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>Promising field experiments are being done this year in several areas of
>the country relating to chemical contraceptive baits for deer. Preliminary
>data suggests that this will be a cost-effective and humane method for
>preventing over-population of habitats.

Preliminary data regarding similar research into kangaroo overpopulation
in Australia do not in any way support the cost-effectiveness of this
approach.  It _may_ be cost-effective for deer--if you quietly overlook
the fact that the net cost to the state of deer hunting is _negative_
(i.e. a profit) because the (majority of) hunters pay for licences.
The cost comparisons are probably being done assuming that people have
to be employed to cull the animals, which is not in fact the case.
You figure people are going to pay for licences to implant contraceptive
pellets or spread baits?

There has been a fair bit of discussion about this here recently,
because the kangaroo population in the grounds of the Governor-
General's residence has now reached plague proportions.  Despite the
whines of the rampant animal-libbers, the most effective method of
controlling the population is still considered to be controlled
shooting.

>So, now why should we allow hunting ... to prevent over-population of
>the deer/bear/<whatever> ? Sorry, but that 'justification' of blood-
>lust is now gone with the wind. Once mass-production of this stuff
>begins, animal populations can be easily managed without a shot being
>fired.  This leaves only the fact that some people *like* to go out
>in the woods and *kill* things.

Some people take satisfaction (IMHO, legitimate satisfaction) in eating
food that they have harvested themselves.  The pleasure derived from
hunting is the same as that you get from eating fruit and vegetables
grown in your own garden (and, in general, game meat is probably much 
freer of unpleasant chemicals than what you buy from the butcher or
the supermarket).

> That may be a motivation, but it
>cannot now be justified. Expect PETA and like organizations to use
>this argument to get hunting banned - period. 

By "cannot now be justified" I guess you mean that you personally
don't see any justification.  Fine--but what makes your opinion
so important?

>With no legitimate hunting, with the papers filled with stories of
>senseless murders ... I guess there won't be a chance in hell of
>building a case for the RKBA that will withstand either public
>opinion, necessity or scientific scrutiny. Don't give me that
>"silent majority wants guns" crap ... they are and will be 'silent'.
>No votes for RKBA, no RKBA. 

Certainly the last point is correct.  If politicians don't see any
votes for themselves in opposing stupid legislation or in developing
and supporting measures which might be effective in reducing the 
incidence of violent crime they won't do these things.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54131
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
> 
> >RM:Just a short thought: 
> >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
> >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
> >"no, it's total amnesty".

>     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy 
> back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can 
> you get if you leave paper trail behind?

In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver
Nuggets basketball game. 

How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)

Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?

Ron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54132
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>	Observations from a naive norwegian:

Yup, you said it.  I admire such honesty. ;-)

>	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to 
>	have something more macho than stamps to collect.....

Fire an Anschutz .22, then come back and talk to us.  You're letting
ignorance and possibly fear cloud your thinking.  Either that, or this
is sour grapes because we beat you in the Olympic shooting events.
Funny, you'd think biathalon would be a natural sport for the norse. ;-)

>	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than
>	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball).

Precisely.  That makes them the best method of defense for the citizenry.
Not everybody has the time to train with a gladius, you know, but for
some reason those who prey on others seem to have more free time.  To
extend this a bit further, you need only a certain level of competence
to beat another with a range weapon.  Getting in their face with a
weapon and winning is much more difficult, and requires more training
time the average citizen just does not have.  I've spent a few years
practicing with a sword.  I can take the common person armed with one
(though self-defense isn't the reason I own one).  My kid sister would
have an even chance of beating me, gun vs. gun, with only a month of
training.  That makes firearms much better, in our eyes.

>	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different
>	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like
>	crime and violence.

Excellent point.  Perhaps you aren't so naive after all?

>	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools
>	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration.

Taken into consideration in what respect?  Though quite wrong, let's
make it a blanket statement for weapons in general.  This has been
taken into consideration.  We call use of them aggrivated assault,
assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill, attempted
murder, and a whole host of others, and tack on extra prison time.

>	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently
>	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun.
>	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it
>	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes.

In Norway I suspect it was about the only weapon available.  You conquered
your land (among others) a full millenia before we were thought of, and
shortly thereafter weapons weren't quite so common.  I suspect that a few
world wars made a difference too, since in times of emergency weapons
tend to be turned in or donated to needy causes.  I'm curious, though,
were the weapons used in the crimes bought shortly before the crime, or
were they aquired by other means?  Any requirements other than just
registering the shotgun?

>	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell.....
>	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public,
>	and why should it be allowed ??

"Come on down to honest Erik's Used Swords!  Here's a slightly-used
short sword, *THE* battlefield supremacy weapon of the eleventh
century!  Only $39.95 with trade-in.  Easy financing!"  Sorry, I
couldn't resist.  You guys still slicing each other with long knives,
or is this really not a problem?

>	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that 
>	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence
>	than on nudity and sex.
>	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder...

I'm all for that.  What gets me is that scandanavians (and yes, I'm only
a couple generations off the longship) used to be some of the most
feared warriors on the planet a mere millenia ago, yet now seem to
spend their time sitting in spas and doing a bit of topless sunbathing.
Maybe you had a bit more time, and a more homogeneous culture, to become
civilized with?

>	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human
>	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun
>	in your car??

Yes.  We're too damned violent, partially I believe because we are not
a homogeneous culture and don't identify ourselves as "Americans" first
and foremost.  I'm rather proud of my Norwegian and Danish heritage,
whereas I suspect you couldn't care less about that 2% Welsh blood in
your veins thanks to a raid in Ireland back in 1055?  The time scale
and the homogeneous culture are important.  Equally important is a
basic philosophical difference in personal versus collective good.
In America, the individual is more important than the masses.  Personal
liberties are prized above all.  This is, sadly, changing of late, but
I trust you notice how this call for freedom makes laws that restrict
individuals for little collective benefit hateful to Americans.  I'd
hazard a guess that, were America less interested in freedom and
personal liberty and more interested in collective good we never would
have sent our armed forces anywhere.  One poor effect of this culture
we have is that we're looking out for ourselves and it is quite easy
to identify with only a small segment of the population.  My grandmother
tells of being discriminated against back in Denmark because she spoke
"low Dane," whereas others spoke "high Dane."  It was shortly after
World War II, as I remember, that "low Dane" was abolished so there was
one common dialect.  We cannot fathom such a minor thing being a problem,
because we have even more obvious means of identifying an "outsider."

>			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably
>			the keyboard-software or the quality of the
>			subtext on tv......

Take heart, yours is better than 90% of what gets posted by native speakers.
Any helpful hints for our educational system?  People have this annoying
tendency to drop out of school and sell drugs over here.

[ ;-) And what kind of name is Thomas Parsli?  Here, you can use my great
grandfather's before he changed it: Christian Aarskog.  That's a
great one for getting mispronounced.  I think that's why he changed it.
I don't think he needs it anymore ;-) ]

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54133
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun Talk -- Legislative Update for States

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>IOWA:  All firearm related bills are dead.  Senate File 303
>dealing with off-duty police officers carrying concealed remains
>viable.

	The *POWER* of the word processor and a stamp at work.
The fact that around here the state rep generally lives no more than
nine miles from any constituent doesn't hurt, either.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54134
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

In article <1qibs0$flk@vela.acs.oakland.edu> awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.225910.14964@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
i]>>Since there was no sniper fire, doing nothing was equally effective,
>>as was yelling "stop that".  Of course, if one wants to credit the
>>tanks with stopping non-existent sniper fire, we might was well credit 
>>it with stopping an invasion by Martians.  
>> 
>>See "Firearms, Violence and Civil Disorders" (from SRI) and "Sniping 
>>Incidents - A New Pattern of Violence" (from Brandeis University's 
>>Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence).
>
>>>>There was precisely ONE
>>>>verified sniper in the 67 riots, a drunk firing a pistol out a window.
>
>Actually, there was only one confirmed sniper to >die< in Detroit,
>according to Sauter & Hines, _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion & It's

What sources did Sauter and Hines use?  In Congressional hearings
later, the newspaper folk admitted that their reports were completely
wrong.  (Some of their excuses are understandable, while others amount
to gross negligence.  Then there's their "we lied".)  As far as I
know, they never did the followup.

>>So?  People other than snipers can shoot firemen.  If they are,
>>shooting at "snipers" can't help.  Blowing big holes in buildings that
>>don't contain "sniper nests" or worrying about travelling "sniper
>>squads" is a complete waste of time.
>
>Interesting.  Just curious, they do you believe that tanks did blow
>big holes in buildings in Detroit 67?

I don't have any relevant knowledge about the counter-sniper tactics
or what the govt did with the big war toys.  That's why I've only
commented on what they couldn't have accomplished, no matter what
they did.

>>Nope - the "sniper" fire was coming from other police/guard positions.
>
>The guard certainly needed to learn.  But I don't agree with the
>idea that there were no snipers at all.  From p. 121 of Sauter & Hines:
>
>     "Despite the force of the National Guard in alliance with the
>Army troops, the snipers did not stop.  The snipers boldly lay siege to the
>Fifth Precent police station and took pot shots at the Seventh.  Firemen
>were under constant harassment from snipers fired from half-closed
>darkened windows in high apartment buildings and from roof-tops."

Not in Detroit, not during the 60s.  That's newspaper copy and they
admitted later that they were wrong.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54135
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <PA146008.710.734831135@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> 
>>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>>
>>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>>	own, use or display a firearm. 
> 
>        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.
> How this translates into individual ownership is questionable, but I
> think it's fairly safe to say that you're wrong about the "vast majority."

	OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
	claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
	threaten anyone with them. What do they do right ... or are
	they just lucky ? In either case, this means the 'average
	threat level' in this country is rather low. 
 
>>       Besides, there are other
>>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>>	as firearms. 
> 
>        Please name them.  The key phrase is "can be."  Theories are
> nice, but practicality is more important.  A taser (to chose an
> exmpale outlawed virtually everywhere) "can" be as effective as a gun,
> under optimal conditions when dealing with your absolute average
> [...]

	I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
	alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 

	In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
	least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
	Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
	conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
	block party. 

>>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>>> scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
> 
>        In a very real sense *everything* the government does is based
> on public approval, if for no other reason than at any particular time
> there aren't "public servants" commonly adorning trees.
> 
>        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> solely of force of arms.

	Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
	all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
	set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
	illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
	twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
	the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
	cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
	a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
	gives a rats ass ? 

>>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
> 
>        Excuse me, sir, but *you* were the one suggesting that arguments
> for RKBA would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

	No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
	aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.

>>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. 
> 
>         Emotion is hard to argue against.  But it must be done anyway if
> emotion is wrong.

	Argue away ... you can't win. 

>>       The stats are not all *that*
>>	clearly behind firearms - 
> 
>         And just yesterday you claimed they weren't behind them at
> all.
> 
>>       the protection factor does not
>>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. 
> 
>         Operating under the assumption that the same conditions absolutely
> govern both of them.  That the expansion of one automatically necessitates
> the contraction of the other.

	Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
	availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and 
	and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
	I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
	complaints. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54136
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

				Declaration of Independence
					4 July 1776

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54137
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:

> 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
> 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
> 	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> 	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> 	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> 	pay through the nose for it. 

You don't know much about modern automatic weapons, do you?  Just about ANYBODY
with basic manufacturing skill can turn out HIGH QUALITY submachineguns.  A 
couple of high school shop teachers were recently arrested for building 
submachineguns in the school shop.

I suggest that you go to the library and find a copy of "Smallarms of the 
World".  Your entire premise is based on non-factual assumptions.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54138
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?


holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
|> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets.
|> Would those work very well in stopping an attack?
|> 
|> 						Doug Holland

 Any projectile traveling at or near typical bullet speeds is potentially
lethal.  Even blanks [which have no projectile] can cause death if the
muzzle is in close proximity to the victim.  I have heard of rubber or
plastic bullets being used effectively during riot situations [where the
intent is crowd control, rather than close range self defense]; i've also
seen reports of deaths caused by them [the British in Northern Ireland].
 Use of a firearm for self defense is appropriate and lawful only in the
gravest of situations; at that point, i consider deadly [lethal] force to 
be a proper reaction [and so does the law].  
 Furthermore, use of less effective [but still potentially lethal] force
has its own set of problems.  It may well take more applications of the
less effective force to stop the incident; this places all parties at some
risk; the victim because the attack has not stopped, and the assailent 
since the aggregate damage done by the multiple applications may well be
more deadly.

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54139
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>> 
>> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods.
>
>	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.

Hmm.  I beg to differ.  It will probably make a big difference at some
point.

>
>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>
>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms. 

Thankfully, it is true that the majority go through life without
having to use a firearm.  Howver, there are situations where firearms
are the most effective means of self protection.  What other means do
you propose as equally effective?


>
>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>> scientific scrutiny.
>
>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.

New to this country? New to political theory?
Alas, I was speaking of principle.  Without principle, all attempts at
republican forms of gov't are futile.  There are times when public and
political opinion are contrary to principle, which is why we have a
Constitution which enumerates gov't powers and presumes certain
rights.  A major reason for this was to prevent a tyranny of the
majority.

>
>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>
>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that*
>	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not
>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society
>	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
>	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough
>	active voters believe in that course. 

This is exactly why law should be based on reasoned thought, not
immediate perception.  Of course, it doesn't always work that way.
Fortunately, while there are no guarantees, logic sometimes does
prevail.  And, if not, there are still means for correction.  
As far as "enough active voters" are concerned, that is still
an open question until the vote is made.

>
>> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters?
>
>	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when
>	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will
>	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will
>	be very interested anymore.

You portray a possible scenario for the future.  But, how will you
silence RKBA supporters right now?  As long as public debate is
allowed, such debate will continue. If we allow public debate to be
restricted or denied, then we will get a gov't we deserve.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54140
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: CNN for sale


 Bill Vojak:

 BV>I read in the paper yestarday that Ted Turner wants to "trim" down
 BV>his media holdings and is putting CNN up for sale.  The #1 potential
 BV>bidder?  TIME/Warner of course.  Sigh . . . . . Just what we need. :-(

 Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
 together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
 the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two....
---
 . OLX 2.2 . There is no way they can get over here!        A. Maginot
                                                                   
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54141
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like The


 Paul Prescod pontificating:

 PP>State.EDU (Cathy Smith) writes:

 PP>>     Libertarians oppose BOTH waiting periods AND background checks
 PP>>-- or ANY prerequisite for exercising rights that are supposed to
 PP>>be guaranteed.

 PP>Let me get this straight.  Unlike the other idiots in this newsgroup,
 PP>you actually support anybody having unlimited access to guns,
 PP>inclucing criminals.  (or would you prohibit them from owning them,
 PP>but not from buying them?)

 PP>You are a supreme idiot.  You make the other idiots look like Mensa members.

Thanks Paul, for yet another fine example of the holier than thou gun control
mindset. Why don't you add something intelligent to the debate, like maybe
nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Fight crime..... shoot back!
                                                                           
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54142
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: Re: My turn


 Dan Sorenson writing:

 ...

 DS>I'd rather not get into the Nationalized Medical Care debate
 DS>here, but I find it amazing that criminals often live better than the
 DS>rest of the population, in some aspects, and that we're paying for
                               ^^^^
 DS>them to do so.  As an example, in November I had my annual dental

 ...

 Here, you are somewhat in error.....in ALL respects we are paying. When we
 are not paying for their countryclub incarceration, we are paying with our
 lives and belongings as their prey. Upon what would they practice their
 nefarious predatory acts if not for the citizens of this country. What is
 amazing to me is the mindset of those who overtly and covertly perpetuate
 a justice system (har) that essentially mandates that some of us offer up
 ourselves as that prey while they suitably insulate themselves from the
 preyground.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Church of Crime & Justice....come, let us prey!
                                
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54143
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim)  
writes:
> 
> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
> 
>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
> 
>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>    No comparison.
> 
> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.

I beleive this was the source of the Kennedy clan's money.
> 
> So unless there's something I'm missing, I think your argument that guns
> won't be smuggled because theyr'e more difficult to manufacture, smuggle
> and hide won't wash.  If enough people want something, somebody will try
> to supply it.
> -- 
> Allan J. Heim   allanh@sco.COM   ...!uunet!sco!allanh   +1 408 427 7813
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54144
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.734814613.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli  
<thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 
> 
> 	Observations from a naive norwegian:
> 
> 	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to 
> 	have something more macho than stamps to collect.....
> 
> 	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than
> 	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball).
> 
> 	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different
> 	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like
> 	crime and violence.
> 
> 	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools
> 	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration.
> 
Only as far as it affects the crime rate.
> 
> 	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently
> 	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun.
> 	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it
> 	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes.
> 	The solution was to restrict the sale, so it's now necessary to 
> 	apply and register your shotgun.
> 	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell.....

Did the RATE of crime fall?  If not, the ban was of no use.  It is the rate of  
violent crime that matters, not the tools used.  "It's the crime, stupid!"

> 	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public,
> 	and why should it be allowed ??
> 

Apparently that became the weapon of choice after the shotguns were banned.   
After that, they'll decide the car of choice  is the Saab, and propose a ban on  
that!

> 	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that 
> 	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence
> 	than on nudity and sex.
> 	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder...
> 
> 	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human
> 	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun
> 	in your car??
> 

Yes.  We still trust honest people here.  For the time being.

> 
> 			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably
> 			the keyboard-software or the quality of the
> 			subtext on tv......
> 
> 
> 	Disclamer(not):
> 	These are the views of all studens at my university,
> 	all Norwegians and probably whole of the universe...
> 
> 
> 			                       Thomas Parsli
> 	                                     thomasp@ifi.uio.no
> 


--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54145
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: A Scoop of Waco Road, Please

Your "lite" posting for the day, from rec.humor.funny:

In article <S539.2adf@looking.on.ca>, bellas@tti.com (Pete Bellas) writes:
> 
> There is a new Ice Cream Flavor inspired by the incident at Waco.
> 
> It's called Mount Caramel, it's full of nuts but you can't get it out
> of the carton.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54146
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

Recently while looking around in Traders Sporting Goods store, a very well
stocked firearms store, I discovered a printed document that was being 
distributed by the good folks who work there.  Traders, BTW, is located in
San Leandro, CA.

Granted, the document may be asking you and I to help out Traders, but in the
big scope of things, I feel that we would do all gun owners a favor by helping
to this cause.

Anyway, here it is:

NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP

Are you letting the newspapers tell you how to live your life, what's good for
you, what's not, and exercise blatant censorship over what you read in their
advertisments?

The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.

These ads were run for the law-abiding honest citizens who own firearms for
sporting use or self-protection.  They certainly have the right to do so, under
the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

If you are tired of newspapers who run sex and liquor ads galor, yet refuse to
run legitimate gun ads, please send a letter to the editors indicating your
displeasure over their censorship doctrine.

Following is a list of Bay area newspapers who censor gun ads.  Perhaps you'd
like to send them your thoughts on this issue!

Oakland Tribune		Daily Review		Alameda Times-Star
POB 28883		POB 5050		1516 Oak St.
Oakland, CA 94604	Hayward,94540	Alameda, CA 94501

Argus			Tri Valley Herald	San Leandro Times
3850 Decoto Rd.		POB 10367		161 W. Juana Ave.
Fremont, CA 94555	Pleasanton, CA 94588	San Leandro, CA 94577

Contra Costa Times	San Mateo Times		San Francisco Chronicle
POB 5088		POB 5400		901 Mission St.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596	San Mateo, CA 94402	San Francisco, CA 94103

San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190

Then there are six pages of "facts".  I can not validate these facts, and 
there were no sources, but many feel and sound very true.  Here are the topic
headlines:

- Big Media Snow Job
- Blaming Firearms for Murder is Like Blaming Hospitals for Death
- I could use the same Nazi Journalistic Technique of CBS and ABC to prove
  that Hospitals Cause Death
- How NBC, CBS, and ABC have scammed the American people on "gun control"
- American TV journalism is based on Nazi journalism
- Why TV journalists lie
- The Government with the help of the TV networks, has succeeded in playing
  one group against the other
- Gun laws are unconstitutional
- American gun laws are based on Nazi gun laws
- The Government is trying to devide and conquer
- The CIA wants your firearms

and so on for six pages.

So now we have the media trying help put gun dealers out of business by trying
to limit their exposure to potential customers, and preventing the customers
from reading about sales of ammunition and firearms for sporting, hunting, or
other recreational use.

Let me know if you write to any of these bozos.

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\

| Peter D. Nesbitt |     Air Traffic Controller     | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM    |

|                  |       Oakland Bay TRACON       |                         |

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  CBR600F2 Pilot  |       NRA Member CCX1380F      |  S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |

\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54147
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


|What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
|proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
|cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
|to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
|time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
|day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
|see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
|revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
|of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
|disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
|gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
|taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
|and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
|are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
|state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
|in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
|and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
|than there.

However, don't forget that the police in Chicago can carry just about
anything they want except for the Glock, which is not approved for
carry (Guess they figure all cops are like the Police Chief of Winnetka,
who happened to let off a stray round of 9mm. This is the same anti-gun
police chief that wanted full-auto Uzis for his patrol cars...).

Perhaps in the judgement of the majority of Chicago's finest, a close-to-
100% reliable weapon like a revolver is preferable to a 99.99% reliable
automatic. I note that in Germany, where certainly the 9mm semi-auto
handgun is king, some of the more elite police types want revolvers.

I don't think the issue is cost, because Chicago police certainly make
on the order of at least $40K/year. 

Your presumption of "disadvantage" I think is not borne out by the
experiences of New York City's cops; there the cops usually come out
on top with their standard .38 Spl revolvers.

I've seen S&Ws, Rugers and Beretta 9mms in addition to the revolvers
carried by Chicago cops.... in the past, I've seen .45 M1911s; others
have seen Browning Hi-Powers...

|Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54148
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
	Why?  Either the numerator or the denominator could fluctuate.
	The dollar value of a gun would (of course)
	go up if supply were restricted.  The weight of a gun might
	go down significantly as technology improved.   I don't
	think you have a basis to assert this.  
	
>It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>would have to be local. There are not all that many people
>who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>firearms from scratch. 
	The skill is easily taught to anyone with a modicum of
	mechanical aptitude and the ONLY motivator needed is 
	money.  If guns were banned then this motivator would kick
	in big time.  Now, of course, it is not a moneymaking
	proposition for every machine shop to make guns on the
	side when it ain't rebuilding engines.  Ban guns and 
	watch what happens.  You'll have to schedule a year in advance
	to get your brakes resurfaced. ;-)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54149
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !


|	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
|	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
|	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
|	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
|	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
|	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
|	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
|	pay through the nose for it. 

This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very
serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were
of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness
machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we
have a road system that is the envy of the world?

I seem to recall incidents in the past where Chinese entreprenaurs
attempted to smuggle AK-47s (semi-autos) into this country to
get around import number limitations (May have been Gunweek where
I read that years ago...)

Any person with high-school drafting skills and vocational school
machineshop training could produce a submachinegun. You talk about
the average person not being able get even a zip-gun; well now, think
of all that private CNC controlled machinery that is not being used for
3 shifts a day; do you think that if guns were being sold on the
black market for say, $150, an enterprising mechanical engineer
could be using that machinery to produce workable submachineguns
for sale? After all, GUNWEEK had an article and pictures on how BATF
was looking for the manufacturer of quite efficient silencers that
were of commercial quality and finish.

Look at it this way, 25% of the U.S. households have a handgun. Say
at least half of those keep one for self-defense. You are talking a
potential market of of tens of millions of people who would seek
firearms for the purpose of self-preservation. Only a fool would
believe that market would not be filled, regardless of government
prohibitions.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54152
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Armed Citizen - April '93

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) /  9:23 am  Apr 13, 1993 /

In article <1993Apr5.164728.10847@dazixco.ingr.com> crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com writes:
>>
>>THE ARMED CITIZEN
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
>>crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
>>Armed Citizen.  
>
>Perhaps so, but note that of the accounts cited, there was only
>one in which no shot was fired. Of the other twelve, five
>described cases in which the assailant was wounded by a shot,
>and six described cases in which the assailant was killed by a
>shot.

Follow more than one months posting.  As more than one reader has noted, 
there IS some reporting bias here.  I have seen months where these 
numbers were reversed.  I don't keep a constant tally, but it seems 
this particular issue had more shots fired than any other I can remember.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54153
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

Woops.  I'm not sure if I screwed up, but this is either forgery or some 
sort of mistake (aborted post that didn't abort) on my part.  

Bogus article below if seen in another post should be ignored..  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) /  3:29 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) /  1:49 am  Apr 12, 1993 /
In article <92468@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
>
>I certainly hope this is somebody's idea of a joke, as poor as it it...
>My earlier posting mentioning an illegal firearms MANUFACTURING site being
>searched for by the Feds in the Florida area was evidently ignored..

Let's look at this critically:
1.How many guns did this illegal manufacturing site make compared to
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<and so on...>

Sorry.
Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54154
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) /  8:51 pm  Apr 12, 1993 /

>I think most of us would rather be held up with a knife than with a gun,
>but HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO MANAGE THAT?  You still haven't offered

I've been watching this knife verses gun bit for a while now, (even
contributed a few comments) but this stuff "I'd rather face a knife than
a gun" has GOT to come from ignorance!  I used to think pretty much the
same thing, then I got 'educated.'

People do not as a rule understand how deadly knives can be, or how
quickly you can be killed with one.  Most people don't understand that
it takes less than an inch of penetration in some areas to cause quick
(within a minute or so) death.

The death rates from handguns and knives are within a few percentage
points of each other.  Many people not realizing how deadly knives are
'try their luck' and thus more get injured by knives.  A gun is deadly
only in a single direction and it's only advantage is that it is a
remote control weapon.  A contact weapon such as a knife controls a
spherical area 7 to 10 feet in diameter.

Most people have never seen knife wounds, aside from slicing a finger by
accident.  From 21 feet or so, a knife is very nearly an even match for
a holstered gun in experienced hands, even if the knife wielder has only
moderate skill.  From inside 10 feet or so, a knife is a match for a
DRAWN gun.  A knife is utterly silent, it never jams and never runs out
of ammunition.  It is limited only by the speed, dexterity skill and
ability of it's wielder.  Criminals in general are young, fast and
strong.  It's interesting to note that the patterned slashing attacks
used by many martial artists remarkably resemble the wild uncontrolled
slashing attacks of novices.  I've talked to several well trained
martial artists.  They have unanimously agreed that if they ever go up
against a knife they simply plan on being cut, hopefully not as bad as
the attacker.

Practicing with firearms requires facilities and equipment.  Practicing
with knives requires only a small area and something to simulate a
knife, say a popsicle stick or tooth brush.  Criminals practice their
knife attacks in prison.

If you have not trained against knives with a firearm and do not realize
these facts the first inkling you will have that something is wrong is
the knife ripping through your throat, or in the case of an experienced
attacker, parts of your body falling off onto the ground.  A 60 year old
man with arthritis can close that 7 yard distance and gut you in about
one and a half seconds.  Dennis Tueller with a broken leg in a walking
cast managed it in two.  I've seen people close that distance and strike
in 1 second.  I'm old, over weight and slow.  I can do it in 1.3
seconds.  I've seen morgue footage of people killed with edged weapons
that you would not believe.  (How about a single stab wound to the chest
with a TABLE FORK!  In this case the attacker used the HANDLE, not the
pointed end.)

Add to this the 'fact' that hand gun 'stopping' power is largely a myth.
Except in the case of a central nervous system shot, or a round that
destroys the skeletal structure, it takes anywhere from 3 to twelve
seconds for a bullet wound to 'take effect.'

This is true of even heart shots.  There is the case of the police woman
in L.A., the first recorded survivor of a .357 shot to the heart.  That
lady not only killed her attacker, but chased him down to do it!  All
four of her shots, fired after SHE had been shot, struck the perp.  Atta
girl!  The bullet entered her on a downward angle, went through the apex
of her heart, down through the diaphragm, clipped her liver and
destroyed her spleen.  It then exited her back leaving a tennis ball
sized hole.  She died about six times on the operating table, but was
out of the hospital in 15 days and was back on full duty in eight
months!  She was off duty at the time and not wearing her vest.  She was
on her way home so happened to have her gun.  No, she doesn't think
civilians should have the same rights.  Sigh.

The moral of the story is that even if you DO manage to shoot a knife
attacker, you'd better be planning on doing some dodging.  A good
alternative is to shoot for and break the pelvis.  People can often walk
(a little) on broken legs but a broken pelvis will nearly always anchor
them.  Many firearms schools recommend pelvis shots against contact
weapons.  The target is as large as the traditional 'center of mass' and
is more reliable to STOP somebody with a contact weapon, assuming a
caliber powerful enough to 'do the job.'  Hot .38's on up will usually
do this.

Remember folks, the idea isn't to 'take em with you' but for you to live
and them to fail, whatever the consequences for them.  This the reason
'killing them' isn't our goal, or in many cases even good enough to keep
us alive.

I don't want to face a violent attack of any sort.  Knowing what I now
know, I can't rightly say I'd rather face a knife than an gun.  It would
have to depend on the attacker, and if I could pick and choose, I
WOULDN'T BE THERE.  This is really the bottom line.  Criminals do not
fear the law.  Criminals do not fear the weapon.  They fear the citizen
behind the weapon that has shown the resolution and determination to do
whatever it takes.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54155
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /

>Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread 
>"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years 
>while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others.

Good point, Kirk.

He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts, 
and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time 
he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns
out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start
with) act responsibility once given the chance.

Rick.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54156
From: chris@MorningStar.Com (Chris Miller)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>> 
>> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods.
>
>	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.

I agree.  Sad, but true.

>
>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>
>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms. 

Please name one.

>
>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>> scientific scrutiny.
>
>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
>

.... Upon which our Bill of Rights is based.  Some delusion.

>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>
>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that*
>	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not
>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society
>	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
>	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough
>	active voters believe in that course. 
>

If this were not true in practice, then certain unethical politicians would
not be passing gun control laws.  Politicians are generally whores to public
opinion.  This does NOT mean the the public is either well informed or correct.
As for the stats,  anyone can support anything with the right stats.  The 
"right" stats, from what I've seen, are sometimes even used to support
conflicting sides of the same issue.


>> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters?
>
>	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when
>	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will
>	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will
>	be very interested anymore.
>

Used to own firearms? While armed insurrection, as the FF's of the Const. 
may have envisioned seems to me a somewhat fanatical approach to avoiding this,
Political protest is still an option at this point.  I agree that it's 
argueably not enough and/or too late.  If all else fails, there's always
PVC pipe and cosmoline.

--

Chris Miller
chris@MorningStar.Com

My opinions are my own (obviously), and by definition do not reflect the
opinions of anyone else...



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54157
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>Consider a similar structure:
>>"A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a
>>free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not
>>be infringed."
>>
>>Now, does this mean only the electorate can keep and read books?  Does{
>>it mean only registered voters can keep and read books?  Does it mean 
>>only those who have voted can keep and read books?  Does it imply any
>>restrictions AT ALL on the right to keep and read books?
>
>But it would imply that the state had the right to regulate and enforce
>education.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.  There is a difference
between "the feds can mandate literacy" and "the feds can't interfere
with literacy/book possession".

>>As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already
>>ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v.
>>Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what 
>>the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back
>>as the Dred Scott case, in 1857.
>
>It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>was not a proper militia weapon. Therefore, US vs. Miller supports
>limited government regulation of firearms.

Actually, the Miller court did nothing of the kind.  It remanded
the case back to the trial court because the miller court didn't
know if the weapon in question was a militia weapon.  (Doesn't it
bother anyone that a major constitutional issue was taken up in
a case where there was no defense?  Miller had been released by
the appeals court and disappeared - only the govt was represented.)

We don't know what would have happened with the reasonable "all guns
are militia weapons" argument.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54159
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

>Ron Miller wrote:
>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>"no, it's total amnesty".
 (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)

 I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is 
no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing. 
 
  
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.   

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54160
From: slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"


The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do 
they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it 
only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?

BTW, anybody planning on shaving Hillary's head to look for *666*? 8^)

Later Dave,
Days

^^^^^^^^
Goverment logic or just the Clintons?


--
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   |_/_/_/  _/       _/      _/_/  _/  _/ | David H. Slack                  |
   |_/      _/      _/_/    _/     _/ _/  | Boise Surface Mount Center      |
   |_/_/_/  _/     _/  _/   _/     _/_/   | email: slack@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com |
   |    _/  _/    _/_/_/_/  _/     _/ _/  | telnet: 323 4019                |
   |_/_/_/  _/_/ _/      _   _/_/  _/  _/ | phone: (208) 323 4019           |
   |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Hewlett-Packard, 11213 Chinden Blvd., Boise Idaho 83714-1023, M/S #625 |
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54162
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

      The San Francisco Examiner reports that Clinton has issued instructions
to federal law enforcement that they may not kill or injure anyone to 
resolve the Waco situation.  So they've built a fence around the compound,
and are now seriously considering building up the fence to prison-camp
levels, pulling out most of the manpower, and waiting however many months
it takes.

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54163
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.171115.16812@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
-> Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the
-> security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an
-> adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of
-> the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It
-> asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for
-> maintaining a milita. 
-> a free state.

Yes, I agree the first half of the amendment does modify the noun 
militia.  But the difinition of modify that applies to how "well regulated" 
modifies "militia" is:
	to qualify or limit the meaning of.  For example, "wet"
	modifes "day" in the phrase "a wet day."

The amendment is similiar to the statement:
	A wet day, being annoying, the right of the people to keep
	and wear boots, shall not be infringed.
So how does a dry day pertain the right to use boots?  Similiar,
what does the "unorganized militia" have to due with the right to
own guns?

-> The sentence [in the Second Amendment] doesn't restrict the right, or
-> state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other
-> than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a
-> right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First,
-> Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment.
-> The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the
-> amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right
-> to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of
-> In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and
-> bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.

No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed
is defined as:
	To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath, 
	an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate.
	To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach.
This definition implies the following of some form of existing 
agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance.  Boundaries 
or limits of behavior are set by society as a whole.  The word 
"unconditional" implies no agreements or all previous agreements 
are off, which is the opposite.

The words used in the first amendment are much stronger, i.e.,
"congress shall make no law," are much stronger.  They clearly 
	         ^^^^^^^^^^^
imply "unconditional."  If the writers of the amendment, wanted 
unconditional whay didn't they says, "congress shall make no 
laws pertaining the the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
The second amendment implies a sort contract between the people
the people and the state.  The bigger part of the contract is
the people have the right to overthrew the government and its laws
at any time.  To guarantee this right, the laws cannot stopped
the people from forming a "well regutaled militia."  The duties
of a "well regulated militia" to the government are descussed in 
Federalist No. 29.  And the limits of of the governmental control
of the militia are descussed in Article I Section 8, Article II 
Section 2, and the Second Amendment of the constitution.

-- 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54164
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)

In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
-> In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
-> > But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
-> > group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
-> > every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
-> > be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it 
-> > requires a continually standing committee of organizers.  
-> 
-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.

No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.
 
> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
-> number of times.  

No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
by Hamilton. 


-- 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54165
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

In article <C5L480.K7u@elite.intel.com> dgw@elite.intel.com (Dennis Willson) 
writes:
>On March 8, I sent strongly worded letters critisizing the BATF in
>their handling of the Randy Weaver and Branch Davidian cases to 
>several politicians (Ore. Senators Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield,
>Representative Elizabeth Furse and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen).
>While I have never been a supporter of Bob Packwood, I must admit
>that he seems to be the only one who has done anything but round-file
>my letter.

Well, I didn't bother writing to Boxer, Feinstein or Eshoo, the terrible
trio who allegly represent me.  Instead, I wrote to Bentsen.  My letter
was not exactly strongly-worded; I simply stated that the BATF approach
was immoral (military-style assault, firing into a house where they knew
there were kids).

Aparently, Bentsen forwarded my letter to the BATF and they responded to 
me directly.  It follows the text of your reply pretty closely.  However,
I intend to send another letter directly to them, in return.

>Prior to the service of the Federal search warrant, numerous efforts
>were made to locate and effect the arrest of David Koresh away from the
>compound.  These efforts were unsuccessful.  Even if David Koresh had
>been arrested while away from the compound, action would have been
>required against his followers (who are just as violent as he) during
>the subsequent search of the premises.

This section is not in the letter that I received.  The parts about ATF
logo and steenking badges or their loss of the element of surprise
were not included, either.

>                          Sincerely yours,
>
>                          Daniel M. H??l??tt  [can't make out signature]
>                          Deputy Director

The same guy with the bad handwriting apparently signed my letter, "for
Richard L. Garner; Chief, Special Operations Division".

      don




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54166
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / steiner@jupiter.ca.boeing.com / 12:07 am  Apr 15, 1993 /
>douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes:
>[...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...]
>
>> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic 
>> bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack?
>
>last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.

Also, you need to consider our legal system.  Since any of these things
CAN be lethal, you are going to have a hard time explaining why you applied 
lethal force when you DIDN'T think it was necessary.  (If you thought lethal
force was necessary, you wouldn't be using rubber bullets, would you?) Ouch.  
If you are justified in shooting them at all, you are justified in using 
the best self defense ammunition you can get your hands on.  It might actually
IMPROVE the legal outcome.

This is why hollow points hold up in court.  They are safer for you, safer
for innocent by standers, (don't as a rule go through the perp) and actually
safer for the perp.  If you are using military hard ball, you may have to 
shoot him 'MANY' times, where one or two hollow points might stop him and 
do the job.  As a rule, the fewer wound channels, the better the chance 
for his surviving the incident.

Rick

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54167
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Gun Lovers (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.

You're getting warmer.  The 'little thing in the trigger' has to be
depressed before the trigger can move.  What this means is the damned
thing won't go off until the trigger is pulled.  This makes it just
about (there HAVE been some problems, but we're assuming the gun is
functioning correctly..) as safe as a revolver.  The gun when working
correctly is totally drop safe.

Now, in police work this is a consideration.  There is not a single
documented case I'm aware of where a police officer was killed because
he failed to operate the safety on his firearm.  There are quite a few
documented cases where criminals got hold of the cops gun and couldn't
figure out how to get the safety off in time to use the gun, thus the
proprietary nature of the safety (to the criminal at least) very likely
prevented the office from getting shot.

The purpose of a safety is to make the gun safe from unintentional fire.
This does not mean it should be so complicated as to slow down
intentional use!  Thus the Glock safety is perfectly adequate from a
'safety' standpoint, but not necessarily the most desirable from the
standpoint of open carry where it is easily grabbed by somebody else.
By this criteria it DOES make a lot of sense as a concealed carry piece.
From the standpoint of police use, it is no better (or worse) than a
revolver as far as being 'proprietary' to the officer in the method of
firing it.

The ideal solution may someday be biometric sensing of the user so that
the firearm can't be used by anybody but it's owner, but for now the
wide variety of safety systems helps, unless the criminal happens to be
familiar with that particular type of firearm.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54168
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Gun Lovers (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) / 10:34 am  Apr 14, 1993 /

This isn't rec.guns, so maybe this is getting a bet technical, but I
can't resist....

> - A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
>   the trigger again.

Sometimes.....  Depends on WHY it misfired....

> - A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
>   but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.

I can't imagine doing much combat type shooting single action.....

> - A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
>   to rotate to the next round.

Assuming the cylinder WILL rotate....

> - A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
>   hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
>   easy motion, even one handed.

Never hurts to err on the side of safety, but if you've got one of those
'new fangled' hammer blocks or transfer bar safeties, it's unnecessarily
redundant.  I'd rather have the extra round.

> - Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
>   on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.

Quite true.  Speed loaders are a little less convenient to pack around
than magazines though.

> - A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
>   first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
>   lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
>   about clearing it.

True, but this is a training function.

> - Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
>   and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the
>   chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
>   this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
>   of employment as a revolver.

Cocked and locked for single actions or hammer down on double actions
are the only carry modes that make sense...  The 80 series Colt's for
example are quite safe to carry this way.

> - There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
>   operation of many of them requires more training.

Agreed.

Now that I've shot off my mouth a bit, let me back some of this up.  It
is true that a simple misfire on a revolver doesn't cost you much.  On
the other hand, I've had all sorts of interesting things happen over the
years.  For example, I've had FACTORY ammunition that has had high
primers.  A high primer will tie your revolver up somewhere from seconds
to minutes while you try to pound the action open to clear the problem.
An auto?  Jack the slide and continue.

I've had bullets come out of the case, keeping the cylinder from
turning, see clearing paragraph above.  About the WORST that can happen
with a semi auto is a double feed.  This can be cleared in seconds.

Most revolvers are more 'fragile' then semi auto's.  There are all sorts
of close tolerance parts and fitting involved.  Dropping the gun, or a
blow to the gun or all sorts of things can take it out of action.  Many
of the problems that can be cured on the spot with a (quality) semi auto
take a gun smith for a revolver.  In short a revolver MAY be less likely
to malfunction, but as a rule when it does, you're out of the fight.
The majority of malfunctions that occur with semi autos does not fall
into that category.

Vincint makes many good points in this post, but leaves off the opposing
view of most of them.  A real good starting place is Ayoob's "The Semi
Auto Pistol for Police and Self Defense."

In general, I'd agree, the revolver is an excellent first gun and self
defense weapon for somebody that does not have the time, and inclination
that is necessary for the training and practice needed to use a semi
auto effectively as a self defense arm.

Most cops are notoriously indifferent to firearms.  If the department
isn't going to train them, they aren't going to take the time on their
own.  There is no doubt that training is an issue.  The amount of
training required for effective use of a semi auto is probably several
times that of a revolver.  Many cops don't bother.

For myself, I'd hate to be limited to one or the other.  I'd rather pick
what fits better with my personal inclination, what I'm wearing that day
and so on.  Like the Moderator on rec.guns says, buy em all!

That said, I have to admit that often my advice to people thinking of
buying their first defense arm is (right after taking a class) get a
Ruger or Smith revolver....  (Sorry Colt fans.  Colt revolvers are ok
too!)

If this post had gone the other way, I'd be arguing for revolvers. :-)

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54169
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu /  6:26 am  Apr 14, 1993 /

>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm.


I suppose that depends on how you define 'vast' majority....

You are correct about 'majority.'  Somewhere between 1 out of three and 
one out of 10 will at some period in their lives experience a violent 
assault.  The risk is generally higher than emergency medical problems
like heart attack and stroke.

'Vast' is probably too loose a term.  With approximately 1,000,000 Americans
using firearms each year, over a 30 year period we get (roughly, since some
may have to do this more than once) 30 MILLION Americans with experience in 
using firearms for self defense.  30/250 yields 12 percent of the population.
(Yes, I know that is a REAL rough estimate.  We're closer to 270 million now, 
but many of these are minors and should be included etc, thus the percentage
if anything is low.)

At any rate, most minority groups in this range are not usually referred 
to as 'tiny' minorities, so I don't see how the other part of the group 
can be referred to as the 'vast' majority.  A little more work might 
support a 'simple' majority of Americans never use, own or display a firearm.

Certainly when you are talking about OWNERSHIP you are wrong.  Nearly half
of your fellow citizens own one or more firearms.  

>	                               Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms. 

Please provide a list of other means that are as effective.  Then you might 
convince your local police departments to switch.  Good luck.

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54170
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu  
(Paul E. Reimer) writes:
> In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano  
Pitargue) writes:
> 
> [stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
> 
> >and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
> >due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
> >cars.
> >marciano pitargue@cisco.com
> 
> There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
> regulation to try to combat this.  

Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems  
the driver's license process does not work for this.

> When I got my drivers license, I HAD
> to take a drivers safety class.  

Because you wanted one while you were underage.

> I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  

Only on public roads.

> My car
> MUST be registered.  

Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my  
property.

> I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
> insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
> accident with it).  

Only on public roads.

> Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
> of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
> gun owners.

Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)

> 
> Paul Reimer
> reimer@uinpluxa.npl.uiuc.edu

Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54172
From: jfs@cco.caltech.edu (Johanes F. Swenberg)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle -

Steve,
     It's nice that you find me laughable but I don't quite
understand.  Is it because you think my firearms clash with
what I'm wearing, or that my NRA sticker isn't on straight?
Please state your judgement! 
     I find it sad that people won't accept the responsibility
to defend themselves.  And I laugh with the same contempt you
have for me at the sheep who expect the government to protect
them.

>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)

You and your friends sound like a bunch of smug intellectuals.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. 

Oh,   I guess you are.  I'm still waiting for you all-knowing
academic-likes to solve the worlds problems.  Let us know when
you have the answers or punch lines as this case may be.

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

So it's not a "Yankee" thing?
Are Canadians actually as uncivilized as we Americans?

>Hell, here in Britain, the cops don't even carry guns. 

Well if it's anything like here it wouldn't matter if they
did; they wouldn't be able to use them.

>Hell, as I recall, in People's Court, even Rusty carried a gun! Never
>know, some plaintiff might go nuts. :)  )

You shouldn't waste your time watching TV, Steve. It will corrupt
your mind.

>
>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples of
>why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!

Ditto to you, Self Righteous One.
Lay your derogatory tirade on thick, Steve.  Y'all can keep laughing and
I'll keep feeling safe and secure.

>
>Steve


Johanes 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54173
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Reminder -- Denver Rally Tomorrow

*****************************************************************
*                                                               *
*                        MONSTER RALLY!!                        *
*          ==  For the Right to Own and Carry Weapons ==        *
*                                                               *
*    TOMORROW, Sunday, April 18, 1993, from 1:00 to 3:30 p.m.,  *
*       the Denver LIBERTARIAN PARTY will sponsor a rally       *
*              AT THE STATE CAPITOL in support of               *
*         the individual right to own and carry weapons.        *
*                                                               *
* Speakers will include former Colorado deputy attorney general *
*  DAVID KOPEL, radio host KEN HAMBLIN, DLP Chair DAVID SEGAL,  *
* pistol instructor LENDA JACKSON, and novelist L. NEIL SMITH.  *
*                                                               *
* Your presence and participation are highly welcome.  For more *
*       information call David Segal at (303) 296-4059.         *
*                                                               *
*****************************************************************

Cathy Smith

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54174
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)

In article <C5n0vy.EJ6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:

>In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>-> 
>-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
>-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
>-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
>-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
>-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.
>
>No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
>and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
>an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
>people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
>that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
>cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
>interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
>of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
>of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
>how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.

       I'll point out that the whole point of the difficult amendment
process was to require a super-majority to change the Supreme Law,
making it impossible for a "majority" of the people to simply change
the law on a whim.  Simply changing the meaning based on "the
representatives" of the people effectively destroys the amendment
process.  The State's, you know, are also entitled to a say under
that process.
 
>> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
>-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
>-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
>-> number of times.  
>
>No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
>organized militia." 

       I'll note that that right could be considered protected under
the first amendment's protection of peaceful assembly.  Unless
you would consider a militia inherently non-peaceful, then they've
stated the same thing twice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54175
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle 

       That's nice.  We strive for entertainment value.  :-)     

>- I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a
>pick-up truck in front of the car that my friend and I were in. It had a bumper
>sticker proclaiming "Gun Control is a firm grip on a .45." Now I'm sure that
>that wanker thought he was pretty cool.
>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)

       In the first place, you have to realize the feeling goes both
ways.  Canadians laugh at the U.S., and Americans simply shrug and
woner why the hell we let them be a State in the first place.  ;-)       

>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore places, just
>so he could experience the sight of people putting guns and ammo into shopping
>carts! I didn't believe it myself until I drove by one in Vegas last year!!!

       Interesting strategy, posting here with complaints about
people elsewhere.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. 

        Courtesy is apparently a dead commodity in the rest of the
civilized world.  "Gun nut morons," indeed.        

>The BBC recently referred to the American 
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."

        We've got guns, they've got a monarch and an economy on the verg
of collapse.  Finger pointing across the Atlanticis a waste or time.

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

       Canada has been blaming the U.S. for their problems for years.
The simple fact of the matter is this:  Ten years ago they crowed about
how great their system was because they'd gotten rid of the guns and
the U.S. would be so much better if they'd just get into the divine light
shining from the North.  We pointed out that it was cultural differences,
and pointed to their pre-control crime rates.  We also pointed out that
the history of the entire world contained smuggling, and that whenever
something was wanted, it was smuggled in.
       If the problem were based on U.S. guns, it would have surfaced
years before.

       Now more Canadian criminals want guns.  And they are being provided.
Canada has its own version of the drug problem.  Yet drugs are prohibited
in the U.S.

>Hell, here in Britain, the cops don't even carry guns. (That's another funny
>thing - you see a US border guard, and he's got his .45 or .38 on his belt,
>with tons o' spare ammo - never know, maybe some canadian shopper might get out
>of hand. Hell, as I recall, in People's Court, even Rusty carried a gun! Never
>know, some plaintiff might go nuts. :)  )

       Saw a news report out of Britain that armed crime is on the rise,
and several police agencies are considering have permanent "firearms
officers" to deal with it.

       According to U.S. News & World Report, British handgun deaths have
risen over 250% over the past twelve years.  The U.S. number has dropped
5%.

       Maybe they're smuggling them across the U.S./U.K. border.  Yeah,
that's the ticket.

>CYA!

       Have a nice day, Steve.  Learn a little common courtesy and
politeness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54176
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes:

>In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
>
>>and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
>>due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
>>cars.
>>marciano pitargue@cisco.com
>
>There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
>regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD
>to take a drivers safety class.  

      Tennessee, at least, does not require any sort of safety class to
get a driver's license.  All that is required is one twenty question
quiz and to drive a car around the block without crashing.

>I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  

      In all probability, no you don't.  You are required to be licensed
to drive on public roads.  A license is not necessary on private property.

>My car
>MUST be registered.  

       Most states do not require the registration of cars that are
not used on public roads.  Those that do (California I know of) do
so for tax purposes more than anything else.
    
>I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
>insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
>accident with it).  

       Many states do not currently require this, and most, again,
only make this requirement for public roads.  A car sitting unused 
is not required to have insurance.

>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
>gun owners.

       The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are
significant difference between making rules for *use on public property*
and *making rules for ownership*.

       The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this
have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and
have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are
never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for
a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York,
Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun
owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the
numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that
intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of
the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion
they've already seen abused.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54177
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

   There's only one way I know of to tell an AR-15 from an M-16.
   Pick it up, hold it about a foot from your face and look closely
   at the saftey lever.  If it has two positions, its an AR-15, if
   it has three, its an M-16.  There are numerous internal differences
   as well, but since one would have to field strip the weapon to see
   them, they are not valid in this discussion.  So, in conclusion,
   there is very little external differences to distinguish an AR-15
   from an M-16 except at close (very close) range.

   David Bixler
   Auburn University

   All standard disclaimers apply.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54178
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <C5Lrpq.50o@idacom.hp.com> guy@idacom.hp.com (Guy M. Trotter) writes:
>
>Hi,
>
>In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a
>small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is
>that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the
>National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances
>of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions.
>
>I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer
>to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with
>nature on it's own terms.
>
>Guy

Hello,

	I understand this philosophy.  The bears are a national
treasure, the area is their sanctuary and people who enter it
do so at their own risk.  It is better that that rare human be
killed by a bear than that bears be provoked or shot by unbear-savvy
visitors.  The bears aren't having a population explosion, humans
are so it is better that a human be killed than endanger the bears.
I don't agree with this philosopy, but I understand it.

	The psychos are a bit different.  They are not a national
treasure but I suppose the decision has been made that to "allow"
provision for defense against them would also "allow" provision
for defense against bears.  Again, I suppose it has been decided
that it is better for the rare human to be killed by a psycho than
to take a chance on threatening the bears.

	Personally, I wouldn't go into an area where I would be
"managed" so as to reduce my safety ..... but ... come to think
of it I guess I live in a managed wilderness myself :-)

Joan V  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54179
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
<In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
<jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
<
<> [ ... excellent exchange deleted ... ]
<> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
<> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
<> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
<> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
<> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.
<
<    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
<    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
<    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
<    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
<    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
<
<    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
<    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
<    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
<    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
<    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
<    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
<    to raise an army upon their ruins."
<
<So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
<our Liberties and Rights.

What I find so hard to understand is how come some people, apparantly
NOT connected with government or otherwise privileged, will
go to great lengths, redefinitions, re-interpretations, in a full-bore
attempt to THROW AWAY THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTS under the
Constitution!!!

Almost makes me think of lemmings running into the sea during a lemming
year...

I really wonder that Jefferson and Madison would say to these folks?

<-------------------------------------------------------------
<"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
<drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
<powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
<become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
<separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Excellent quote.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54180
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <1qpavfINN2jp@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
:In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu  
:(Paul E. Reimer) writes:
:> In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano  
:Pitargue) writes:
:> 
:> [stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
:> 
:> >due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
:> >cars.
:> There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
:> regulation to try to combat this.  
:
:Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems  
:the driver's license process does not work for this.
:
I can testify to this. My cousin spent a few weeks in the hospital, and his
friend was killed, because of a drunk driver.  The son-of-a-b**** is back on 
the streets... Officers from the scene are still p***ed about that one.

:> to take a drivers safety class.  
:
:Because you wanted one while you were underage.
:
:> I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  
:
:Only on public roads.
:
:> My car
:> MUST be registered.  
:
:Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my  
:property.
:
:> I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
:> insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
:> accident with it).  
:
:Only on public roads.
And this obviously doesn't always work, else why would they offer uninsured 
motorist coverage?
:
:> Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
:> of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
:> gun owners.
I object to mandatory registration because I don't trust my government not to
use any information I give them for their own purposes.  I am licensed to
carry a concealed pistol in my home state, but they never asked whether I 
actually owned a firearm.  A safety class before issuing a permit to carry is
reasonably, provided such classes are regularly available to the public.  Of
course, most places would consider my time in the reserves and on a competition
rifle team to count.  
:
:Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)
Hey, now that's an idea :)
:
:> Paul Reimer
:
:Jim

Now, unless you have an agenda against private ownership of firearms, why would
you want to harass the person trying to legally defend themselves or exercise 
their rights? (I know, defending oneself/family/whoever IS a right... at least
as far as my 9mm and I are concerned... ) (Also as far as the State of Alabama
seems to be concerned)  Why don't you push for stricter prosecution of those
who use firearms in the commission of a crime?  I've already pointed out how
we aren't nailing DUI's hard enough...  Comparing the US with other countries
seldom works, but the European attitude towards alchohol and DUI seems to work..
Their attitude towards weapons isn't really a valid comparison because they've
historically done their best to keep the populace disarmed and submissive,
while our country was founded by a bunch of rugged individualists who told the
European monarchies (for the most part) to take a flying leap (used more polite
language though).  We even weaseled out of our first international treaty, and
then convinced the French that it was in their best interests not to complain..
But first we had to overcome the fact that the Brits were doing their best to 
restrict us to squirrel guns and such, so we'd be properly submissive while
they forced us to pay for their wars.  Of course, most American history classes
these days tend to gloss over facts that do not fit the image they wish to 
convey... I'm glad my Amer. Hist. teacher was a Libertarian who had us review
a good portion of the Federalist Papers, and debate their origins and meanings.

enough rambling,

James


-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54181
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: CNN for sale


W.K. Gorman:

<3>> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
<3>> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
<3>> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two..

<3>I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't
<3>think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening
<3>until they break down HIS door.

<3>BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a
<3>minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made
<3>viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :)
<3>There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and
<3>not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would
<3>STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their
<3>ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.

Any NRA headquarters weenies listening to this man. Any RTKBA organization
honcho listening. It's time to stop fighting the Brady's and the Schumer's
(now there's an interesting meaning to the acronynm BS) from the comfort
of the office....we had better get serious with our time and money and get
after it or we might just as well pack it in now.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Gun control advocates must have had a sanity by-pass!
                                           
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54182
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Carrying Arms

In article <1993Apr5.220457.6800@spdc.ti.com> dwhite@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Dan White) writes:
>	I have a question about the second amendment that has bothered
>me for awhile.  The amendment guarentees our "right to keep and bear
>arms." Currently, the gun prohibitionists are trying to restrict or
>eliminate our right to keep arms with the Brady Bill and the assault
>weapon ban.  However, haven't we already lost our right to bear arms?

>	It seems that in most states, like Texas, a citizen may own a
>gun and carry while at his home or business.  But a citizen is severely
>restricted from bearing outside these areas.  Here in Texas you cannot
>carry in your car except when "traveling" which is usually defined as
>"traveling across a county line."  How did this come about?  Are there
>any court rulings on the legality of restricting the carrying of a
>weapon outside the home?  

There are, but not any that would help Texans: In many states,
such laws have been found to violate the state constitution. 
But the federal Second Amendment does not apply directly to the
states. It was written to limit the federal government only. 
The Fourteenth Amendment was written to extend the restrictions
of the Bill of Rights to the state level. However, the exact
wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is very vague. The Supreme
Court has been dancing around the issue without facing it
directly for over 100 years. In practice, the Bill of Right
(indirectly applies through the Fourteenth) applies to the
state governments only if the Supreme Court has ruled that 
particular provision. The Court has made no such rulings on
the Second Amendment.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54183
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 
writes:
>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

That's open for debate.  Certainly, an excessive number of people are
murdered every year but people also do save innocent lives with firearms.
The media just don't tell us when it happens...

>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.

I think there are more of us than there are federal marshalls...

>No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
>than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 

Crap.  It's simplistic thinking on the part of feather-headed dolts.

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

Nuts.

    don




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54184
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1qrn3aINN4rq@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com 
(Jim De Arras) writes:
>> The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
>
>It ain't dead, yet.  And even if it were repealed, remember, it just protects 
>our RKBA, it does not grant any rights.  There would then have to be 
>additional laws passed to outlaw gun possession.

Even if they outlawed private posession of firearms, there would be no moral
force behind that law; I imagine compliance would be low.

    don



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54185
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
	jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't
>seem to realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you.

So what.  We think you're pretty hilarious too.

I love how you Brit's kiss royal arse.  That you're willing to throw
out freedom-of-speech for the sake of protecting the reputation of the
royal sluts.

That the British government advertised in American newspapers "Send A Gun
to Defend a British Home -- British civilians, faced with threat of
invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." during
WWII.  [American Rifleman November, 1940]

That The Obscene Publications Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act have been
used as justification for the police to seize masterpieces such as William
S. Burrough's "Junky", Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas",
and Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test".  British courts have
never recognized the right to assemble or to demonstrate.

That evidence obtained form coerced confessions is allowed in a trial.

That only serious felonies warrant a trial by jury.

That suspected terrorists must prove their innocence, instead of the
government having to prove their guilt.

That the secretary of state may issue an "exclusionary order" which
bars someone from ever entering a particular part of the United Kingdom,
such as Northern Ireland or Wales.

That the BBC banned Paul McCartney's "Give Ireland Back to the Irish"
as well as John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" during the Gulf War.

Yes, England is very very funny.  And very pathetic.

>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore
>places, just so he could experience the sight of people putting guns
>and ammo into shopping carts! I didn't believe it myself until I
>drove by one in Vegas last year!!!

So what.  Laughter is a way of dealing with things we find uncomfortable.
I thought the "Las Vegas Show Girl" ads on Las Vegas street corners were
pretty funny.

Yes indeed, there are many strange and wonderous things in this country.
I wouldn't have it any other way.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. The BBC recently referred to the American 
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."

I don't disagree with that, I don't think it's bad either.

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

So what.  If they didn't come from here they would come from elsewhere
disguised as cocaine.

>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples
>of why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!

You can laugh all you want, for us it's a matter of life or death.
I don't find that funny in the least.

As for England:

"As our allies become more open, Britain grow yet more secretive and
censorious.  Perhaps the real British vice is passivity, a willingness
to tolerate constraints which others would find unbearble." [in "Britain,
An Unfree Country" by Terrence DeQuesne and Edward Goodman, pp 33.]
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54186
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 
writes:
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

Nope.  Here in Northern California, a newspaper recently did a survey,
asking if people favored stricter gun controls.  A full 40% said no.
Here, in one of the most Liberal (it wasn't always a swear word :( areas
of the country, nearly half the people don't want additional controls, let
alone revocation of RKBA...

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

Misguided dolt though he may be (though, I still maintain, less dangerous
than Bush), Clinton does not publicly support revoking the second amendment.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

Well, I'll help MY neighbors...

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

Violent solutions are passe'?  I take it you propose disarming the police,
then?

Please don't mention RKBA in the same breath as the KKK.  RKBA is about
being able to defend yourself and others, not about killing the innocent.
Actually, your mention of the KKK is rather funny, considering that the
first gun control law in the US were created specifically to disarm black
people...

    don




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54187
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Drivers licence:
>Forgot that USA is THE land of cars.....
>Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy.
>Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......

Is the license required for driving a car exclusively on private
property, such as a farm? Here in the United States, the license
is required only for the use of public roads.

>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

We also have a nation of 250 million people, _many_ issues and
usually only two candidates for a given office. A President
might be willing to abuse mild gun control laws and create
a de-facto ban (something a majority of the people would object to)
and still be elected: The voters might look at issues like the
civil rights of minorities, health care, etc... and vote
for the "lesser of two evils." I don't think this is a matter
of paranoia, since local governments in (for example) New York
and Chicago have abused existing, mild gun control laws to 
create a virtual ban.

>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.

In which case, the United States already has adaquate gun control laws:
According to federal statistic, only 7% of gun-wielding criminals
legally purchase their own guns from licensed dealers. If that's
the point of gun control (to prevent criminals from legally purchasing
guns) then America doesn't need any additional laws to accomplish
this.

>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!

How is this any different from guns? There are legal purposes for
owning and using a gun: They are appropriate tools for hunting,
target shooting and self-defence. Like cars, murder isn't
their only (or even a common) use.

>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??

I certainly couldn't imagine the American public accepting regulation
of axes. While the politics of other nations may be different,
in America there is strong opposition to any intrusive law that
primarily would effect the average, law-abiding citizen who had
not done anything wrong.

>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

A good way to deal with which problem? It is an excelent way to deal 
with the short-term problem of rioting and violent attacks. Of course,
it doesn't do anything for the long-term issues that start riots. But
at this point, what can these individuals do about long-term social
problems? 

>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

There are, according to surveys, guns in 40% of American homes.
In many parts of the country, this is closer to 100%. Those places
where almost everyone owns a gun are, on average, safer than those
where guns are less common.

>LAST WORD:
>Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if
>you want to protect your citicens.

This is, I think, a fundamental difference between American government
and that of other nations. Here it is not acceptable to punish
or restrict the average, law-abiding citizen in the name of some
vague "common good." 

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54188
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>the people on the net.
>
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  

       As a data point from Tennessee, a friend of mine and a police
officer essentially recommends that if you can, fade away.  Even if
you were perfectly justified you're likely in for a great deal of 
hassle.  (A side note, carrying a gun concealed is a misdemeanor.)

>What kind
>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>saw you and you were caught?

       It's one of those "by State" things, pretty much.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54189
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.
>
>There is no question about it. 
>
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

Not so.  Surveys have shown while the public thinks certain types
of gun control may be acceptable they do believe they have an
individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the police should
not have /discretion/ over who may and may not own firearms.

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void.

By the end of the Clinton administration a lot of things will be
screwed up.  Hell, we'll probably be just like England.

> Tough titty.

"Tough titty" ?  My how eloquent you are.

As for your claim, I think Clinton has a big fight ahead of him if
he thinks he's going to pass some comprehensive gun legislation.
He will sign the Brady Bill if it gets to his desk.  We will do
whatever we can to either keep that from happening, or modify it
such that it is acceptable to us.

>You had better discover ways to make do without firearms.

Sorry, that's not possible.  And that's why we won't give them up
either.  Legally or illegally, American's will keep their firearms.
The number of unregistered weapons in New York City is in the millions.
There aren't even close to that number of violent criminals there.

>The number of cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause.

If the gov't was serious about stopping violent crime they would
keep violent criminals in jail for a long long time where they
belong instead of letting them out on early release.

>There is nothing you can do about it.

Hey, we can go into politics too if we feel like it.

> Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 

I don't believe this one bit.

>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

Snore.  Like I take advice on the RKBA from a Brit.  No way.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless.

You watch too much "Star Trek".  Actually, this is an understandable
attitude from a Brit; you are a subject of the state.

>They will overwhelm you - one at a time.

Not necessarily.  There are ways of resisting oppression without
getting caught by the gov't.

>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

The "abstract criminal" like the ones who killed a relative of mine
while she was working in a carry-out.

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'.

While undesirable, they are sometimes unavoidable.  If you don't want
to resist a criminal attack by all means do nothing.  I will (a) take
my chances resisting violent attack, and (b) stand a better chance of
being unharmed than someone who does nothing.

>Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

What a joke.  Criminals want a disarmed population.  How can you keep
criminals from preying on us after our best means of self defense is
taken away ?
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54190
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable.

      Not provable.  It's about as "provable" as the number of votes
vast for Bill Clinton in the last election.  If you accept the information
available, you can prove one way or the other.  If you refuse to accept
it, nothing is "provable."

>I think that that
>there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

      Fine, support your assertation.  But, you haven't supported
any assertations just yet.

      The National Crime Survey, that secret Arm of the NRA, estimates
between 40,000 and 50,000 with-gun self-defenses from assaults, and
is considered to considerably under-report.  When broken down by weapon,
there is no form of "self-defense" including dowing nothing which is
more effective at avoiding injury or death.

>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ...  those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

      Ok, support *this* assertation.  Hell, support *one*.

>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 

      That's nice.

>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.

      That's nice, too.

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

       Why on Earth should we?  If you're correct we've nothing to
lose by continuing to argue against it and everything to gain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54191
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) 

       Mr. Parsli, I have to take exception at this.  There are
verifiable, previous *examples* of levels of U.S. governments
abusing gun-control restrictions.  I don't think it is paranoid
to worry that what has been abused in the recent past might be abused
in thye future.  After so many times of getting burned any sane person
will stop putting his hand on the stove.

>OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

       I'd love to.  But as long as the politicians grab power to sell
pork back to their constituents, there's not a lot I can do.  

       It's silly to suggest that if there's anything we can't trust
the government to do, and therefore the government should be allowed
to do it, then we should change governments.  Down that road lies
total government power.   I've never been a fan of totalitarianism.

>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.

       This is very likely.

>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.
>And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe),
>we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.

       The North American Continent is not Europe, no matter how many
people would like it to be.  Drugs are very illegal and they're
here.  For years Canada has crowed about its gun control.  If it is
necessary to control guns over the whole continent, then Canada should
have always had comparable rates to the U.S., yet they still don't.
Unless you can tell me why the Canadian border is so much more
magical than the Mexican border (which is shorter and far more
heavily patrolled) then I really can't accept that argument.

>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!

       No, there are approximately 31,000 deaths due to guns in the U.S.,
two-thirds of which are suicides.  (Unfortunately I don't have suicide
rates for Norway.)  However, this makes the per-gun death rate about
half the per-car death rate.

>The issue (I hope..):
>I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem.
>Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)
>
>I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia:
>They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them
>to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.

      The problem's been humans since before we had stone axes.  The
fct of the matter is simply this:  If nobody ever assaulted anybody,
whether there is a weapon of any sort around would be totally
irrelevent.

      Yet weapons are *built*.  I'd suggest, then, that the murderous
impulse in humanity pre-dates weapons.

      Anyway, the Bosnians et al. have been making an excellent attempt
to kill each other for half a thousand years.  Taking away their guns, even
if we could, would neither halt the killing nor reduce the brutality.

>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??
>(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)


       In the U.S., approximately 60% of murders are commited with firearms.
(50% with handguns, 10% with non-handguns.)  The reason I say that guns, per 
se, are not the problem, is that our non-gun rate exceeds most of Europe's
countries *entire* violent crime rate.  I don't really think we've got
more knives or fists.  

       In any case, I think examples of gun control *applied* to the U.S.
have been abkect failures, just like drug prohibition and other forms
of prohibition.  Until you deal with *why* people are doing what they
are doing, you won't solve your problem.  And if the problem is 
violent crime, you shouldn't concentrate on the tools instead.  The
*vast* majority of guns is never, ever misused.  (On the order of
99.5% over the entire lifetime of the gun).  This says to me that
you can't make the argument that the gun itself causes the misuse.

>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ?? 

       The situation is not "good" in that people fear for their lives.
But recall the scenes of the store-owners during the last riots,
protecting their shops with guns.  Would it have been better they,
too, lost their livelihoods?

>Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

       The problem of poverty and rage in Los Angeles, no it isn't.
However, if that problem becomes a violent action, then yes, it can
be appropriate.  Whether or not some person has been hurt by their condition
won't make me less dead if they burn down my house with me in it.

       You have to examine which problem you're referring to.  If
you're discussing someone violently assaulting you, then it is
a perfectly legitimate response to make them stop.  (Hopefully
simply letting them know you're prepared to shoot them would be enough,
as it was with the above-mentioned store-owners.)

>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

       45% of Households have some form of firearm, usually a long gun.
That accounts for a level of access for at least 100 million Americans.
Firearm ownership is most likely among educated, well-off whites, the
group *least* likely to be involved in violent crime.

       You may take that for what it's worth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54192
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?

For me, it would be an obvious choice: Armed self-defence is clearly
and strongly protected by the Colorado Constitution and the laws
of the state. In the very clear-cut situation of your hypothetical,
I wouldn't have anything to fear from the police (unless I had been
publicly carrying the weapon concealed, something I'm not in
the habit of doing... Even then, the worst I'd have to deal with 
was a class 2 misdemeanor.) Even if the situation were not so
clear, and I might have to worry about arrest for manslaughter or
homicide, it would still be safer to wait for the police. If
I were to leave and try to avoid police involvement, I'd be committing
several felonies and ruining my chances of claiming self-defence
in court ("If it really was self-defence," the prosecuter would
ask, "why did you run away and hide from the police?")

In other states, however, this decision might not be so clear-cut:
If someone in, say, Washington D.C. were to use a gun in self-defence
he would _automatically_ be guilty of several felony violations of
that city's gun control laws. Such a person's choices would be
between certain conviction for a couple of felonies versus possible
conviction for half a dozen. 

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54193
From: billma@utoday.com (Bill Mallon)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339
@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

> Surrender your arms. Soon enough, 
> officers will be around to collect
> them. Resistance is useless. They 
>       ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
> will overwhelm you - one at a time.

Are you certain you didn't mean to post 
to alt.french.captain.borg.borg.borg?

You'd better rush home...I hear Kruschev 
calling "Come to papa, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu!"

"I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory
circuit, using stone knives and bearskins."        --Spock
     - Humble Typesetter -

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54194
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: Tanks against civilians (was Re: That silly outdated Bill/Koresh)

In article <scottj-150493092731@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu> scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
>
> [ ... picking nits over tanks firing the main gun or not deleted ...]
> 

I think the point is being missed - that it is apparantly acceptable for
Big Government (Big Brother?) to use TANKS to control the people, as
long as they don't use the BIG GUN (but everything else is allright...).

Tanks deployed against civilians, let alone FIRING on them with crew
served weaponry (a .50 Heavy Machine Gun is crew-served) is something
both our press and government howl about instantly when done in some
other country.  Against civilians that have, at most, one-shot-at-a-time
LIGHT small arms.  Certainly nothing that places the people in or behind
the tank in any real danger.  Molotov coctails?  A round from a rifle
or pistol deals with anybody approaching with one of those.  And "snipers"
too often turn out to be strays from other cops/guard/army gunfire.

I don't know about the other people in this group (or on the net) but
the idea of tanks being used to control civilians, in anything that
pretends to be a free society is outrageous.  When Big Government feels
it is necessary to use that kind of force to stomp out protests (even
violent) of the citizens, that suggests that the government is totally
out of control, since that is effectively the government declaring war
on its own people.  If the government was living up to its responsibility,
government of the people BY THE PEOPLE, not the 'lords' and other elites
who want to keep their good thing going, the citizens wouldn't feel the
need to be resorting to acts that need to be squashed with a military
boot.  People do things like that because they have become convinced
that it is the only option that remains, other attempts to have grievances
redressed have been ignored.  And yes, there is a criminal element that
will exploit this, but the fact remains that the government has been
unresponsive or such acts wouldn't be apt to happen.  Still not an excuse
to open up on civilians with tanks, heavy machine guns, or whatever.
Its the old 'might makes right' philosophy that is the hallmark of a
government going rogue:  They don't like it? Tough. We will simply
squash them under an iron boot.  Actually addressing their grievances
in other than token fashion with huge volumes of hot air is just too
inconvenient...  Sort of a variation on mushroom management:  Keep them
in the dark, Smother them with shit, and Crush them when ready...

And these are the folks that many liberals are trying to arrange things
so that they will have a MONOPOLY on coercive force (firearms that are
than expensive toys...) by gutting the Bill of Rights (cuz it just isn't
PROGRESSIVE or doesn't fit in with MODERN THINKING anymore)...

Unbelievable.

And I do believe amid the smoke, confusion, etc of a real riot situation,
that it would be POSSIBLE for a tank to get away with firing the main gun
into a building at close range?  One would hear an explosion among many
explosions.  It is loud, but it is not going to stand out like a 1000
pound bomb or a tactical nuke.  There would be a hole blown in the wall,
and some rubble, but with tanks knocking over walls, and other sources
of buildings turning into rubble, and other covering racket such as
gunfire, including 50's tacking away, it would not stand out that much,
and could be explained by "musta been a gas leak... ".  I think it could be
done and not be reported under such conditions - it is POSSIBLE.  It is
not like a tank driving down a quiet street on a Sunday afternoon, turning
and firing, you know.  THAT would stand out, and be pretty impossible
to cover up.

>--John L. Scott


-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54195
From: chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu wrote:
: You are loosing.
: There is no question about it. 
: Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
: how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

  Care to show some *real* numbers instead of something HCI make up?
  I thought so, all "foaming at the mouth" shouting but nothing is 
  ever said...
   
: This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
: RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

  Well, we'll just have to wait and see about that, won't we?  Or are
  you quite satisified with living in your little fantasy?
 
< SNIP >
: cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
< SNIP >
: The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
: you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

  Not true, it is ONLY those who are ignorant and are afraid to understand,
  accept, and deal with the real problems behind this violent society 
  who are proposing gun control as a band-aid solution.  May be I should 
  refresh your memory with a quote from Prez. Clintion? 

    "It's the criminals, stupid!"  

  HEY, why is he cutting the budget for more prisons? May be someone need 
  to remind him of what he promised...on second thought, why bother...

: Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
: them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
: Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
: immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

  Oooh, WACO II, coming to your living room soon...  When was the last
  time you turned off your TV?  Can't remember?  I thought so...

: Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
: are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
: be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

  Wait, I got it, this is a late April fool post, right?  I didn't
  think ANYBODY is stupid enough to post something like this...good one
  guys, this group was getting boring without Holly and Susan. 

--Francis Chiu, Professional Student, Programmer, Tax Payer. 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54196
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: 2%: We're undertaxed/Poll

kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:

>In article <1993Apr16.190829.17141@cunews.carleton.ca> akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous) writes:
>>In article <VEAL.729.734979393@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>       No, what you said was that we had spent money on "guns" rather than
>>>"people," as Canada does.  Which is ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>>Once again I have over estimated the general level of intellegence of
>>the average reader of rush-limbaugh.  Canada PER CAPITA spend more
>>money on people where the US spend more money PER CAPITA on guns.

>What exactly do you mean when you say the U.S. spends more per capita on
>guns than Canada does?  Are you talking about the U.S. government or are you
>talking about the purchase of guns by private citizens or both?  If you are
>referring to private citizens then your point is irrevelant because what
>individuals do with their money is essentially *their* business.

>If, on the other hand, you meant that the U.S government spends more per
>capita on guns than Canada does then your point *is* relevant.  So, if this
>is true then the U.S. needs to get its priorities straight.  People are more
>important than guns.  That is not to say that guns aren't important.  I'm
>just saying that if the U.S government *does* spend more per capita on guns
>than they do on people then something is awry.


    He meant the US spends more per capita on guns than Canada which isn't
really surprising because we were so busy protecting the western world from
the USSR that all other countries could slack off on their defense spending.

    I would like to see if the US spends more per capita on people than 
Canada does.  This is a true apples - apples comparison where the previous
post was apples - oranges.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54197
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 4.

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 4.

Friday, April 16, 1993 was the fourth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Defense attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined agent
Cooper under repeated objections from prosecutor Ronald
Howen.  Spence moved for a mistrial but was denied.

The day was marked by a caustic cross-examination of Deputy
Marshal Larry Cooper by defense attorney Gerry Spence.  Although
Spence has not explicitly stated so, one angle of his stategy
must involve destroying the credibility of agent Cooper.  Cooper is
the government's only eyewitness to the death of agent Degan.
Spence attacked Cooper's credibility by pointing out discrepancies
between Cooper's statements last September and those made in court.
Cooper conceded that, "You have all these things compressed into
a few seconds...It's difficult to remember what went on first."

Cooper acknowledged that he carried a "9mm Colt Commando submachine
gun with a silenced barrel." [I thought a Colt Commando was a revolver!]
Cooper continued by stating that the federal agents had no specific
plans to use the weapon when they started to kill Weaver's dog.

When Spence asked how seven cartridges could be fired by Degan's
M-16 rifle when Degan was apparently dead, Cooper could not say for
sure that Degan did not return fire before going down.

Spence continued by asking with how many agents (and to what extent)
had Cooper discussed last August's events, Cooper responded, "If
you're implying that we got our story together, you're wrong,
counselor."  Spence continued to advance the defense's version of
the events: Namely, that a marshal had started the shooting by
killing the Weaver's dog.  Cooper disagreed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen repeatedly objected to Spence's
virulent cross-examination of agent Cooper, arguing that the questions
were repetitive and Spence was wasting time.  Howen also complained 
that Spence was improperly using a cross-examination to advance the
defense's version of the events.  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge
sustained many of the objections; however, both lawyers persisted
until Judge Lodge had the jury leave the room and proceded to
admonish both attorneys.  "I'm not going to play games with either
counsel.  This has been a personality problem from day 1, so start
acting like professionals."

Spence told the judge that, "When all the evidence is in, we'll see
that ... his [agent Larry Cooper] testimony is not credible, that
he was panicked and cannot remember the sequence of events." 
Spence continued, "We're going to find...that there is a very unlikely
similarity - almost as if it had come out of a cookie cutter - between
the testimony of Mr. Cooper and the other witnesses."

Spence then moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Howen's repeated
objections would prevent a fair trial, "We can't have a fair trial if the
jury believes I'm some sort of charlatan, if the jury believes I'm
bending the rules or engaging in some delaying tactic or that I'm
violating court orders."

Judge Lodge called the notion that his repeated sustainings of Howen's
objections had somehow prejudiced the jury was "preposterous" and
denied the motion for a mistrial.  Lodge did tell Howen to restrict
his comments when objecting.

The trial resumed with the prosecution calling FBI Special Agent Greg
Rampton.  The prosecution's purpose was simply to introduce five
weapons found in the cabin as evidence: However, the defense seized
on the opportunity to further address Cooper's credibility.

Defense attorney Ellison Matthews (Harris' other attorney) questioned
Rampton about the dog.  Rampton stated that there were no specific
plans to kill the Weaver's dog without being detected.  Matthews then
had Rampton read  a Septtember 15, 1992 transcript in which Rampton
had said that Cooper had said that the purpose of the silenced weapon
was to kill the dog without being detected, if the dog chased them.
Rampton then acknowledged that he believed that Cooper had said that,
but he could not remember when.  He then stated that, "I did not conduct
the primary interview with Deputy Cooper, but I have had conversations
with him since the interview was conducted."

Monday, April 19, 1993 will begin the fifth day of the trial.  Scheduled
is the continued cross-examination of FBI agent Greg Rampton.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54198
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 1.


Here is a copy of my first update on the Randy Weaver trial.
After a large response (about 15 email messages), I've decided
that there is sufficient interest here on t.p.g. to warrant
posting.

*** file follows *** 

Hi Folks;

As perhaps the only Boise resident on the list, I guess it
kind of falls on me to keep people updated about the
Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial.

Yesterday marked the seating of the jury.  Apparently no other
legal activities occurred.  The jury was selected and things
start today.

More interesting is what happenned outside.  About a dozen
Weaver supporters showed up to stage a protest outside the
courthouse.  One woman carried a sign that read, "Who stands
trial for the murder of Vicki and (son's name - I forget)
Weaver?"  On the evening news she said, "I am here protesting
because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I thought we all did."  Nice sound bite (grin)!

The news reporter also interviewed some guy named "Tim"
who refused to give his last name.  Not to prejudge the
guy, but he looked like a neo-nazi.  He also said he
expected many neo-nazis to show up throughout the trial.
"Tim" had been handing out leaflets in support of Weaver
and Harris and the news had footage of a Boise cop
telling him to move along or he'd arrest.  I don't know
the finer points of this one.  Perhaps there's a law
against political activity within X feet of a courthouse
or something (what happenned to the First Amendment?!?).

Most ominous of all was that the local reporter filmed
an agent of the Gestapo...err...ATF with a minicam
FILMING THE PROTESTORS!  Welcome to the world of Big Brother.

Anyhow, Gerry Spence came out and asked the protestors to
leave because he didn't think it would help Weaver's case
any.  He said he was confident that, once the evidence
came out, that Weaver would be aquitted.

More stuff as it comes available.

Drew

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54199
From: shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard)
Subject: S414 (Brady bill) loopholes?

Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about
the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).

1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?
     What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".
     How close is that to being made law?

2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important
   differences I missed?

3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:
  A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during
     the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals
     process once the required instant background check system is established,
     but not before).
  B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving
     using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an
     inaccurate record corrected?)
  C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person
     can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an
     immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.
     But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does
     it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception
     statement.
True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?

4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from
   buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?
   At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?

   'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed
   (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised
   to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun
   registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.

Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current
legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits
of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.

	MarkS || shepard@netcom.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54200
From: "Faustus" <p00056@mail.psi.net>
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

>DATE:   18 Apr 93 00:13:19 -0500
>FROM:   jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>
>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. 

In my case I am alive thanks to a gun, that is provable..
even in your twisted logic.

>I think that that there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

No... Wrong again brain trust.. 

>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents 

Huh? What planet are you from? 

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

Wrong... Not as long as freedom remains ..

PS: Get a Dictionary..


Faustus
(Gun of the month club... hmmm.. Glock 10mm this month.. Sig 226 next..)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54201
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
  >What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
  >realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
  >just make me chuckle - I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a
  >...

You consider laughing at others civilized behavior?  What was I supposed to
learn from your article?  Treat people like dogs?

I am not impressed by your attitude.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54202
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
  >...
  >In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
  >No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
  >than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 
  >
  >The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

You know, in many ways this might be just the kick we need to straighten
things out in this country.  Also, people would have a need to replace
guns with something else, perhaps deadly sprays that would make Mace and OC
seem like water.  They would be lighter and easier to conceal.

Guns are really "old" in design and as long as we have tons of them, no one
is motivated to design something better.  I'm sure we could come up with
some real nasty stuff if we tried and getting rid of these guns would get
us moving on this track asap.  This is what we really want, right?  Stuff
that's smaller, lighter and far more deadly.

Remember, in this country we'll really scramble to accomplish impossible
feats if we are motivated enough and I think "self-defense" is high on our
list of motivators.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54203
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.

What's "loosing?"  

>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

I vote.  I don't consider RKBA an abomination. 

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

I'm sure Sarah Brady would be delighted to hear your ranting and
raving.  However, Clinton has not publically stated that he would
like to repeal the Second Amendment.  "Tough titty" to you.

>You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
>cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
>can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 

Are we going to "make do without" like the people in New York City? 
You know New York City: That gun ban utopia you dream about, with
the millions of unregistered handguns?  New York City, by the way,
has a very high crime rate.

Perhaps you should know about a gungrabber's nightmare - Idaho.
Here in Idaho, the police give concealed carry permits to anyone
over 21 without a criminal record.  There are no gungrabber schemes
such as FOIDs, waiting periods, "gun a month," or LTCs.  And horror
of horrors!  You don't even NEED a permit to carry a concealed
weapon while outside of city limits (although you do need a permit
for concealed carry in an automobile).

I feel a hell of a lot safer in Boise than I would in your gun ban
dream state (e.g., Washington, D.C.).

>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

The voting public in Idaho is staunchly pro-gun.  Both senators
are NRA-endorsed "A" rated!  Buy a clue, pal.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 
>
Get out your wallet and buy another clue.  There are millions upon
MILLIONS of pre-1968 (i.e., non-4473'ed) firearms out there.
They have a half-life approaching eternity.  And cosmoline is not
exactly tracked by the feds.

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
>
Gun control laws were passed to PROTECT the KKK from blacks!

Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54204
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr17.235338.2819@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) says:
>
>>>>...I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
>>>> taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.
>
>>>That is the recommended way to practice with a CCW, too.  Aim alone is no   d
>goo
>>>for defense, if you can't get the gun rapidly.
>
>>Very true but the way it was being done was just a little unusual.  It looked
>>to me like they were practicing to shoot someone...

The point that I forgot to bring up here (and this has nothing to do with being
a gang member or not) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in this
area (or in the state of illinois for that matter).  This is not to say that
people in Illinois don't carry concealed weapons illegaly but practicing like
that when there are other people around wasn't too bright of an idea.

>
>There isn't necessarily a conflict between practicing with a concealed
>weapon for self-defence and practicing to shoot someone. Armed
>self-defence does occasionally involve shooting an attacker.
>
>                                              Frank Crary
>                                              CU Boulder

I agree.      If you don't practice at all and carry a gun for self-defense you
most likely would be in big trouble if a situation were to arise.

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54205
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu says:

Ah I love posts like this.  Many people have already replied to this one as I
knew they would.  I'm not going to say much as this just seems like baiting to
me.  Someone decided to post to see how many people would get mad and reply.  I
am just going to ignore it but I do have one thing to say.  See below.
>
>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Listen buddy, if you're going to quote Star Trek get the quote right.  It was
"Resistance is futile".  Get it right the next time :-)

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu


>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54206
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <1993Apr18.061532.3288@uoft02.utoledo.edu>,
steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) says:
>
>Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes:
>>
>> Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.
>>  You give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in
>> their action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My
>> question is what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops
>> or should you collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and
>> get out of there (provided of course you don't think that you have
>> been seen)?  What kind of laws are on the books regarding this type
>> of situation?  What would be the most likely thing to happen to you
>> if you stayed and waited and it was a first offense?  What would
>> happen if you took off but someone saw you and you were caught?
>
>ghods. do you have -any- idea how much trouble you'd get into for
>taking off like that? leaving the scene of an auto accident is bad
>enough! killing someone & leaving is 10 times worse. who's going
>to seriously believe it was self-defense when you took the time
>to collect your spent casings? "But officer, I reload!"
>
Well, like someone said in a reply to this it really all depends on the area
that you live in.  See David Veal's reply to this.  I have heard exactly the
same thing that he said in his reply - to fade away if you think that you
haven't been seen (I heard this from a police officer).  For the record though
he was talking about in Tennessee - not everywhere.

>even if you could get away with it, you're still a fugitive. do
>it nice & legal, keep your law-abiding status & send your story
>into the Armed Citizen column of American Rifleman.
>
>jason
>
>--
Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54207
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <VEAL.744.735151266@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
says:
>
>In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>
>>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>>the people on the net.
>>
>>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?
>
>       As a data point from Tennessee, a friend of mine and a police
>officer essentially recommends that if you can, fade away.  Even if
>you were perfectly justified you're likely in for a great deal of
>hassle.  (A side note, carrying a gun concealed is a misdemeanor.)
>
This is exactly what I have heard before.  If you were to fade away and
nobody saw you what kind of evidence would they be able to get to catch you
(this is assuming that you either collected your brass or had a revolver)?

>>What kind
>>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>>saw you and you were caught?
>
>       It's one of those "by State" things, pretty much.

Guess it's time to take a trip to the library and look at the Illinois statutes
again :-)  Just for the record folks I'm just asking this because I'm curious.
I'm just trying to find out from people who have read more on stuff like this.

>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54210
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....

In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle - I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a

[Warning: Flammage to follow...]

Ah, that British sense of humor.  Probably got a real gut-buster going
when the IRA blew that kid up a couple of weeks ago, huh?  Of course,
in Britain, your government has ordered you defenseless, so your way
of coping with violent criminals is to laugh at victims.

>pick-up truck in front of the car that my friend and I were in. It had a bumper
>sticker proclaiming "Gun Control is a firm grip on a .45." Now I'm sure that
>that wanker thought he was pretty cool.

I don't know about a .45.  My own preference is for 9mm.

>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)

Ah, Canada.  Where the criminals don't bother with checking to see
if the victims are home.  They just break on in.  America's a little
different, you see.  Criminals worry a bit more about getting shot,
so they more frequently check to see if anyone's home.

>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore places, just
>so he could experience the sight of people putting guns and ammo into shopping
>carts! I didn't believe it myself until I drove by one in Vegas last year!!!

I've heard Gun World in Phoenix, Arizona, is fantastic!  I'm hoping
to visit there myself soon.

>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. The BBC recently referred to the American 
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."

Ah, Britain again.  Isn't that the place where you're guilty until
proven innocent?  Tell me, Mr. "jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk" didn't Britain
come begging to us "gun nut morons" in the early 1940s for guns to
defend yourselves against Hitler?  Seems as though your supposedly 
enlightened government had disarmed you: "Aw chaps, you can jolly
give up your guns.  If that Hitler man starts to threaten, we can 
always hit up the Yanks for a few guns.  They've got a bloody
eccentric habit about those guns, you know.  Just hand in your
shotgun, that's it.  Thank you." 

>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.

Ain't it just amazing how those black markets work?  Damn if those
drugs from south america keep coming over our borders, too, even
though we've banned them.  Guess we might as well legalize them.  
Makes you want to send fifty bucks to the Libertarian Party just
thinking about it, doesn't it? 

>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples of
>why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!
>
Your close-minded ignorance is without parallel.  I guess that's what
happens when you're raised as a "subject" without rights.  Your
type gravitates to those who desire to hold power over you.

>Hell, I miss those NRA ads with Gerald McRainey now that I'm over here! Those
>were like Monty Python sketches!

Just chuckle as the cops beat you senseless to get a confession.
Just laugh yourself silly when you find that confession is valid
in court.  "Hey mate, this is justice, British style." 

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54211
From: keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca (Keith de Solla)
Subject: CDN gun laws

[MODERATOR:  Nice summary, Keith, thanks.]

I talked to the federal Dept. of Justice (DOJ, Ottawa) to try and
clarify a bunch of things regarding changes to Canadian gun laws.
I am posting here for informational purposes; questions to email,
followup to t.p.g.

1. It is still technically feasible (but almost impossible) to get
   a concealed carry permit in Canada.  This is contrary to what I
   was told by a police officer.
2. It is still legal to use lethal force (such as a firearm) to
   protect life, also contrary to what the officer told me.  Guns
   must be stored locked up and unloaded, however.
3. Regarding hi-capacity magazines, it is still not clear who will
   be exempt or how this will be managed.  This is up to each province.
   The general idea is that exempt persons will receive a letter/form
   authorizing them to possess the high capacity magazines.  
   Apparently, the authorization is to specify how many of these
   'prohibited weapons' you will be allowed to possess.  Dealers will
   be allowed to order high capacity mags for those allowed to possess
   them, but will not be allowed to stock them.
4. High capacity magazines converted to comply with the new limits will
   not be considered prohibited weapons.  Amendments to the regulations
   specify some possible methods to alter the magazines.  Some 
   manufacturers (Beretta) will be marketing reduced capacity magazines.
   (God knows how much they'll charge for these)

This covers most of what we discussed.  I have typed this from memory,
do not take it as gospel.  I am not a lawyer and I refuse to play one on TV.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng |  IPSC Ontario, OHA, NFA, SFC, OFAH   |
| keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca    |  Frontenac Rifle and Pistol Club     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54212
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: sign of the times...


Article in this morning's Houston Post...."negotiators send food to
rebellious inmates as humanitarian gesture"...speaking about the Ohio prison
riot where they have killed at least one of the hostage guards.

I know it's not the same "group" but the mindset appears to be common to
"those what rule" here lately....they won't give diddley to the BD's in Waco
but they treat criminals as deserving of "humanitarian gestures".

This is but another indicator that the criminal caste seems to enjoy more
priviliges in today's society than their victims or other law abiding
citizens. What is it that makes the criminal so precious to the "leaders of
the system"?

Could it be that the criminal is one of the "tools" the "authorities" are
using to "excuse" some of the rights negation they are trying to foist upon
the law abiding citizen in the name of crime control....don't solve the crime
problem because then the citizen couldn't be held hostage to "our help".

If the crime problem were solved in favor of the citizen/victim at the
expense of the criminal none of the crap such as RICO and gun banning could
be used as excuses to work the agenda of those who would control our every
move and thought.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.
                                                                                                       
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54213
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it. 

So why did the Australian Customs Service make a public statement to
a parliamentary committee last year that weapons smuggling was a problem
which it was not able to control?  Possibly criminals don't have your 
grasp of economics?

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54214
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

Oh Christ, here we go again. I'm actually going to assume that
this was a serious posting, fool that I am.

In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
>there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 
 
And I suppose I should just take your word for it. Did you ever
think that many people who use firearms to protect themselves
might not admit to it because of the ridiculous laws which exist
forbidding concealed carry?

>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.
 
I already own a cool jacket. I ride a bicycle to work and park
it behind my desk. And if my woman decides to go with someone
else, I'd be disappointed but killing her new suitor will probably
not endear her to me any more than before. Frankly, I've never
met a woman worth killing for anyway. (Now, an AR-15 with a chrome
barrel, THAT's worth killing for ...!-))

>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
>No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
>than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 
 
Does this pinhead know something the rest of us don't?
I'm not too worried about federal martials coming to get my guns.
The government can't seem to keep violent criminals in jail since
they don't have enough prison space, and the legal system is over-
burdened anyway. Where are they going to put all the millions of
gun-owners who won't fork over their weapons? Maybe you'd like to
volunteer the services of your humble abode, since you obviously
feel sooooo strongly about this.

>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
 
Your argument has been rendered useless. Accept this. Find another
newsgroup.

------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher   NRA                |  My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu   |  No one else's.
------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54215
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio House Bill 278 (Otto Beatty's military weapons ban)

[Note, Ohio legislation unlike Federal legislation, shows the entire
law as it would be changed by the legislation.  These parts are in
ALL CAPITALS, the rest (i.e., current law is in regular type)].

AS INTRODUCED
 
120TH GENERAL ASEMBLY 
 
REGULAR SESSION                       H. B. NO. 278
 
1993-1994
 
REPRESENATIVE BEATTY
 
A BILL

To amend sections2923.11, 2923.17,and 2923.20 and
to enact section 2923.181 of the Revised Code
to expand the defintion of dangerous ordnance to
include military weapons that do not use bolt 
action, to increase the penalty for a violation
of the prohibition against possession of
dangerous ordnance, to prohibit any person from
acquiring a military weapon on or after the act's
effective date, to require the licensure of 
military weapons acquired for aproper purpose
prior to the act's effective dte, to prohibit a
person from importing, manufacturing, or selling
a military weapon, and to declare an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That sections 2923.11, 2923.17 and 2923.20 be

amended and section 2923.181 of the Revised Code be enacted to 

read as follows:

     Sec.  2923.11.  As used in section 2923.11 to 2923.24 of
the Revised Code:
     (A) "deadly weapon" means any instrument, device, or thing
capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted
for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.
     (B)(1)  "firearm" means any deadly weapon capable of
expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of
an explosive or combustible propellant.  "firarms" includes an
unloaded firearm, and any firearm which is inoperable but which
can readily be rendered operable.
     (2) When determining whether a firearm is capable of
expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of
an explosive or combustible propellant, the trier of fact may
rely upon circumstancial evidence, including, but not limited to,
the representations and actions of the individual exercising
control over the firearm.
     (C) "Handgun" means any firearm designed to be fired while 
held in one hand.
     (D) "Semi-automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or
specially adapted to fire a single cartridge and automatically
chamber a suceeding cartridge ready to fire, with a single
function of the trigger.
     (E) "Automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or
specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a 
single function of the trigger.  "Automatic firearm" also means
any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire
more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a
firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle
cartridges.
     (F) "Sawed-off firearm" means a shotgun with a barrel less
than eighteen inches long, or a rifle with a barrel less than
sixteen inches long, or a shotgun or rifle less than twenty-six
inches long overall.
     (G)  "Zip-gun" means any of the following:
     (1)  Any firearm of crude and extemporized manufacture;
     (2)  Any device, including without limitation a starter's
pistol, not designed as a firearm, but which is specially adapted
for use as a firearm;
     (3)  Any industrial tool, signalling device, or safety
device, not designed as a firearm, but which as designed is
capable of use as such A FIREARM, when possessed, carried, or
used as a firearm.
     (H)  "Explosive device" means any device designed or
specially adapted to cause physical harm to persons or property
by means of an explosion, and consisting of an explosive
substance or agency and a means to detonate it.  "Explosive
device" includes without limitation any bomb, any explosive
demolition device, any blasting cap or detonator containing an
explosive charge, and any pressure vessel which has been
knowingly tampered with or arranged so as to explode.
     (I)  "Incendiary device" means any firebomb, and any device
designed or specially adapted to cause physical harm to persons
or property by means of fire, and consisting of an incendiary
substance or agency and a means to ignite it.
     (J)  "Ballistic knife" means a knife with a detachable
blade that is propelled by a spring-operated mechanism.
     (K)  "Dangerous ordinance" means any of the following,
except as provided in division (L) of this section:
     (1)  Any automatic or sawed-off firearms. zip-gun, or
ballistic knife;
     (2)  Any explosive device or incendiary device;
     (3)  Nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose, nitrostarch, PETN,
cyclonite, TNT, picric acid, and other high explosives; amatol, 
tritonal, tetrytol, pentolite, pecretol, cyclotol, and other high
explosive compositions; plastic explosives; dynamite, blasting
gelatin, gelatin dynamite, sensitized ammonium nitrate, liquid-
oxygen blasting explosives, blasting powder, and other blasting
agents; and any other explosive substance having sufficient
brisance or power to be particularly suitable for use as a
military explosive, or for use in mining, quarrying, excavating,
or demolitions;
     (4)  Any firearm, rocket launcher, mortar, artillery piece
grenade, mine, bomb, torpedo, or similar weapon, designed and
manufactured for military purposes, and the ammunition for that
weapon;
     (5)  Any firearm muffler or silencer;
     (6)  ANY MILITARY WEAPON;
     (7)  ANY DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, MAGAZINE, DRUM, BELT, FEED 
STRIP, OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT READILY
CAN BE RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS 
OF AMMUNITION;   
     (8)  Any combination of parts that is intended by the owner
for use in converting any firearm or other device into a 
dangerous ordinance.
     (L)  "Dangerous ordnance" does not include any of the
following:
     (1)   Any firearm, including a military weapon and the
ammunition for that weapon, and regardless of its actual 
age, which employs a percussion cap or other obsolete ignition 
system or which is designed and safe for use only with black
powder, and
     (2)  Any pistol, rifle, or shotgun, designed or suitable
for sporting purposes, UNLESS THE FIREARM IS EITHER OF THE
FOLLOWING;
     (a)  A military weapon as issued or as modified, and the
ammunition for that weapon;
     (b)  AN automatic or sawed-off firearm.
     (3)  Any cannon or other artilery piece which,
regardless of its actual age, is of a type in accepted use prior 
to 1887, has no mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or other system
for absorbing recoil and returning the tube into battery without
displacing the carriage, and is designed and safe for use only
with black powder;
     (4)  Black powder, priming quills, and percussion caps
possessed and lawfully used to fire a cannon of a type defined in
division (L) (3) of this section during displays, celebrations,
organized matches or shoots, and target practice, and smokeless
and black powder, primers, and percussion caps possed and
lawfully used as a propellant or ignition device in small-arms or
small-arms ammunition;
     (5)  Dangerous ordinance which is inoperable or inert and
cannot readily be rendered operable or activated, and which is
kept as a trophy, souvenir, curio, or museum piece.
     (6)  Any device which is expressly excepted from the
definition of a destructive device pursuant to the "Gun Control
Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4), as amended, and
regulations issued under that act.
     (M)  "MILITARY WEAPON' MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING;
     (1)  ANY FIREARM THAT ORIGINALLY WAS MANUFACTURED FOR 
MILITARY USE, OR A COPY OF ANY SUCH FIREARM, IF THE FIREARM IS
NOT A BOLT ACTION FIREARM;
     (2)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A RIFLE OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY OF
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A RIFLE;
     (a)  ARMALITE AR-180;
     (b)  AUTO-ORDNANCE THOMPSON MODELS 1927A1 AND M-1;
     (c)  AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV;
     (d)  POLY TECH AK-47S;
     (e)  CHINA SPORTS AK-47 BULLPUP;
     (f)  MITCHELL AK-47 AND M-76
     (g)  BARRETT LIGHT-FIFTY MODEL 82A1;
     (h)  BARETTA AR-70;
     (i)  BUSHMASTER AUTO RIFLE;
     (j)  CALICO M900 AND M-100
     (k)  COLT AR-15
     (l)  COMMANDO ARMS CARBINE, MARK 111, MARK 45, AND MARK 9;
     (m)  UNIVERSAL 5000 CARBINE, ENFORCER;
     (n)  AMERICAN ARMS ARM-1 AND AKY 39;
     (o)  DAEWOO MAX-1 AND MAX-2;
     (p)  FABRIQUE NATIONALE FN/FAL, FN/LAR. AND FN/FNC;
     (q)  FAMAS MAS 223;
     (r)  FEATHER AT-9;
     (s)  FEDERAL KC-900 AND XC-450
     (t)  GALIL AR AND ARM;
     (u)  GONCZ HIGH-TECH CARBINE;
     (v)  HECKLER AND KOCH HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, AND PSG-1;
     (w)  MANDALL TAC-1 CARBINE
     (x)  RUGER MINI 14/SF FOLDING STOCK MODEL;
     (y)  SIG 57 AMT AND 500 SERIES;
     (z)  SPRINGFIELD ARMORY SAR-48, G-3, BM-59 ALPINE, AND M1A
 
CARBINE;
     (aa)  STERLING MK-6 AND MARK 7;
     (bb)  STEYR AUG;
     (cc)  UZI CARBINE AND MINI-CARBINE;
     (dd)  VALMET M-62S, M-76, M-78, AND M82 BULLPUP CARBINE;
     (ee)  WEAVER ARMS NIGHTHAWK;
     (ff)  MILITARY M14 AND MILITARY M1 CARBINE .30;
     (gg)  SPRINGFIELD ARMORY M1A ASSAULT;
     (hh)  THOMPSON 27A-5 WITH DRUM MAGAZINE;
     (ii)  PLAINFIELD COMMANDO UNIVERSE 5000 CARBINE;
     (jj)  COBRAY M-11 WITH OR WITHOUT SILENCER;
     (kk)  SPECTRE AUTO CARBINE;
     (ll)  SWD    COBRAY;
     (mm)  ARMI JAGER AP-74 AND AP-74 COMMANDO;
     (nn)  ARMSCORP OF AMERICA ISRAELI FN-FAL;
     (oo)  CLAYCO SKS CARBINE;  
     (pp)  DRAGUNOV SNIPER;
     (qq)  EMF AP-74;
     (rr)  IVER JOHNSON PM30 P PARATROOPER;
     (ss)  NORINCO SKS;
     (tt)  PARTISAN AVENGER;
     (uu)  SIGARMS SG 550 SP AND SG 551 SP;
     (vv)  SQUIRES BINGHAM M 16;
     (ww)  WILKINSON "TERRY" CARBINE.

     (3)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A PISTOL OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY
OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A PISTOL:

     (a)  BUSHMASTER AUTO PISTOL;
     (b)  CALICO 100-P AUTO PISTOL;
     (c)  EBCIN NJ-IV, MP-9, AND MP-45;
     (d)  FEATHER MINI-AT;
     (e)  GONCZ HIGH TECH PISTOL'
     (f)  HOLMES MP-83 AND MP-22;
     (g)  INTRATEC TEC-9 AND SCORPION .22;
     (h)  IVER JOHNSON ENFORCER;
     (i)  INGRAM MAC-10 AND MAC-11;
     (j)  MITCHELL ARMS SPECTRE AUTO;
     (k)  SCARAB SKORPION;
     (l)  STERLING MK-7;
     (m)  UZI PISTOL;
     (n)  UNIVERSAL ENFORCER;
     (o)  WILKINSON "LINDA" AUTO PISTOL.
 
     (4)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A SHOTGUN OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY
OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A SHOTGUN:
 
     (a)  FRANCHI SPAS-12 AND LAW-12;
     (b)  STRIKER 12 AND STREET SWEEPER;
     (c)  BENELLI M1 SUPER 90;
     (d)  MOSSBERG 500 BULLPUP;
     (e)  USAS-12 AUTO SHOTGUN.
 
     Sec. 2923.17.  (A)(1) No person shall knowingly acquire,
have, OR carry any dangerous ordnance.
 
     (2)  NO PERSON SHALL KNOWINGLY USE ANY DANGEROUS ORDNANCE.
     (B)  This section does not apply to ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
     (1)  Officers, agents, or employees of this or any other
state or the United States, members of the armed forces of the
United States or the organized militia of this or any other
state, and law enforcement officers, to the extent that any such
person is authorized to acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous
ordnance and is acting within the scope of his duties;
     (2)  Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and users of
explosives, having a license or user permit issued and in effect
pursuant to the "Organized Crime Control Act of 1970," 84 Stat.
952, 18 U.S.C. 843, and any amendments or additions TO or
reenactments OF THAT ACT, with respect to explosives and
explosive devices lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used
under the laws of this state and applicable federal law;
     (3)  Importers, manufactuers, and dealers having a license
to deal in destructive devices or their ammunition, issued and in
effect pursuant to the "Gun Control Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213.
18 U.S.C. 923 and any amendments or additions TO or
reenactments OF THAT ACT, with respect to dangerous
ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used under the
laws of this state and applicable federal law;
     (4)  Persons to whom surplus ordnance has been sold,
loaned, or given by the secretary of the army pursuant to 70A
Stat. 62 and 263, 10 U.S.C. 4684, 4685, 4686, and any
amendments or additions TO or reenactments OF THAT ACT, with
respect to dangerous ordnance when lawfully possessed and used
for the purpose specified in THAT section;
     (5)  Owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the
national firearms registration and transfer record pursuant to
the act of October 22, 1968, 82 Stat.1229, 26 U.S.C. 5841, and
any amendments or additions TO or reenactments OF, and
regulations issued UNDER THE ACT.
     (6)  Carriers, warehousemen, and others engaged in the
business of transporting or storing goods for hire, with respect
to dangerous ordnance lawfully transported or stored in the usual
course of their business and in compliance with the laws of this
state and applicable federal law;
     (7)  The holders of a license or temporary permit issued
and in effect pursuant to section 2923.18 of the Revised Code, 
with respect to dangerous ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed,
carried, or used for the purposes and in the manner specified in
THE license or permit.
     (C)  DIVISION (A)(1) OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE
ACQUISITION, HAVING, OR CARRYING OF DANGEROUS ORDNANCE THAT IS A
MILITARY WEAPON IF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:
     (1)  THE PERSON WHO ACQUIRES, HAS, OR CARRIES THE DANGEROUS
ORDNANCE IN QUESTION ACQUIRED IT BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS AMENDMENT AS A COLLECTOR'S ITEM OR FOR A LEGITIMATE
RESEARCH, SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR OTHER PROPER
PURPOSE;
     (2)  NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE SEVENTH DAY
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE PERSON WHO
ACQUIRED THE DANGEROUS ORDNANCE IN QUESTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DIVISION (C)(1) OF THIS SECTION SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 2923.181 OF THE REVISED CODE FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND
CARRY IT AND THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN DENIED OR A VALID
LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE PERSON.
     (D)  DIVISIONS (A)(1) AND (2) OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY 
TO THE ACQUISITION, HAVING, CARRYING, OR USING OF ANY DANGEROUS
ORDNANCE DESCRIBED IN DIVISION (k)(7) OF SECTION 2923.11 OF THE
REVISED CODE THAT WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
     (E)  Whoever violates this section is quilty of unlawful
possession of dangerous ordnance, a AN AGGRAVATED felony of the
FIRST degree.
     Sec. 2923.181.  (A)  ANY PERSON WHO ACQUIRED A MILITARY 
WEAPON BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION SHALL FILE A
WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY THE MILITARY
WEAPON WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR SAFETY DIRECTOR OR
POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHERE THE APPLICANT
RESIDES OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE APPLICATION
SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE SEVENTH
DAY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A FILING FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS.  THE PERSON SHALL
FILE A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND PAY A SEPARATE FILING FEE FOR
EACH MILITARY WEAPON THAT HE HAS OR INTENDS TO CARRY.  THE
APPLICATION SHALL CONTAIN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
     (1)  THE NAME, AGE, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION, AND BUSINESS
ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT, IF THE APPLICANT IS A NATURAL PERSON,
OR THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE
APPLICANT, IF THE APPLICANT IS A CORPORATION;
     (2)   A DESCRIPTION OF THE MILITARY WEAPON FOR WHICH A
LICENSE IS REQUESTED, INCLUDING THE SERIAL NUMBER AND ALL
IDENTIFICATION MARKS;
     (3)  A STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE MILITARY
WEAPON WAS ACQUIRED AND FOR WHICH IT IS TO BE POSSESSED, CARRIED,
OR USED;
     (4)  ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE ISSUING AUTHORITY MAY
REQUIRE IN GIVING EFFECT TO THIS SECTION;
     (5)  THE OATH OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE
APPLICATION IS TRUE.
     (B)(1)  NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE
FOURTEENTH DAY AFTER AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND
CARRY A MILITARY WEAPON HAS BEEN FILED UNDER DIVISION (A) OF THIS
SECTION, THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL EITHER APPROVE THE
APPLICATION AND ISSUE A LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT OR DENY THE
APPLICATION AND SEND A LETTER OF DENIAL BY ORDINARY MAIL TO THE
APPLICANT.  AFTER CONDUCTING ANY NECESSARY INVESTIGATION, THE
ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT WHOM IT
DETERMINES SATISFIES THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:
     (a)  THE APPLICANT IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, IF
THE APPLICANT IS A NATURAL PERSON;
     (b)  IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL POSSESS AND CARRY
THE MILITARY WEAPON AS A COLLECTOR'S ITEM OR FOR A LEGITIMATE,
SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR OTHER PROPER PURPOSE;
     (c)  IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENT
COMPETENCE TO HAVE AND CARRY THE MILITARY WEAPON AND THAT PROPER
PRECAUTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE MILITARY
WEAPON AND THE SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY;
     (d)  THE APPLICANT OTHERSWISE IS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM
HAVING OR CARRYING DANGEROUS ORDNANCE.
     (2)  A LICENSE ISSUED PURSUANT TO DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS
SECTION SHALL BE VALID FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF ITS
ISSUANCE.  THE LICENSE SHALL BE RENEWED PURSUANT TO DIVISION   
(C) OF THIS SECTION.
     (C)(1)  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN DIVISION (C)(3) OF THIS
SECTION, ANY PERSON WHO IS ISSUED A LICENSE UNDER DIVISION (B)(1)
OF THIS SECTION SHALL RENEW THE LICENSE BY FILING AN APPLICATION
FOR RENEWAL BY REGULAR MAIL WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR THE
SAFETY DIRECTOR OR POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHO
WAS THE ISSUING AUTHORITY OF THE LICENSE.  AN APPLICATION FOR
RENEWAL SHALL BE FILED ANNUALLY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
DATE ON WHICH THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED OR LAST RENEWED.
     (2)  EACH SHERIFF AND EACH SAFETY DIRECTOR AND PEACE OFFICER
OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE APPLICATIONS FOR
THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE ISSUED UNDER DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS
SECTION.  IN THE APPLICATION THE APPLICANT, UNDER OATH, SHALL
UPDATE THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR
A LICENSE OR THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE.
     THE APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE SHALL BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF FIVE DOLLARS.  THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE A
SEPERATE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL AND PAY A SEPERATE RENEWAL FEE
FOR EACH MILITARY WEAPON THAT HE INTENDS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE AND
CARRY.
     (3)  A PERSON WHO HAS CHANGED HIS RESIDENCE OR PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS TO A LOCATION OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF
THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OR RENEWAL OF A
LICENSE UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL RENEW HIS LICENSE BY FILING AN
APPLICATION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY DIVISION (A) OF THIS
SECTION WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR THE SAFETY DIRECTOR OR
POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHERE HE THEN RESIDES
OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  WHEN MAKING AN
APPLICATION TO RENEW A LICENSE AFTER A CHANGE IN RESIDENCE OR
PLACE OF BUSINESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE CHANGE
OF ADDRESS BY REGULAR MAIL TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUING AUTHORITY FOR
THE LICENSE AND THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL ON NOTIFICATION FORMS
PRESCRIBED BY THE SHERIFF, SAFETY DIRECTOR, OR POLICE CHIEF FROM
WHOM HE SEEKS RENEWAL.
     (D)  A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY A MILITARY WEAPON SHALL
IDENTIFY THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ISSUED, IDENTIFY THE MILITARY
WEAPON FOR WHICH IT IS ISSUED, STATE THE PURPOSE IDENTIFIED IN
DIVISION (B)(1)(b) OF THIS SECTION FOR WHICH THE MILITARY WEAPON
WILL BE POSSESSED AND CARRIED, STATE ITS EXPIRATION DATE, AND
LIST ALL RESTRICTIONS ON THE HAVING OR CARRYING OF THE MILITARY
WEAPON AS PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE AND APPLICABLE
FEDERAL LAW.
     (E)  ANY PERSON WHO IS ISSUED A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY A 
MILITARY WEAPON UNDER THIS SECTION AND WHO CHANGES HIS ADDRESS
SHALL NOTIFY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY OF THE CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS
NO LATER THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE CHANGE HAS OCCURRED.
     (F)  THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL FORWARD TO THE STATE FIRE
MARSHALL A COPY OF EACH LICENSE ISSUED OR RENEWED UNDER THIS
SECTION.  THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL SHALL KEEP A PERMANENT FILE OF
ALL LICENSES ISSUED OR RENEWED UNDER THIS SECTION.
     (G)  THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL CAUSE EACH APPLICATION FEE
OF FIFTY DOLLARS, FILED UNDER DIVISION (A) OF THIS SECTION, TO BE
DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY OR MUNCIPAL
CORPORATION SERVED BY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY.  THE ISSUING
AUTHORITY SHALL CAUSE TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS OF EACH RENEWAL
FEE, FILED UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION, TO BE DEPOSITED IN
THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SERVED BY
THE ISSUING AUTHORITY AND SHALL SEND TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS
OF EACH RENEWAL FEE TO THE TREASURER OF STATE FOR DEPOSIT IN THE
STATE TREASURY TO THE CREDIT OF THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND.
     (H)  WHOEVER VIOLATES DIVISION (A) OF THIS SECTION IS
GUILTY OF FAILING TO APPLY FOR THE LICENSURE OF A MILITARY
WEAPON, A FELONY OF THE FOURTH DEGREE.  WHOEVER VIOLATES DIVISION
(C) OF THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF FAILING TO APPLY FOR RENEWAL OF
A LICENSE FOR A MILITARY WEAPON, A MISDEMEANOR OF THE FIRST
DEGREE.
     (I)  A MILITARY WEAPON THAT IS NOT LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY
THIS SECTION IS CONTRABAND, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2901.01 OF THE
REVISED CODE AND IS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE UNDER SECTION 2933.43
OF THE  REVISED CODE.
     SEC. 2933.20.  (A)  No person shall DO ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
     (1)  IMPORT, MANUFACTURE, POSSESS FOR SALE, SELL, OR
FURNISH TO ANY PERSON ANY MILITARY WEAPON;
     (2)  Recklessly sell, lend, give, or furnish any firearm to
any person prohibited by section 2923.13 or 2923.15 of the
Revised Code from acquiring or using any firearm, or recklessly
sell, lend, give, or furnish any dangerous ordnance to any person
prohibited by section 2923.13, 2923.15, or 2923.17 of the Revised
Code from acquiring or using any dangerous ordnance;
     (3)  Possess any firearm or dangerous ordnance with
purpose to dispose of it in violation of division (A) of this
section;
     (4)  Manufacture, possess for sale, sell, or furnish to
any person other than a law enforcement agency for authorized use
in police work, any brass knuckles, cestus, billy, blackjack,
sandbag, switchblade knife, springblade knife, gravity knife, or
similar weapon;
     (5)  When transferring any dangerous ordnance to
another, negligently fail to require the transferes to exhibit
ANY identification, license, or permit showing him to be
authorized to acquire dangerous ordnance pursuant to section
2923.17 of the Revised Code, or negligently fail to take a
complete record of the transaction and forthwith forward a copy
of THE record to the sheriff of the county or safety
director or police chief of the municipality where the
transaction takes place;
     (6)  Knowingly fail to report to law enforcement
authorities forthwith the loss or theft of any firearm or
dangerous ordnance in such person's possession or under his
control.
     (b)  Whoever violates this section is quilty of unlawful
transactions in weapons.  Violation of division (A)(1) OF THIS
SECTION IS AN AGGRAVATED FELONY OF THE FIRST DEGREE.  VIOLATION
OF DIVISION (A)(2) OR (3) Oof this section is a felony of the
third degree.  Violation of division (A) (4) OR (5) of this
section is a misdemeanor of the second degree.  Violation of
division (6) of this section is a midemeanor of the fourth
degree.
     Section 2.  That existing section 2923.11, 2923.17 and
2923.20 of the Revised Code are hereby repealed.
     Section 3.  This act is hereby declared to be an emergency
measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health, and safety.  The reason for this necessity is that
with immediate action, this act will prohibit the continued
purchase, possession, and use of military weapons and as a result
will ameliorate a substantial threat of death and injury to the
public caused by the misuse of improper use of these weapons.
Therefore, this act shall go into immediate effect.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54216
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.
         ^^^^^^^
>There is no question about it. 
 
You can't spell. There is no question about it.

>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 
 
We must be reading different public opinion polls. I agree that the
misguided public would like to see assault weapons banned (mainly because
they are being lied to by the media about the frequency of their use
in violent crime ... ~1%), but if public opinion were so dead-set
against the RKBA you can bet that idiots like Metzenbaum and Schumer
would be seeing their foolish bills getting passed through Congress
a LOT easier than they are. And as governments go broke and can no
longer protect their citizens you can bet that the American people
will start to really appreciate the usefulness of firearms. Contrary 
to what you might think, time is probably on OUR side, not YOURS.

>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.
 
Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath. My condolences on the discovery
of uncomfortable resilience in your mammary glands, but this has nothing
to do with the issue at hand.

... ridiculous tripe deleted ...
 
>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
 
Yeah, the liberal press doesn't like us much, but you can't really
expect coherent thought from them anyway. Their opinions are based
more on a desire to appear politically correct than on facts (which
are generously provided by the FBI, if they'd bother to put on their
Birkenstocks and go to the library to read them). Most of my friends
are anti-gun, and without exception NONE of them bases his/her opinions
on facts. They would rather believe (despite all evidence to the
contrary) that disarming law-abiding citizens would make the world
more civilized, when all it really does is make us all sheep. They 
would rather wallow in their pitiful liberal white guilt about how
society has driven the criminal to rob, rape, and murder. They 
support spending millions of public dollars protecting the rights of scum
who have already demonstrated that they have no regard for society
or its laws. They ignore the fact that areas with the strictest gun
control (NYC,DC) have the worst crime and areas with little gun
control (VT,NH,ID) have very little crime in comparison. But they
have to ignore this because otherwise they would need to confront
the fact that law-abiding citizens who own guns are not the ones that
are causing most of the trouble in society. Oh no, we certainly can't
accept that! But I guess I have faith that when crime starts making
significant inroads into their neighborhoods and starts directly
hurting them and their families, they will probably whistle a different
tune. They just better hope it isn't too late then.

>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
 
Hmmm. I wasn't expecting company tonight. I might be able to whip
up a quick cheese and cracker plate, but they should probably bring
their own drinks. Do I have time to vacuum the rug?

>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

I'm glad you ended the posting here. Your medication seems to have
worn off ...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher    NRA               | My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu   | No one else's.
-----------------------------------------------------------



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54217
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 18-Apr-93 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD -
GOOD ! by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 
> Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
> 'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
> there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

excerpted from a letter I wrote a while ago:

     Although less apparent to those who have not researched
the facts, personal protection is as legitimate a reason  as
sport for the private citizen to own a gun.  The most recent
research  is  that  of Dr. Gary Kleck of the  Florida  State
University  School of Criminology.1  He found that  handguns
are  more  often  used by victims to defeat  crime  than  by
criminals to commit it (645,000 vs. 580,000 respectively  in
this  study).  These figures are even more encouraging  when
you  consider the number of crimes that never occur  because
of  the  presence  of a gun in the hands  of  a  law-abiding
private  citizen.  In a National Institute of Justice  study
of  ten state prisons across the country they found that 39%
of  the  felons  surveyed had aborted  at  least  one  crime
because  they believed that the intended victim was  armed.,
and  57% agreed that "most criminals are more worried  about
meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the
police."2
     One  of the most heinous of crimes is that against  the
women  of  this country.  It has been my recent  observation
that  more  women  are purchasing handguns  for  defense  in
response  to  the  present danger of these  assaults.   This
should be taken as encouraging news if the events of Orlando
Florida  are any indicator.  In the late 1960's  the  female
populace was plagued with a series of brutal assaults;  just
the  publicity of the record number of women buying guns and
obtaining training resulted in an 88% decrease in  rape  for
that  area,  the  only city of its size in  the  country  to
experience a decrease of crime for that year.  Additionally,
a 1979 US Justice Department study of 32,000 attempted rapes
showed  that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion
rate  is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with  a  gun,
the completion rate drops to 3%.
 
1 G Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America Aldine
de Gruyter, NY, 1991
2 JD Wright & PH Rossi Armed and Considered Dangerous:  A
Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, NY,
1986
-------

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54218
From: tnyurkiw@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (TN)
Subject: definition of 2nd


	The debate over the Second Amendment rages on.
Arguments continue over what a "well-regulated militia"
is and what TRKBA means in practical terms.  However, the
ONLY authority in this area, is a binding court decision
on the matter.  Even a decision in this area is subject to
an overturning by a higher court.  Is there anyone who
has the facts of a legal precedent, preferably a Supreme
Court decision on the specific meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54220
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

In article <93106.21394634AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
|In article <2001.150.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
|says:
|>
|> Bill Vojak:
|>
|> BV>I read in the paper yestarday that Ted Turner wants to "trim" down
|> BV>his media holdings and is putting CNN up for sale.  The #1 potential
|> BV>bidder?  TIME/Warner of course.  Sigh . . . . . Just what we need. :-(
|>
|> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
|> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
|> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two...
|>
|I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't
|think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening
|until they break down HIS door.
|
|BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a
|minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made
|viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :)
|There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and
|not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would
|STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their
|ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.

I will join the ranks here.  If someone has the ability to actually put this
thing together and get enough support, I'll also contribute $1000 to the 
effort.  And jeeze, people, I'm a *student*, with *no job* yet, and I will
put up my own hard-earned savings if it means we have a shot at getting
the truth told on the airwaves.  Count me in.

Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54221
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes:
|There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
|regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD
|to take a drivers safety class.  I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  My car
|MUST be registered.  I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
|insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
|accident with it).  Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
|of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
|gun owners.

As I'm sure others will have pointed out to you by now, none of the above
measures are required for you *on your own property*.  You do not have to
have a license, your car does not have to be registered or inspected, and
you do not have to have insurance or safety training classes, when you own
and operate that vehicle on your own premises.  If you are going to make use
of this dubious analogy, at least make it accurate.  And by the way, in Texas
you can drive a car in public (with the proper credentials), but an ordinary
civilian can't carry a gun legally in public to save his/her life.

So I won't even consider registration, *manadatory* safety classes, or
*manadatory* liability insurance unless I get a federal law repealing
all local, state, and federal gun control laws which abridge the Second
Amendment, and a non-discretionary federal weapons carry permit, good
anywhere in the United States.  Come on, you wanted the analogy.


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54222
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:You are loosing.

"Loosing"?  Well, I'll avoid the spelling flames and see if this person
can make up for it.


:There is no question about it. 

Oh, there's LOTS of question about it.  People are becoming more aware each
day that their rights are being threatened, so much so that NRA membership 
is growing at the rate of nearly 2,000 per *day*.  We are slowly gaining
our rightful voice, despite the biases, prejudices, and veiled motives of
the liberal media and anti-gun politicians.  We will win.

:Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
:how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

What do you base this on?  Some highly-skewed poll conducted by NBC News?
The same group who faked GM pickup explosions just to make "news"?  Right.

:This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
:RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

It is true that we face even greater obstacles to our rights, betrayed by
those lying politicians who swear an oath to protect the Constitution "from
all enemies, both foreign and domestic."  But the People will take only so
many lies and deceits.

:You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
:cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
:can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 

Then the criminals who live by murder shall die by it.  Honest, law-abiding
citizens need have no fear on that count.  You, however, will evidently
die by (or at least in) ignorance.  And the number of firearms self-defenses
shall spell out our ultimate victory.

:The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
:you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

The flow of history was against the Founding Fathers, but they managed to 
successfully form the first real free republic on the face of this planet,
a republic that has become the model for all others to follow.  The press
is against us, for its own selfish motivations.  And the people will soon
realize the depths of deceit being spread by that media, and nullify its
ill-directed power.  The People are with us.

:Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
:them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
:Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
:immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

I shall never submit to an illegal, unConstitutional police state.  I will
take my own vow to uphold the Constitution, and I shall defend it and my
country against a tyrannical government gone mad, should it become
necessary.

:Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
:are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
:be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

I will not be your sacrificial sheep, and I shall not bow down to you or
anyone else who seeks to control my life.  Being an unarmed target is the
SUREST way of encouraging criminals, and believe me, I shall avoid it as
much as possible.  Then I shall be as safe as possible.  I will answer
with violence only when no other option exists, but I shall surely answer.

Mike Ruff



-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54223
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
:'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
:there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

You "think" wrong.  Ask the FBI.  They've got the proof.  Look it up.

:The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
:opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
:would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
:take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

You lie like a snake.  The "vast majority" of the 200 MILLION firearms
in this country are never used in anger.  Your feelings notwithstanding.

:Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
:In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
:No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
:than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 

We will overcome the kind of blind, pig-headed, utterly stupid idiocy that
you and others spout in a vain attempt to further your own agendas.  We
will make the truth be known, despite your best efforts to the contrary.

:The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

The Second Amendment won't be dead unless it is repealed.  That won't happen.

EVER.

Accept this.  Find another way to try and control other's lives, because we
see you for what you are, and we are not fooled.

Mike Ruff



-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54224
From: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith

papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>...
>Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
>die because of them.  

Do you have any statistical evidence to back you claim that requires another
limitation of the citizenry freedom?
-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54225
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In <1r0qk5INNc5m@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:

> In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> writes:
> > I balance my gut reaction to question authority together with the 
> > independent facts as I see them on video.  I usually adopt the 
> > scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
> > believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
> > scenarios.
> > 
> Then answer the question:  Why was NO ONE ELSE permitted to talk to Koresh, 

  Koresh had a lawyer, Deguin(?) who he spoke to in person several times during
the last few weeks. 

> It cannot be denied that if they had left them alone, there would have been 
>no fire yesterday.

  This strikes me as a tad ingenous.  "If X had done/note done Y, then Z would
never have happened."  I tend to place tha responsibility on the group/person
actually committing the act, not on those whon "forced them to do it".

  After all, to take an extreme example, if the British were not in Northern
Ireland, the IRA would not be forced to place bombs in shopping centers.

  That said, this whole sorry story was a totally unecessary, utterly fucked
up mess from the get go.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54226
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Letter to the President

Here's a copy of a letter I'm e-mailing to the Slickster at
his address of 75300.3115@compuserve.com:

____________________________________________________________________________

To: William J. Clinton
    President of the United States of America

Mr. President:

I am writing to express my utter outrage at the conduct of various
government agencies in regards to the tragedy in Waco.  I DEMAND
the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury,
who bears responsibility for the initial helicopter and grenade attack 
by the ATF against the Branch Davidians, and of Janet Reno, who authorized 
the final assault on the very day that we were commemorating the Warsaw
ghetto revolt.  And I would truly appreciate it if you would make
sure something like this never happens again on your watch.

Respectfully yours,

Kenneth D. Whitehead

___________________________________________________________________________


Get involved, gang.  It's your Republic.  Let's take it back.


**************************************************************************
*   I will be much more willing to believe the Government's side of the  *
*   Waco story AFTER we are allowed to hear from the survivors.  So far, *
*   all we've gotten has been censored by the very people who have the   *
*   most to cover up.  And I'd REALLY like to know how they got the      *
*   press, who complained so loudly about being kept off the front lines *
*   during the Gulf War, be such obedient lap dogs in Waco...  Kind of   *
*   makes me wonder if this so-called "freedom of the press" isn't       *
*   highly overrated.                                                    *
**************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)







Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54227
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

In article <1576@heimdall.sdrc.com> crrob@sony1.sdrc.com (Rob Davis) writes:
> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?

No, but I have several other breakdowns of accidental shootings.
I've never seen one that specifically provides the info that Davis insists
that he has, so I'd love to have a cite.

>If you fall, for example,
> and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.

Wrong.  There's one gun design where that can happen, and it is
supposed to be carried with the hammer over an unloaded chamber.
(Cocking the gun turns the cylinder so that a loaded cylinder is under
the hammer.  In other words, it can be usefully carried in a safe
manner.)  Other handgun designs don't have that property; if their
trigger isn't pulled, the hammer can't hit the firing pin.

> The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of
> deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.

The breakdowns that I do have include the above category.  From them I
can safely say that if Davis is right in ALL of his claims, a large
negative number of people are killed by animals, because we know that
the number of killings by wackos is reasonably large and that the
number of accidents due to gun failures (which is a superset of the
described circumstance) is near zero.

>I can find the figures if you don't believe me.

Please do.  Include a cite for those of us who like looking at
context.  Make sure that your source excludes other types of
accidents and suicides that are misreported.  ("Gun cleaning
accident" is police-speak for "the family needs the insurance
money.")

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54228
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control?


|in L.A., the first recorded survivor of a .357 shot to the heart.  That
|lady not only killed her attacker, but chased him down to do it!  All
|four of her shots, fired after SHE had been shot, struck the perp.  Atta
|girl!  The bullet entered her on a downward angle, went through the apex
|of her heart, down through the diaphragm, clipped her liver and
|destroyed her spleen.  It then exited her back leaving a tennis ball
|sized hole.  She died about six times on the operating table, but was
|out of the hospital in 15 days and was back on full duty in eight
|months!  She was off duty at the time and not wearing her vest.  She was
|on her way home so happened to have her gun.  No, she doesn't think
|civilians should have the same rights.  Sigh.

Well, if police think they are so special that only _THEY_ are worthy
of self-defense, perhaps we start putting the arm on police; maybe
we should start demanding that police are only police when ON-DUTY,
that after that they are just like the ordinary disarmed helpless
chumps they consider "civilians."

Let's prohibit arms carrying by police when off-duty. Or, if they make
the assertion that "Well, I need to maintain my gun" let's make it
regulation that they can carry an UNLOADED firearm home, that it's
only fair that they be just as helpless as poor schmuck coming home
from his computer operator job...

NRA Director/ex-San Jose cop Leroy Pyle states in the latest SWAT
magazine that anti-cops better watch out for this schism between
RKBA folks and the police. He asks the rhetorical question of 'What
if what's left of the gun lobby starts demanding the disarmament
of the police?"

Well, I guess anti-gun cops who think only they should be armed,
along with the wealthy and politically connected, should be made
to realize that screwing can cut in ways they have yet to imagine.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54229
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.221646.2332@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

> >        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> > I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> > that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.

> 	OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
> 	claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
> 	threaten anyone with them.

500,000 to 1,000,000 self-defense incidents a YEAR doesn't count with you?

>       What do they do right ... or are
> 	they just lucky ? 

Maybe they're just UNLUCKY.  If a rapist pulls a woman into an alley
in Boston, chances are almost certain that she won't be counted 
as one of those self-defenders because our local constabulary didn't
consider it important that she be allowed to arm herself.  Even though
the shotgun she owns at home makes her show up in the "gun owner" column.

>       In either case, this means the 'average
> 	threat level' in this country is rather low. 

Ironic words for somebody who lives in Florida.  The "average threat
level" in Florida has been REDUCED by a liberal CCW policy.  It's well
known that your local thugs like to target tourists precisely because 
they are less likely to be carrying than your natives.  Come on up to
Boston, or NYC, or Washington DC, and see how much diddlysquat the 
"average threat level in the country" means to a resident there.

> 	I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
> 	alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
> 	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
> 	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
> 	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
> 	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
> 	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
> 	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
> 	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
> 	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
> 	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 

Sometimes this works.  Sometimes it just lands your good neighbors 
on the dance card for the next wave of drive-bys.  Someone here once
told a story about LA gangs moving into Phoenix.  I've misplaced the
original text, but the story started with one resident calling the 
cops on a gang member.  Sure enough, a few nights later, there was a 
drive-by performed at the resident's house.  Except that this time,
unlike in LA, the entire street came out and returned fire, putting
an end to the car's occupants.  The gang packed up and left.

Of course, in LA, or in a place like Florida after the hurricane,
your first problem is to FIND an officer to step up to and tell
anything.

> 	In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
> 	least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
> 	Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
> 	conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
> 	block party. 

Look, nobody is arguing this.  I have a fire extinguisher at home.  
That doesn't mean I can be careless about tossing my burnt matches 
on the carpet.  I live carefully, monitor the woodstove, get my flue
cleaned twice a year, and test my smoke alarms annually.  But if --
DESPITE all this -- a fire does start, it's too late for any of
these things EXCEPT the extinguisher.

> >        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> > makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> > basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> > solely of force of arms.
> 
> 	Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
> 	all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
> 	set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
> 	illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
> 	twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
> 	the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
> 	cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
> 	a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
> 	gives a rats ass ? 

You seem to be agreeing with your opponent.  You can't trust your
government to protect you from abusers and violators -- white-collar,
blue-collar, epauletted, or tank-shirted.  Ultimately, no one has the
power to enforce your "rights" but you.  Unless you've given up that 
power.

> 	No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
> 	aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.

Too many people fit that category, that is true.  Some of us like to
believe that they are uninterested in the facts behind the case for gun 
ownership because they've been conditioned to believe that there AREN'T 
any.  You seem content to underestimate the electorate; I'm willing to
try to raise their consciousness.

> 	Argue away ... you can't win. 

I think we can.

HCI was founded in what, 1980?  In the mid-80's, they ran a "One 
Million Strong!" campaign for two years before reaching this goal.  
My understanding is that they "reached" it by the stratagem of including
wide classes of people other than dues-paying members.  (I can't speak
authoritatively on this -- maybe somebody else has details.)  Then they
started running a "Two Million Strong!" campaign for a while -- but they
let it slip into unannounced obscurity when it became clear that they
simply were never going to reach that level of membership.

In 1964, just after the commencement of the Dodd Hearings -- the starting
point of the modern gun-control movement, the NRA had a mere 625,000 members.  
By 1968, barely after the first murmurs of future registration, it had 
about a million.  Today, it has over three million members, making it the
third largest membership organization in the country (next to AARP and AAA).
And its membership is GROWING FASTER than at any previous time.  (Historical
figures from Kukla's "Gun Control," pp. 61 and 420.)

As you say, many of the people in the middle of this debate are bemused
by their T-bones and MTV.  That leaves hard-core gun-owners against 
hard-core gun banners.

I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members.
I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.

Yes, I think we can and will win this one.

> 	Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
> 	availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and 
> 	and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
> 	I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
> 	complaints. 

I think they would be used far less to hammer nails, as well, but,
like you, I can't give any citation showing that this utilization is
CURRENTLY significant at more than an anecdotal level.  If you can, 
I'm waiting.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54230
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal
>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information,
>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes
>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.)
>
>	Like I said, I'm not sure of the details.  But it seems to me that you
>could access medical information without giving out a name, or any other
>information.

Medical info without a name/body attached is completely useless for
treatment.

>The article I mentioned the the earlier post described a debit
>card type transaction in which neither the store nor the BANK, knew who was
>withdrawing the money.

Thus making it as secure as cash, for some purposes, but far less
secure for others.

>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information
>stored in the card.

Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting
kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have
known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.

Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to
argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument
that it disclose public info.

>things.  I think anything that you choose to keep unknown should be.

Thus making it useless for negative information.

>could have it so that only doctors can access medical information, police
>criminal records etc etc.

Yeah right.  How are you going to keep doctors from spilling the
beans?  (We already know that you can't keep cops from disclosing
info, but at least that info is typically supposed to be public
anyway.)

>	Like I said, it's best if you read the article for yourself.

The article discusses technology, not appropriate policy.  It also
fails to deal with "what happens if the folks with the secrets blab".

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54231
From: jaf@a2.cim.cdc.com (James Foster x2912)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
|> In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
|> [deleted]
|> []       And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
|> []armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
|> []
|> >What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
|> >proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
|> >cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
|> >to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
|> >time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
|> >day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
|> >see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
|> >revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
|> >of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
|> >disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
|> >gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
|> >taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
|> >and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
|> >are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
|> >state cops are.

Every city and suburban police officer I've seen around the Twin Cities in the
last two years has carried a semi-auto of some type (different brands though
I haven't seen any Glock's). 

With regard to this discussion:  We are getting dangerously far from the usual
rantings of t.p.g, and close to the realm of r.g, but I'd like to put my two
cents worth in.  While there's nothing wrong with a revolver (especially a 
large frame S&W in .357 magnum - my favorite) there are valid advantages to
semi-autos.  I suggest reading Massad Ayoob's (I know, some people can't stand
him and think he's full of bull, but I think that in general his material is
very valid and useful) book _The Semi Auto Pistol in Police Work_ (or something 
like that).  He defines a number of ways that semi-auto's are different, and that
"different is good".  The main advantage is not in increased firepower, but in 
more accurate followup shots when you go to single action mode.  There is also a
certain "propriatory nature" of each gun that takes some familiarity to 
learn.  This may have diminished with time as more criminals become familiar
with different models of semi-autos, but it was cited as stopping or at least
slowing down criminals who had grabbed a police officers gun.

|> 
|> Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
|> Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
|> faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
|> guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
|> in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to
|> 3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
|> like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
|> often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
|> 
|> A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
|> 
|> - A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
|>   the trigger again.
|> - A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
|>   but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.

Yes, but this is best done with a two hand hold.  With a single hand you either
pull the gun far off target to cock, or must fire double action.  The DA semi
auto has the same advantages plus is always SA after the first shot.


|> - A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
|>   to rotate to the next round.

I'm not sure if this is meant to be different from your first point.  In a DA
semi-auto you can pull the trigger again to try dropping the hammer on the same
round - an advantage you don't have in a revolver where the next trigger pull will
always go to the next round (discussing this point now).  This is fine with a dud
but what about a hangfire situation?  Granted it's very rare, but your round will
now go off confined in the cylinder with no place to go.  Slingshotting the slide
on a misfire takes very little time.


|> - A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
|>   hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
|>   easy motion, even one handed.

Actually with modern revolver designs incorporating hammer blocks this is not
necessary or usually recommended.  A revolver would have to fall hard enough and
at the right angle to actually break the hammer and driver the firing pin into the
round to set it off.

|> - Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
|>   on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.

The best speedloader users, especially those using the spring loaded speed
loaders are very fast.  A problem is that ejecting the spent cases is a two
handed job where dropping the expended magazine is one handed.  This means that
while you can be inserting a fresh magazine as soon as the old one clears the
gun, with a speed loader you have to go through more motions that will always 
take more time.  You also don't have the advantage of tactical reloads (replacing
a partial magazine to bring you back to full capacity - the partial magazine can
still be used if needed later).  

|> 
|> - A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
|>   first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
|>   lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
|>   about clearing it.

Yes, the time to recognize the problem is just as important as the time to clear
it.  Really though, in either a revolver or semi-auto the odds of an actual misfire
with factory ammo are awfully small.  You are more likely to get a jam in a semi-auto
but even these are exceptionally rare with modern quality guns (Sigs, Glocks, et.al.).


|> - Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
|>   and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the 
|>   chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
|>   this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
|>   of employment as a revolver.

|> - There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
|>   operation of many of them requires more training.

All common semi-auto's can be carried with a round in their chamber without any
safety problems.  While I put that out as a statement that I believe, I should
say that this applies to all of the ones I've looked at.  For the DA semi's it's
no different from the revolver situation:  The guns all have hammer or firing
pin blocks.  They also have a safety.  Because there's no real advantage
carrying one of these cocked and locked you have the same safety and speed
of employment as a revolver, plus the advantage of SA followup shots.  I'm
not familiar with SA semi-autos except for the 1911-A1.  I admit that I was
initially skeptical about carrying this cocked and locked, but after examining
the design, trying to defeat the safeties (gun unloaded of course), and 
shooting it a lot, I see no inherent safety problems with it, especially in
a thumbreak holster with the strap under the hammer.  This design also gets
you more speed for an accurate first shot than a revolver.

|> 
|> Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
|> switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
|> accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
|> require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
|> as the timer on a VCR.

Yeah, the infamous Glock.  I still can't figure out how it's worse than a revolver
for safety.  If you don't pull the trigger it doesn't go off.  I imagine that if all
your revolver shooting was done double action then you could pull the Glock trigger
far enough to fire before you realized it.  In addition, if you had developed that
nasty habit of keeping your finger on the trigger when holstering your gun and
relying on your thumb on the hammer to remind you to take it off before you blew
off your foot then you'd have problems when the hammer wasn't there.

|> 
|> Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
|> the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
|> and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
|> merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
|> with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
|> equipped for anything short of a riot.

I think this is even okay for a riot (as long as it's a small one B^)).

|> 
|> Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a 
|> wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
|> Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
|> I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
|> to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
|> what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
|> wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
|> extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
|> criminal encounters is less than 5.

I have the poor man's Beretta (Taurus 99) and consider it inferior as a carry
weapon to the Springfield .45 (oops, 9mm vs. 45 arguments are relegated to
r.g).  You are right, though.  If you don't hit what you aim at then the
shooter/gun combination has failed.  I don't ascribe failures in the the
fire real fast with a wonder-nine scenario you mention to the gun.  This is
a shooter failure, whether through lack of discipline or lack of training.


|> 
|> What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
|> .38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police 
|> prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....

9mm's are becoming more popular with crooks too, though the .38 does still
lead the list.  And like I said, around here semi-auto's seem the rule for the
street cop.  Don't know about the State Patrol however, they may still carry
the "Highway Patrolman".

|> 
|> ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they 
|>         introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
|>         as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.

Vincent, please don't take any of this as a flame.  Just my $0.02 (whoops, looks more
like $2.00) worth.  And much of it is IMHO, but do check Ayoob's book.

|> 
|> -- 
|> "If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
|> 	-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54232
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?


In article <Apr15.032620.75908@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
>
>What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. Would
>those work very well in stopping an attack?

Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now
use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired
from something that looks like a tear gas launcher.

There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that
they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly
dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping
someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity
(the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother
warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54233
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: "High Power" Assault guns


High power assault gun?  Why, you must be talking about the 155mm Howitzer.

Or did you want to try a 16 incher?  Or one of the German railway guns?
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54234
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)


In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>, Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
>Fox) says:
>>
>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>>as the timer on a VCR.
>
>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.

Ahem!!!  Hrumph!!!!  You have encurred the wrath of Glock owners.  We will beat
you with our hammers.  Oooops, don't have any  :-)

Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver. 
Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
autoloaders give you, that is.

Every gun has its safe moment and its dangerous moment.  If you just learn how
to handle it, it becomes a lot less dangerous (to you).
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54235
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

In article <81930415084418/0005111312NA3EM@mcimail.com> 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt) writes:

>Recently while looking around in Traders Sporting Goods store, a very well
>stocked firearms store, I discovered a printed document that was being 
>distributed by the good folks who work there.  Traders, BTW, is located in
>San Leandro, CA.
.
.
. 
>The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
>see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.
>
>These ads were run for the law-abiding honest citizens who own firearms for
>sporting use or self-protection.  They certainly have the right to do so, under
>the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.
 
Are you sure about this? I'm currently looking at a copy of last 
Thursday's SF Chronicle and there is the typical one column Traders
ad on page C7 in the Sports section. Not only that, but there is
a part in the middle which rather prominently says "WANTED: We pay
cash for assault rifles and pistols.". Granted, I haven't seen today's
paper yet. But I'd be surprised if there wasn't a Traders ad in it.
It's probably worth it to write to the Chronicle (and other papers)
anyway, because all their anti-gun editorials are disgusting.

By the way, let me put in a plug for Traders. I have shopped all
over the SF Bay Area and I have never seen another store with lower
prices. And their selection is amazing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher                         |   My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu      |   No one else's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54236
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

 / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /
   3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 / 

   >Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread
   >"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several
   >years while posting in this group, as an example.  There are
   >others.

For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time
readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.

This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54237
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr15.201756.29141@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal
>>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information,
>>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes
>>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.)
>
>>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information
>>stored in the card.
>
>Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting
>kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have
>known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.
>
>Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to
>argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument
>that it disclose public info.

       As perhaps some insight into how this sort of thing works, the
local college newspaper had a big crusade to have the U.T. police
release crime stats.  (The school claimed that to do so would violate
federal education records privacy laws).  They swore up and down they
weren't interested in student discipline records, only for stats so people
could make an evaluation of how safe the campus was.

       It was barely a week after crime stats were released before the
Daily Beacon had an editorial calling for student disciplinary stats
to be released, because they complained certain segments of the campus
population were treated administratively rather than turned over to the
police and therefore the criminal states weren't accurate.

       What people say they want public today may not be what they
say tomorrow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54238
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>	I just want to point out that while I am fully in support of privacy,
>it will be possible soon to have a completely secure ID card, useable in bank
>transactions, medical, etc etc.

     There is no such thing as "completely secure," especially when dealing
with High Technology. It's all a question of cost: what cost are you
willing to bear to protect your information vs. what rewards the "bad guys"
are going to get if they break it. The rewards of breaking such a single ID
system would be high indeed.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
     This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
  "Time is just nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54239
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

In article <8110356@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:

>> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
>> 
>> >RM:Just a short thought: 
>> >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>> >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>> >"no, it's total amnesty".
>
>>     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy 
>> back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can 
>> you get if you leave paper trail behind?
>
>In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver
>Nuggets basketball game. 
>
>How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)

       Money orders operate pretty much like checks, with both parties being
supposed to sign them.  I assume you'd have to show the buy-back people
an ID, and you'd then have a money order made out to that ID.  

       As far as traceable as a practical matter, I don't know, it would
depend on whether they bother to computerize who the recipient's name is
on the money order and bother keying that sort of thing in.  I'd say
certainly the police and the buyback people would keep a record of who
they gave money orders out to.

>Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?

       There might be some questions asked, I suppose, if somebody 
brought in a number of weapons each time over a series of "buy back"
programs.

        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54240
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <C5J5IM.3C9@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> by rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat):

> 
> |	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> |	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
> |	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> |	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
> |	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> |	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> |	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> |	pay through the nose for it. 
> 
> This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very
> serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were
> of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness
> machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we
> have a road system that is the envy of the world?
> 
If anybody wanted proof of the nonsense of the "you can't build guns" claim,
they need look no farther than the Philippines.  Amateur gunsmiths there
regularly produce everything from .45 automatics to full auto shotguns.  Now
if this guy wants to claim that the Philippines is either technologically
superior to the US or that their transportation is better than ours, all I
can say is that he's living in a fantasy world.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54241
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
>	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation. 
>	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
>	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.

Proof by assertion!  I love it!  Uh, please explain why the smugglers
do not also rank a notch below (or above) the military in terms
of communications, intelligence gathering (e.g., why fight officials
when you can bribe them..."I'll give you a hundred grand to let that
semi past..."), and firepower. 

>	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
>	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
>	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
>	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
>	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
>	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
>	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer
>	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
>	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
>	good dollar/pound deal. 
>
What's the point here?  You're arguing that the black market
WORKS (which it does, of course).  

>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.

This is the wrong way to quantify things.  The smuggler would
be concerned about value/cubic foot.  Go to a gun show and
price out a crate of good quality handguns.  

>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>	would have to be local. There are not all that many people

What's "local?"  

>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could

What is a worthwhile firearm?  Hell, anything that WORKS!  Go
get yourself a copy of the Army's 1969 Improvised Munitions Manual.
See how easy it is to make a functional firearm.

>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it. 

If paying $10 for inconspicuous parts at the local K-Mart is
"through the nose." 

Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54242
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.

That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.

>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.

Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
outside.)

A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54243
From: sylvain@netcom.com (Nicholas Sylvain)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

In article <DLB.93Apr15130411@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time
>readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.

A long-time reader of t.p.g, I am also a staunch RKBA supporter, yet
I own no firearms.

>This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.

Amen, brother.

--
Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@netcom.com) --- I am the NRA


-- 
Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@netcom.com) --- I am the NRA

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54244
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)

In article <15240077@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
|> / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
|> 
|> >Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread 
|> >"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years 
|> >while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others.
|> 
|> Good point, Kirk.
|> 
|> He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts, 
|> and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time 
|> he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns
|> out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start
|> with) act responsibility once given the chance.

I'd like to point out that I was in error - "Terminator" began posting only 
six months before he purchased his first firearm, according to private email
from him.

I can't produce an archived posting of his earlier than January 1992,
and he purchased his first firearm in March 1992.

I guess it only seemed like years.

Back to your regularly scheduled flame fest.

-- 
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)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54245
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in.

That depends only on the profit of doing so.  The differences
in cost of production will determine local vs smuggle.

> 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile

Those of us who have actually made semi-autos (full-autos are easier)
are getting quite a giggle out of this.  I'd estimate that 5% of
the people at my high school couldn't do it.  (I was one of the
few who failed shop.)  People who have actually seen me do mechanical
work would probably say that 1% is more like it.

Starting with even 90% of the population, you can be sure that
"enough" people will be motivated.

> 	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> 	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> 	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> 	pay through the nose for it. 

How much is "through the nose"?  After all, we know quite a bit
about how much a gun is worth to a criminal, so if that is dwarfed
by the price demanded by the "bad" part of that 90%....

The relevant economic analysis has been made.  The "profit" of
gun crime is high enough that the price required to push criminals
out of the market is high enough that everyone will be motivated.
That analysis ignored some "improvements" in the criminal gun
market that could make them even cheaper.  (They're not efficiently
used now, but a "loaner" set up would drive the value still higher
without affecting criminal use.)

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54246
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)


103D CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
  
                                  H. R. 1276 
  
To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms
    in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement
    of such right.
  
                           ======================= 
  
                       IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
  
                               March 10, 1993 
  
Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
    Committee on the Judiciary 
  
                           ======================= 
  
                                    A BILL 
  
To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
    to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
    to provide for the enforcement of such right.
  
        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
    tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
  
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
  
        This Act may be cited as the "Citizens' Self-Defense
    Act of 1993". 
  
    SEC. 2. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND
        TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF,
        FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
  
        (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT. -- A person not pro-
    hibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm shall have
    the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use fire-
    arms in defense of self, family, or home.
  
        (b) FIREARM DEFINED. -- As used in subsection (a),
    the term "firearm" means a --
  
            (1) shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of
        title 18, United States Code);

            (2) rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of such
        title); or

            (3) handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public
        law 99-408).

        (c) ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT. --

            (1) IN GENERAL. -- A person whose right under
        subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring
        an action in any United States district court against
        the United States, any State, or any person for
        damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as
        the court deems appropriate.

            (2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE AT-
        TORNEY'S FEE. -- In an action brought under para-
        graph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the
        prevailing party, other than a State, a reasonable
        attorney's fee as part of the costs.

        (d) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. -- An action may not
    be brought under subsection (c)(1) after the 5-year period
    that begins with the date the violation described therein
    is discovered.

------------------------ (end of HR 1276) ------------------------


Well, this sounds good to me.  The key is Section (2)(c)(2), which
will effectively open up the Federal court system to all the folks
who can't afford to adopt an Attorney with whom to fight city hall.
All of you who've been saying "hey, isn't that illegal?" could just
go hire your own Attorneys on a pay-if-you-win ("contingency fee")
basis, and sue the bums ...   :-)

What you can do now:

(1)  Write your Representative, and ask them to co-sponsor HR 1276.

(2)  Write Representative Roscoe Bartlett, the sponsor --

        Representative Roscoe Bartlett
        312 Cannon House Office Building
        Washington, D.C. 20515

     -- to tell him who your own Representative is, and that you've
     asked them to join him as a co-sponsor of HR 1276.

(3)  Contact Gun Owners of America --

          Gun Owners of America
          8001 Forbes Place
          Springfield, Virginia 22151

     -- which has committed to lobby on behalf of HR 1276.

(4)  For those of us with a RealJob (TM), find out how to reach
     Representative Bartlett's campaign fund (I'm working on it)
     and toss in a few bucks.  You can bet your bippy that he's
     going to be one of the HCI "targets" in the next election,
     which isn't that far away (1994).

(5)  Tell your family, friends, gun club, etc.  Enjoy ...   :-)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54247
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

>NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP
>
>The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
>see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.
>
>If you are tired of newspapers who run sex and liquor ads galor, yet refuse to
>run legitimate gun ads, please send a letter to the editors indicating your
>displeasure over their censorship doctrine.
>
>Following is a list of Bay area newspapers who censor gun ads.  Perhaps you'd
>like to send them your thoughts on this issue!
>
>Contra Costa Times	San Mateo Times		San Francisco Chronicle
>POB 5088		POB 5400		901 Mission St.
>Walnut Creek, CA 94596	San Mateo, CA 94402	San Francisco, CA 94103
>
>San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
>1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
>San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190

I have the April 15, 1993 issue of the SF Chronicle in my lap.  Page
E7 (in the "Sporting Green" section) has a Trader's advert.  (The
copy is a bit screwed up - it says that the prices offered expire
4-14-93, but the ad is there.)

The SF Examiner and Chronicle run the same set of adverts (because
they have a joint printing/biz agreement and differ only in editorial
content).

I've seen gun ads recently in the merc, which is anti-gun editorially,
albeit not from traders, but from its competitors.

I don't know about the other papers.

Does Traders claim that things are changing?  When?

>- Why TV journalists lie

Because it's easier than telling the truth and no one much cares
either way.

>Let me know if you write to any of these bozos.

Before you do, make sure that the bozos are actually doing what
you're accusing them of.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54248
From: pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks


In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:
|> 
|> Do you Rambos who worry so much about rape and murder in the
|> wilderness also carry your guns all the time at home too?  You
|> should, since you're in a hell of a lot more danger there than
|> in the backcountry.

when does carrying a tool classify someone as a rambo.  so all the
pioneers that came west were rambo's?  adrienne!!!  :-)

|> 
|> Does anybody reading this group have an actual, honest-to-God
|> experience with violent crime in the backcountry to tell about?
|> 
|> I can sort of understand the people who want to protect themselves
|> from bears and such, although there are, what, maybe a dozen or
|> two bear attacks on people in North America each year?  But to
|> worry about being raped by some buck-toothed Bubba in overalls
|> is just irrational.  I think we'd all be a lot safer if all the
|> videocassettes of "Deliverance" were gathered up and burned.

would your tune change if you were one of the "dozen or two bear attacks"?
believe me, when you need a firearm, you NEED a firearm.

|> 
|> Public health experts will tell you that you are far more likely
|> have your gun stolen, use it yourself on a family member or
|> have it used on you than you are to use it on an actual criminal.

please cite your references.   i'll let others (please note followup)
cite valid references to show you that this is an untruth.

|> The Rambo warriors we've heard from here undoubtedly consider
|> themselves exempt from this statistical reality -- they're much
|> too smart and responsible.  Living in a city where there's a
|> drive-by shooting every couple of days, and working in a medical
|> center where a day doesn't go by without a shooting victim coming
|> into the ER, I'm just a bit skeptical about the value of gun
|> ownership.  I go to the backcountry to get away from this 
|> environment, and I don't want to find other people there who
|> insist on bringing the urban environment along with them -- boom
|> boxes, computers, or guns.

well, you might as well go naked.  forget the matches, backpack, sleeping
bag and all the rest that's is a modern convenience.  a firearm is just
a tool.  as some people won't carry gaiters, some people do.  firearms
should be in the same category.  it should be a personal choice.

and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
cars.

|> 
|> Please post flaming responses to rec.guns.rabid  >:-(
|> - J. Gever, B'ham, Ala.

marciano pitargue@cisco.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54249
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>        (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT. -- A person not pro-
>    hibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm shall have
>    the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use fire-
>    arms in defense of self, family, or home.


So, you have the right unless the Federal Government says you don't.
I don't think I like this very much.

This would be much better if it said "everyone except those who have
been striped of this right by due process of law" or some such thing.

Also, I don't care for the Federal Government stepping on states rights
regardless of which state right is being stepped on.  If the constitution
doesn't give the Feds some power then they have to just shut up about
it.

The only way the Feds should have anything to say is if the Constitution
prohibits localities from infringing on the RKBA.  In which case this
bill should just reiterate that the RKBA is guaranteed by the Constitution
and that the Feds will take appropriate action if it is infringed.


-- 
-- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54250
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith


 >> Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from
 >> bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be
 >> for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.

   > Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.
   >
   > Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
   > die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as
   > long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few
   > shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One
   > assumes they are moving!)

A better solution:

  If the 'bad' people can't be trusted with guns, then lock them or knock
  them off.  Stop punishing good people.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54251
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car

In article 27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> >All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
> >I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
> 
> That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
> 
> >Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
> >that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
> >that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
> 
> Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
> do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
> Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
> outside.)
> 
> A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
> what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
> off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
> it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
> 
> -andy
> --


   I agree very much.  I have read almost every article written about
   the Glock, and IMO, it is probably the safest auto-loader made.  It
   has the best safty of all, Jeff Cooper's First Rule, "Keep your finger
   OFF the trigger until you want to shoot."  If everyone just observed
   this, there would be fewer "accidents".

   David N. Bixler
   Auburn University

   Standard Disclaimers apply.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54252
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?

In article <1993Apr15.150736.15793@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes:
>
>Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now
>use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired
>from something that looks like a tear gas launcher.
>
>There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that
>they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly
>dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping
>someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity
>(the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother
>warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-)
>--
	Oh, OK.  Just wondering.  I am not a real expert on weapons, I was just
wondering if they would do the job.

					Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54253
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make 
sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.

Say U.S.C. 922 :

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

 Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person" 
might also be an artificial entity that is created by government 
and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
does not make it LAW. Everyone knows that laws are constitional
until it goes to court. So, has it ever gone to court, not
just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"

Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?



-- 
Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'    	 
Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
brians@atlastele.com           U

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54254
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Cop kills teenager

	OK, here's something for all of those people who think cops are always
more responsible then the rest of the population.  I found this article in the
Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado State University's newspaper.

	SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED IN REVENGE TRIPLE HOMICIDE

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer afraid he would be fired for
allegedly assaulting a teen-ager walked into an auto body shop wher the youth
worked, said "You're going to die" and fatally shot him and two others, police
said.

A fourth youth was wounded.  A fifth escaped injury by hiding under a car.

The wounded youth ran about two blocks to a house after the shooting at about
midnight Tuesday and called police.  He was hospitalized in satisfactory
condition Wednesday.

Suspended police officer Robert Sabetta, 23, of Cranston, was arrested at
gunpoint over three hours after the shooting at Wilson's Auto Enterprises in
Foster, a rural town of about 4,000 people in northwest Rhode Island.

	Well, this just goes to show that cops are capable of snapping, just
like everyone else.  Now who was it who said only cops should have guns?

						Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54255
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>see are still carrying revolvers.

So?  Look in the trunk some time.  Heck - look at the dash.  That
funny thing attached with a quick-release is a gun.  The ones in the
trunk are "better".  (I don't have numbers for Chicago, but
Philadelphia police cars carried multiple automatic weapons and
thousands of rounds as standard issue in the 60s.)

>Not that there is anything wrong with a
>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>disadvantage even with training.

What is the nature of this disadvantage?  If the cop can shoot, 6
rounds will do the job against a single opponent (especially since the
cop has guaranteed backup).  If the "gang member" can shoot, the extra
rounds don't help.  The only time this difference can matter is if
neither can shoot, and cops aren't supposed to be throwing lead around
like that.

BTW - most cops carry multiple guns.  You're not supposed to know
about the second, third, and so on.

>I have been at a shooting range where
>gang members were "practicing" shooting.

How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?

They were actually practicing
>taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
>and they weren't doing too badly either.

Then the extra rounds won't make any difference, so why is it an issue?

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54256
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>
k

Guys, guys, (and gals), let's lay off Jason here.  Though he stepped
in it, he has been very good so far about admitting he doesn't know
what he's talking about, and even more stunning is that he seems
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#CIANSAKGBFBI
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#ASSASINATEDEA
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #NAZIPLUTONIUM
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #PRESIDENTFEMA

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54257
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1qk3jm$9sh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members.
>I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.

I've been a member of the NRA for several years and recently "joined"
HCI.  I wanted to see what they were up to and paid the minimum ($15)
to get a membership. I also sent the NRA another $120.

-- 
	Would the founding fathers have approved of encryption so
strong that the government could not break it?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54258
From: bbs.billand@tsoft.net (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Handgun Restrictions

I would like to know what restrictions there are on purchasing handguns 
(ie waiting periods, background check etc..) in the states of Nevada and 
Oregon. Thanks.
                                                -Bill

--
Bill Anderson (bbs.billand@tsoft.net)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54259
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)

In article <1993Apr15.152834.16638@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
(Dillon Pyron) says:
>>>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>>>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>>>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>>>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>>>as the timer on a VCR.
>>
>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Ahem!!!  Hrumph!!!!  You have encurred the wrath of Glock owners.  We will
>beat
>you with our hammers.  Oooops, don't have any  :-)
>
>Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
>revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver.
>Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
>autoloaders give you, that is.
>
>Every gun has its safe moment and its dangerous moment.  If you just learn how
>to handle it, it becomes a lot less dangerous (to you).
>--
>Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
>TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
>(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
>(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
>pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
>PADI DM-54909                     |
>

All very true.  I'm going on what I have read and heard from friends.
Basically the Glock is great but I have heard/read that it is a lot harder to
learn proper handling because of the type of safety that it has.  I was
looking at a Glock .40S&W and the S&W 4006 a couple of weeks ago and the
safties on the guns were very different.  The saftey on the 4006 seemed a lot
more "safe"  (for lack of a better word) than the one on the Glock.  Of course
this could also be a bad thing if you were to pull the gun on somebody.  You
would spend more time fiddling around turning the safety off.  Personally I
like the Glocks because they are very light and I think they look really cool
(guess that's why they use them in so many movies) but I wouldn't get one as
my first semi-auto because of the safety.  I would prefer more training with
a "traditional" semi-auto (ala Colt .45) but of course that's just my opinion.

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54260
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


I HATE long postings, but this turned out to be rather lengthy....


Overall Crime rate:
It fell....just like that...

Acquiring weapons in Norway:
You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a 
permit, and a good reason to get the permit....
If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from 
the police and to be a member of a gun-club.
The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
records of SERIOUS mental diseases.
Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
-club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.
It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

Use of guns in crimes (in Norway):
Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
time befor the crime.

Use of knives:
It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
in public -rigth ??

Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
to take action we DO.
Ask ANY historian or millitary with an knowledge of europe....
(Or ask any German who served in Norway in WW2.....)

Individual vs masses:
Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
extent....
Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
all the others ??


The issue:
I believe the issue is GUNS, and gun-legislation.
We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....
IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
But should it have to be like that ??
Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
it should be free to buy guns ??

Disclaim-her:
I'm not a pacifist or anti gun. 
I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
neccities or toys.
I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....







	This is not a .signature.
	It's marly a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54261
From: awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:


: The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
: has been whether they fired their main guns.  

Never?  This is incorrect.  Either you don't read very well or resort
to falsehoods in an attempt to make a point.

At the risk of boring and belaboring the point, my claim was
the chain was regarding the tanks "last used in Detroit in 48".
The text follows.

:  You did not merely claim that
: tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
: sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.  

Indeed, when Coffman claimed they were only used as APCs, I did say
I had been told they did fire their main guns.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You continue to
: back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
: disputing.

Well, the poster who I responded to did dispute the use of tanks
post-48.  Rude of you to call Gary Coffman a nobody.  

: "Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
: now going to admit that you were wrong?

That was the entire point to *you*.  What exactly did I claim?
   --------------------------------------------------
  "I've heard eye-witness descriptions of tanks using their main guns
to respond to sniper fire.  Quite effectively."
   --------------------------------------------------

  I wasn't wrong . . . I've heard those descriptions.  If you're
paying attention, I've mentioned that I saw the tanks with my own
eyes, but the main gun firing was an account I heard.  That helps
people judge whether or not to kick in the, to use your words,
"bullshit filters".  Stating that I *claimed* this is a falsehood.

  What was it I claimed as fact?  Here's the entire post:
  --------------------------------------------------
>We haven't used tanks against the black ghettos since Detroit 1948. 

Correction.  I know they used tanks in Detroit 1968.  I saw em, it
was well covered in the news at that time.  Gordon Lightfoot mentions
it in his song "Black Day in July".
  --------------------------------------------------

  Since you don't dispute that and claim that nobody else does, that
means I was right.  

: I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
: riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
: without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
: military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
: been *big* news.

   So one would suppose.  Some folks think in happened in 48.  

Awesley goes on:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

: To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
: grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
: perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
: it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

John, again, strawman techniques.  Do you feel you're losing it so you
have to stretch what I said and knock that down?  What I read said
nothing about what they fired.  And so I put nothing in there.  If you
need some help, let me know and I'l take your side of this for a
while.  You're not scoring here, you're boring here. 

: If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
: screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
: it. 

   Glad to know you're such an expert.  Nice to hear some an
authority.  I especially appreciate your basis of knowledge -- if it
had happened, you would have know it.  Since you are such an
authority, you probably know that people did scream about an alleged
massive cover-up in the number of people killed in the Detroit riot.
Some claimed 100+ dead, others said 300.  The offical number is 43 but
the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says it was "several".  I've also
heard some things about that but I won't dare repeat them.  You'd
assert that I claimed they were truth.

: Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 

   Taking the tour after the riots, it was pretty easy to tell the 
difference between Army and Guard troops.  Or so I recall from 26 
years ago.  And I seem to recall it was the Army running the tanks.
So it would have been an Army cover-up.

   Another part of my memories was that while most damaged building
were burnt, some were in rubble.  Based on what I remember, I was and
am inclined to believe an old sarge or two.

: If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
: to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
: those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.

   Given the level in destruction in Detroit, I'm quite willing to believe
that they did fire their guns.

   Now then, we've bored the shit out of anyone whose bothered to read
this far and all you've managed to say is that you don't believe the
account I cited.

: --John L. Scott

                                  -- wes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54262
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>
>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
>do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
>Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
>outside.)
>
Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.  It's basic purpose -
not to let the gun fire until you're ready.  Christ, I've known that since I
had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't know me so don't make assumptions
about what I know and don't know.  I do know that the Glock has multiple
safties from reports, looking at them at a gun shop, and friends who own one.

>A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
>what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
>off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
>it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
>
>-andy
>--
From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the
trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.  Every
article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.  And don't ask
me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or
rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on
here without someone getting right on your ass.  No wonder why there are so
many problems in the world.  Everyone takes everything just a little too
seriously.  By the way,  I'm not going to reply to any of this stuff anymore as
someone made the good point that this discussion is getting too close to r.g
(And yes I know that I had something to do with that).

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54263
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements

Andy Freeman (andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP
: >
: >San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
: >1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
: >San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190
: 
Hmmm, the SJ Merc. carries Targemasters West, National Shooting club,
 Reeds sportshop, Sportsmens supply and Big 5 ads. They all sell guns.
No they don't have any adds like in Shotgun news.  If they won't at least
run the current adds I swear I'll cancel my subscription and end to cash
to the CRPA.

Rob P.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54264
From: syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu (Steven B Syck)
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)

In article <93105.164406U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>All very true.  I'm going on what I have read and heard from friends.
>Basically the Glock is great but I have heard/read that it is a lot harder to
>learn proper handling because of the type of safety that it has.  I was
>looking at a Glock .40S&W and the S&W 4006 a couple of weeks ago and the
>safties on the guns were very different.  The saftey on the 4006 seemed a lot
>more "safe"  (for lack of a better word) than the one on the Glock.  Of course
>this could also be a bad thing if you were to pull the gun on somebody.  You
>would spend more time fiddling around turning the safety off.  Personally I
>like the Glocks because they are very light and I think they look really cool
>(guess that's why they use them in so many movies) but I wouldn't get one as
>my first semi-auto because of the safety.  I would prefer more training with
>a "traditional" semi-auto (ala Colt .45) but of course that's just my opinion.
>
>Jason

	At the risk of starting the 'my gun is better than yours' flame
war, I must disagree.
	
	There is no secret in handling a Glock.  In fact, it is often
chosen (besides its other merits) because it shoots like a revolver does
basically.  It can limit the training time (read budget $$$) due to the
fact there are no 'external' safties other than the trigger, hence less
training time required. 

	Smith & Wesson (among other types) are chosen due to the fact taht
they do have the external safties (hammer drop,as well as mag drop) which
if properly used have saved many lives when 'Mr. Bad' snatched the gun
from the officer and tried to shoot said officer the gun was on safe and
would not fire.  This point had been made in many articles in various 
gun magazines.  If fact, one author (can't remember who) staged a little
test where he had a revolver and a S&W on safe laying on a table and asked
people with little firearms experience to on his signal, grab the gun and
shoot a target.  He timed the people using each gun.  The revolver times
were pretty close, but some of the times with the S&W were in minutes, or
the person just gave up because they could not figure out the saftey.

	You don't often see Colt 45 autos issued due to the light trigger
which can be accidentally fired in a stress situation, opening the issuing
city,county, etc.. to lawsuits, bad press, etc..

	Of course any problem can be overcome with enough training, but
such training is not always available to budget crunched departments.  I
know if I were a Cop I would want something like a S&W just for the off
chance of the gun getting taken away.  The safety doesn't guarantee that
'Mr. Bad' won't figure it out and shoot me, but it could buy enough time
to draw a second gun and shoot 'Mr. Bad' before it's too late.

	Don't think I am too biassed here just because I have had 3 Glocks
in my possession at one time, because I have had a .45 as well.  In fact,
it was my first handgun.  Remember, the ultimate 'safety' is YOU the
operator, and no safety is going to stop an negligent discharge (note I
don't say accidental) if you break the rules of gun handling.

	As per the part of being light weight and looking cool, I agree
100%.  I wouldn't rule it out as a first purchase.  

-Just my $.02 + tax
-------   Steve Syck        syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu        --------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54265
From: brant@seq.uncwil.edu (AT-Dreamer)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

Anyone who worries about his own gun should not have one.  If you carry
any pistol with a empty chamber and safety the chances of it going off
are about zero.  Unless you sit it on top of a lite stove for a couple
of minutes or put it in a fire. :-)     

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger"  Spoken by many A.T. hikers         |
|  Kilo Delta Four Zulu Papa Uniform -KD4ZPU 146.82                
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54266
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control?

In article <C5JAtz.5G4@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>...
>Let's prohibit arms carrying by police when off-duty. Or, if they make
>the assertion that "Well, I need to maintain my gun" let's make it
>regulation that they can carry an UNLOADED firearm home, that it's
>only fair that they be just as helpless as poor schmuck coming home
>from his computer operator job...
>
>NRA Director/ex-San Jose cop Leroy Pyle states in the latest SWAT
>magazine that anti-cops better watch out for this schism between
>RKBA folks and the police. He asks the rhetorical question of 'What
>if what's left of the gun lobby starts demanding the disarmament
>of the police?"
>
>Well, I guess anti-gun cops who think only they should be armed,
>along with the wealthy and politically connected, should be made
>to realize that screwing can cut in ways they have yet to imagine.
>...

We all know this will never happen.  Because the Police are under the wings
of Government, they will always be considered more important than Citizens.

Government pens, pencils and paper are considered more important than
Citizens.

I think we have a problem with our Government.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54267
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.734911642.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Overall Crime rate:
>It fell....just like that...

       Two questions:  When was this, and do you have the relevant
numbers.  (Please note, this is *not* in any way an indication I don't
believe you or that you're not correct, but when the drop occured is
relevant.)
   
>Acquiring weapons in Norway:
>You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a 
>permit, and a good reason to get the permit....
>If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from 
>the police and to be a member of a gun-club.

       The primary objection (beyond ones based on the ideal of
RKBA that it is simply not something the government should do) is
that it makes guns a play-thing and tool of the rich and connected.
It discriminates against the poor.

       Is self-defense considered appropriate, and if so, under what
conditions?  (Are you allowed, for instance to get a gun for protection
if you're going to be carrying a very large sum of money on a regular
basis or have been threatened.)

>The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
>records of SERIOUS mental diseases.

       This has been suggested in the U.S., and generally supported among
gun owners.  What many object to is that many, if not most, proposals
contain a sort of "gotcha" clause which allows an arbitrary denial, even
if you qualify in every way.

>Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
>-club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.
>It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
>You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

       At this point, it should be pointed out that in general
a driver's licence in the U.S. is for the most part nothing like its
European counterpart.  I understand getting one is far more difficult
there than here.  In the U.S. it's a joke. 

       But my usual objection is that you're discussing two different
things.  For instance, in the U.S. a driver's license is a permit
to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.  It is not necessary
to own one, or to operate it on private property.  That is, the
ability to require driving permits is generally considered to arise
from the government's legitimate power to enact reasonable regulations
for behavior on public lands.  A permit to own an automobile, for instance,
which is far closer an analogy, would be a much harder thing to get
past legally, since it wouldn't be based on making regulations on public
property, but in restricting activity on private property.              

>Use of guns in crimes (in Norway):
>Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
>for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
>Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
>time befor the crime.
>
>Use of knives:
>It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
>You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
>in public -rigth ??

        This varies *widely*.  (One thing I think Europeans have
a difficult time with is that the U.S. has fifty unique jurisdictions,
where the laws from one state to another can be as radically different
as from one country in Europe to another).

        Some places allow open carry of both guns and knives.  Some allow
concealed.  Some prohibit both, or allow one or the other.  And it can
be either a state or local restriciton.       

>Individual vs masses:
>Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
>extent....
>Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
>What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
>all the others ??

       The question must be asked:  Is the right of *this* individual
affecting the rights of this *other* individual.  What we usually
get is that the rights of this *group* (meaning some individuals within
this group, here defined as "people who own guns,") are adversely affecting 
the rights of some other group.  

       If for instance, "Bob" were using his gun to attack "Steve," you'd
have a point.  But essentially what we're discussing is that becuase
some person who qualifies as a member of the group "people who own
guns" then some third person, perhaps in another *time zone* is told
that their being a member of that group is taking away somebody else's
rights.  It's like trying to punish all newspapers for the libel commited
by one.

>The issue:
>I believe the issue is GUNS, and gun-legislation.

       The issue is crime, violence, and murder.  The question is to
what extent guns and gun legislation impact those.

>We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....
>IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
>But should it have to be like that ??

       Of course not.  It would be nice if we didn't have to fear that
other people might get it into their twisted little minds to hurt us.
But currently we don't have that option.  Nor do I expect we will.

>Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??

       No state does.  In any case, there's a limit to which the state
may enforce it's "wisdom" on me.  Freedom in general is an unwise
concept.  If you pre-emptively restrict everything which might be
"unwise" then freedom becomes a meaningless concept.
   
>If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
>it should be free to buy guns ??

       I'll raise my hand against driver's licenses.  As currently
implemented they're a waste of time and little more than revanue
generation for the State and ignored by a startling number of
drivers.  It does not guarantee a level of skill any higher than is
necessary to get your car on the road and get yourself or somebody
else killed, or a knowledge of traffic laws beyond what any ten year
old will have picked up riding around in his parents car.

       But, as I mentioned, they're two different things.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54268
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:

>                                     A BILL 
>   
> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54269
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
> You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make 
> sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.
> 
> Say U.S.C. 922 :
> 
> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
> any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
> 
>  Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person" 
> might also be an artificial entity that is created by government 
  ^^^^^
> and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
> don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
> an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
> me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> does not make it LAW. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.

> Everyone knows that laws are constitional
> until it goes to court.

Not exactly:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
 no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
 contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
 Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
 form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
 ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
 time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
 branding it."

"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
 bound to enforce it."
 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
      late 2d, Sec 256

> So, has it ever gone to court, not
> just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"
> Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
> by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?

Automatic weapons?  No.  The Supreme Court has never heard such a case.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54270
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: ACLU policies

ACLU Official Policies.

Policy 18, for example, opposes rating systems for motion
pictures: "Industry sponsored ratings systems create the
potential for constraining the creative process and thus
contracting the marketplace of ideas. Despite the stated goal of
providing guidance to parents, experience has shown that ratings
inevitably have serious chilling effects on freedom of
expression."

In regards to the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU states in its
Policy 84: "The insertion of the words `under God' into the
Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the constitutional
principle of separation of Church and State."

Policy 120 states that, "Military conscription under any
circumstances is a violation of civil liberties and
constitutional guarantees." The ACLU objects to the draft even
during wartime because of the "anti-democratic power it gives
government to wage war without support of the people."

Policy 125 states, "The ACLU calls for a broad-based inquiry into
war crimes within the widest possible definition of war crimes
against humanity, and crimes against the peace, focusing upon the
actions of the United States military and other combatants
against the people of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and North
Vietnam."

Policy 133 states, "The ACLU recognizes that US government
reliance upon nuclear weaponry as a dominant element of foreign
and domestic policy, while propounded as a defense of democracy,
is in fact a great threat to civil liberties. Four decades of
adherence to this policy has fundamentally altered the nature of
our constitutional democratic process and poses a paramount
threat to our civil liberties."

Policy 217 objects to roadblocks "where drivers are stopped for
sobriety tests" because they "violate Fourth Amendment
principles." 

Policy 242 states the following on criminal
sentencing: "The most appropriate correctional approach is
reintegrating the offender into the community, and the goals of
reintegration are furthered much more readily by working with the
offender within the community than by incarceration. Probation
should be authorized by the legislature in every case; exceptions
to the principle are not favored, and any exceptions, if made,
should be limited to the most serious of offenses, such as murder
or treason."

                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54271
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: UPI News Release


  UPI Washington DC, Update Desk			4/15/93

  For the past several months the Clinton administration has been
  stymied by mixed signals coming from the economy.  While most
  leading indicators has shown an apparent improvement in the 
  economy, there has been no corresponding improvement in the area
  of jobs creation.

  The unemployment figures seem stalled at the 7% mark.  last month,
  in an effort to understand this problem, President Clinton appointed
  a blue ribbon panel to try to resolve the apparent conflicting
  economic signals.  This panel was chaired by Vice President Gore.

  Today the panel released their results, providing a shocking conclusion.
  "It's the guns" Vice President Gore said.  Apparently NRA members, and other
  "gun-nuts" are purchasing firearms at in record numbers, pulling the
  economy out of the recession.  "Their buying them five times faster than
  ever before, and stockpiling left and right", the Vice President said.  

  However, since many domestic firearm and ammunition manufacturers have
  been experiencing hard times during the past few years, including several
  declarations of bankruptcy by many leading American gun makers, they have
  not rushed to increase hiring to meet the new demand.

  "We want to see if this run will continue before hiring more people", said
  the President of Colt industries.  "As long as Clinton is in office, we
  suspect it will", he added.

  In response to this new information, President Clinton announced a new
  Gun Control measure to be introduced into Congress this session.  It's 
  called the "Ban-One-A-Month" Gun Control Bill.  Under the terms of this law,
  every make and model of all firearms will be written on individual index 
  cards.  The cards will all be put in a big hat and the President will draw
  one card every month.  Sixty days later that gun will be banned from any
  further manufacture/importation or sale in this country, except to the
  politically connected and to members of the National Police Force.

  The President said, "This law will benefit America two ways.  When the
  Gun-Of-The-Month is announced every thirty days, the gun-nuts will run
  out and buy thousands of them, boosting the economy even more.  In addition,
  over the long run, we will get all of these icky-evil guns off of the
  street."  He also announce the appointment of Sarah Brady to oversee
  this program, citing her "Honesty, and unbiased view on the subject
  of gun control".

  Senators Metzenbaum, DeConcini, Feinstein, and Boxer have proposed an
  amendment to the Bill which would add additional index cards containing
  caliber designations for all know ammunitions.  "Their stockpiling,
  stockpiling, stockpiling" screamed Metzenbaum during a press conference
  at the national Headquarters of Handgun Control Inc.

  Senators Simon, Metzenbaum, and Moyenhan also introduced an amendment
  that would make all guns illegal to possess once the last card has been
  drawn from the hat.  Senator Simon was quoted as saying, "First we'll
  fuck em, then we'll kick em out of bed in the morning", during a press
  conference he held in the second floor Mens Restroom of the Senate
  building.  He of course was referring to the fact that he would allow
  the people to purchase the guns to help the economy, but would require
  the BATF to seize all of the guns in America sometime in the year 2008,
  after all of the cards have been drawn.

  The head of the BATF responded by saying, "We will have to see if this
  thing in Waco is over by then.  We may be too busy to seize all those
  guns".

  US House Representatives Pat Schroeder and David Skaggs of Colorado
  declared this proposed law as being "reasonable gun control which won't
  affect anybodys Constitutional right to own sporting guns".

  - end article -

  For the humor impaired :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-) 

                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54272
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....

In article <1qanj0$22d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>How many are aware that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a verbatim translation
>of a Nazi gun control law passed shortly before the Holocaust?
>
>For those of you who think I'm being paranoid in asking these questions,
>pray that you are right.  Unchecked democracies usually end in
>dictatorship.  Remember, Germany was a democracy when Hitler rose to power. 
>Can we be absolutely certain nothing like that could happen today? 

I can't speak for the organizations you cited but everywhere you look in
our society and government, one can see the relentless movement toward
one world government.  The fact that the media demeans such charished 
values as patriotism, nationalism and protectionism are some of the
clues.  The fact that we are sapping the economic strength of americans
to prop up a former and possibly future enemy is just another.  The fact
the words like community of nations, global village and international
business are in vogue are others.  International corporations are 
destroying our identy and economy and the propaganda they are playing
through the media and government is over powering our ability to resist.
Our porous border both people and trade are an indiciation that we have
already lost a great deal of sovergnty.

The bottome line is that the single most evil aspect of One World
Government is that you have nowhere to run to and history has proven
that would be a disaster.  

Beware the LIBERAL and the conservative and the moderate.  Think for yourself


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54273
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.734911642.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from 
> the police and to be a member of a gun-club.
> The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
> records of SERIOUS mental diseases.
> Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
> -club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.

So, like, what do you do during those six months to be "active?"
My town has a similar requirement, and it's rather stupid.  Before
you can buy a handgun, you have to be an active member of a gun club.
Well, how active can you be without a gun, chief?

Most gun owners feel a check of criminal records for crimes and mental
disorders would be a very good thing -- IF it couldn't be abused by the
government.  But every time this is proposed, there is always some
trapdoor by which the government can deny your purchase EVEN IF you
are perfectly qualified to own a gun.  And we oppose this.

> It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
> You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

Since the fatal accident rate for licensed automobile drivers in the US 
is around 50 times the fatal accident rate of largely unlicensed gun
owners, I'd think twice before using this analogy.

Besides, the problem is criminal use of guns, not accidents.  (There
are about 500,000 criminal uses of guns in the US every year -- but
only 1,400 accidents.)  I don't think it's necessary to spend a lot
of energy making sure a criminal CAN shoot a gun before he gets one.

Just like the check, most gun owners feel positively about requiring
safety courses -- IF they couldn't be abused by the government.  But 
they already have!  One state doesn't hold the courses, another doesn't 
fund them, a third holds them only once a year with limited attendence 
to those with political connections.  Is this fair?

> Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
> time befor the crime.

And how many of them acquire these guns from legal retail outlets?
How many are borrowed, stolen, smuggled, bought on the black market?

> Use of knives:
> It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
> You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
> in public -rigth ??

Some states allow ONLY open carry.  Some allow ONLY concealed carry.
Some allow both.  Some allow both, but require licenses for concealed 
carry.  All you can say is if one of these modes has a clear advantage
over another in terms of reducing crime or any other public good,
then state legislators SOMEPLACE are doing exactly the wrong thing.
Which means that they really don't have any objective reasons for 
these laws other than their preferences -- a bad way to govern.

> Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
> We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
> to take action we DO.

("Hot-livered."  I LOVE that expression.  Here, we say "hot-headed.")

> Individual vs masses:
> Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
> extent....
> Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
> What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
> all the others ??

Typically, the only criminals who can affect the rights of ALL the other
people are criminals in government offices.  The rest of our criminals
affect the rights of only one or a few people at a time, and they do this
during the commission of a crime.  POSSESSION of a gun by someone hurts
NO ONE else.  It is when they do something violent with that gun that
the crime occurs.  Of course, it is a crime for a felon or ex-felon to
possess a gun, but we don't feel it is right to treat common citizens
who have lived good lives as if they were just "pre-felons" waiting to
commit crimes.

> We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....

I don't understand this sentence.

> IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
> But should it have to be like that ??

Life isn't fair.  I shouldn't need a fire extinguisher either, or
flood and theft insurance, or to lock the doors of my house and car.
But pining for a better world won't do anything to address what I have
to do to live in this one.

> Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??

None of ours, I'm sure.

> If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
> it should be free to buy guns ??

Frankly, I'm not sure I know what good a driver's license does anyone,
either.  The people who drive safely never use it, and the people who 
drive drunk, drive without it!

However, a car is a good tool, but not one that protects my right to life.
I rank the right to life somewhere north of the right to travel freely.

> I'm not a pacifist or anti gun. 
> I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
> neccities or toys.
> I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
> want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....

The question is not whether or not you want to own guns personally.  It's
whether or not you think that ALL people should be forced to do as you do.
I don't have any problem with someone who says they would never own a gun.
I do have a problem with someone who says I should be prevented from owning
one, too.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54274
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: [long]: Gun Hearings Day in Massachusetts (April 7)

[This is a co-authored report from two of us who were there.]

Gun Owners Action League, our state rifle association, started the day
with a rally in the secluded courtyard behind the statehouse at 9:30.
It was looking sparse (about 40 people) until the speaker began,
whereupon about 120 more people followed the loudspeakers from
wherever they had been lost, and filled out the area something proud.

Mike Yacino of GOAL spoke.  One of his best throwaway lines was to
remind us that all of us holders of carry permits there had been
checked and certified clear of all crimes by the state; while the
people in the Statehouse behind us only had to be certified clean of
"election fraud" to hold their jobs.

Nancy Snow and Amos Hamburger were busy handing out ID buttons and
sheets describing all the bills to be presented at the hearings, and
telling people where to find their own representatives (and in too
many cases, who they were).

Mike warned us that the committee was going to suspend its rules and
discuss a bill that hadn't made it onto the official list.  It seems a
delegation of students from Simon's Rock of Bard College (alma mater
of Wayne Lo, who shot up the place with an SKS late last year) was
being bussed in to testify for a bill to ban all sales of firearms or
ammo to anyone who is not a state resident.

The hearings were originally scheduled in the (large) Gardner
Auditorium at 10:30, but that had been pre-empted by the Governor's
hearings on the Framingham Eight (women in prison for killing abusive
husbands, and seeking release).  So we had until 1:30 to buttonhole
our representatives, after which we would be squashed into an
inadequate hearing room.

One of my representatives' staffers was somewhat offensively smarmy.
He said, "Oh, it must be gun hearings day again!  The gun lobby is
always so organized every year."  I got a little pissed, and replied,
"I'm not from the gun lobby -- I'm from your district."

At 12:30, your second reporter arrived in time to notice a
demonstration going on in front of the statehouse (where the
pro-gunners weren't).  Randy Price from the TV News was there, in his
mirror reflective shades, talking to one of the anti-gun types, and
several Simon's Rock anti-gun "close-the-loophole" protestors.
(Earlier, Randy had covered the GOAL rally.)

The room we had been assigned seated about 50.  Remember, there were
about 160 gun owners there, plus another 20-30 students and teachers
from Bard.  One of us had already reserved a seat; the other never got
closer than the atrium outside -- and there was a crowd behind HIM.  A
cop took up station at the entrance and prevented the rest of the
crowd from coming in.  Soon after the debate started, a loudspeaker
was set up outside in the hall for the benefit of everyone else.

Everyone who was there (inside and outside) got to sign up on a sheet
saying what their position was on which bills.  Most of us signed up
to "support GOAL's position" on "all bills."

First, because of their time constraints, public officials got to
testify.  And first up was the bill that nobody had seen (the students
had some curfew, I guess).  

Currently, Massachusetts law allows a non-resident to purchase long
guns or ammo from a local dealer provided he complies with the laws of
his own state.  Previously, the law was similar, but applied only to
non-residents from states adjoining Massachusetts.  The Simon's Rock
folks called the current law a "loophole" and wanted it closed.

Two of their reps spoke about Wayne Lo and his "SKS assault rifle."
The second one, Hodgekiss, a co-sponsor, had done his homework so well
that he kept confusing Montana (Wayne Lo's home state) with Missouri,
and became belligerent when about five gun owners in the gallery
corrected him after his second muff.  Carr, from Gloucester, claimed
that the new bill would put the law back the way it was, but he was
lying: the new bill allows purchases by non-residents of adjoining
states ONLY if they have licensing in their own state "as strong as"
that in Massachusetts.  Since none of them do, that's that.

Some of the things these two said were really offensive.  "In some of
these other states, anyone can buy a gun as long as he's breathing!"
(Oooooo!)  "We have some very, very good gun laws in Massachusetts; if
only the other states would adopt the same type of laws, we wouldn't
be having this situation -- but they won't."  (Naughty, naughty!)

Next up was Boston city councilman Albert "Dapper" O'Neill.  He was
there to testify pro-gun, but in some ways he was a liability.  He's
reasonably elderly and tends to wander and repeat himself, plus he's
almost a caricature of a law-n-order politician.  He badmouthed the
ACLU, said violent criminals should be executed, and that if he were
judge, he'd give arrestees their "last rights" (pun intended) on the
spot (at which many of the gun owners applauded, which bothered me.)
He said that all the proposed gun restrictions were a step in the
right direction -- for the criminals.  He said this FOUR times :-(

Two of the bills under consideration would allow police to rescind a
CCW or FID, and confiscate all your guns, if someone had filed a
restraining order against you.  (Note that the filing of a restraining
order requires no warrant, no hearing, no evidence, and no conviction
-- just an accusation.)  Senator Barrett of Reading testified in favor
of it, and patronized the pro-gunners there several times by saying,
"I'm sure all the gun owners here will agree with me that we have to
get these weapons out of the hands of people that our courts have
convicted."  I haven't seen such a disgustingly disingenuous
performance since Nixon whined that he wasn't a crook.

Barrett also spoke in favor of the bill making the FID card renewable
every five years, instead of permanent as it is now.  The stated
purpose is to remove FID cards from those who have become ineligible.
"Revenue has nothing to do with it."  (Yeah, right.)  Apparently, some
congressmen think we're stupid enough to swallow the argument that
it's preferable to process 1.6 million renewals every cycle in the
vague hope of catching a recent felon than to simply take the goddamn
card away from a criminal at conviction time.  As usual, hassle the
law-abiding instead of the crook.

The two co-chairs of the committee were Rep. Caron and Sen. Jujuga.
Jujuga didn't say much (he was a co-sponsor of both "restraining
order" bills) but Caron struck me as a sharp guy that wouldn't let any
bad logic or lies on the part of either side to go unchallenged.  (He 
was a co-sponsor of one of the "restraining order" bills as well.)  One
of the younger reps on the committee (forgot his name) was
vociferously pro-gun, somewhat embarrassingly so.  His heart was in
the right place, but his arguments seemed to be confined to, "every
year it's the same damn thing, you come in here with this crap..."
It's nice to have a friend on the committee, but he could have been
more effective.

At about 3:00, it was clear that the hall-jam couldn't continue.
Someone came out of another meeting hall and yelled at the cop because
the loudspeaker was disturbing their meeting, so the loudspeaker was
disconnected.  So they found a bigger hall upstairs.  One of us had
to leave to catch his charter bus, and so missed the "public"
testimony; the other got a seat this time.

Caron began by talking about how he got his FID 16 years ago, left the
state, and then returned without notifying them of his address change.
He complained that the state record system was not up-to-date and that
his PD back in his city of birth still thought he lived there.  Great
quote: "If you purchase a gun today, it will not get into the state
computer system until 1999."  (This was also an argument he used
against the renewable FID card.)

Testimony was heard from several "battered women," one of whom had
been attacked by some guy in his 20's who had an FID card because he
got it when he was 15 or thereabouts.  They used a lot of emotion and
said how they were scared of these men.  A staffer of Attorney General
Harshbarger testified in favor of this anti-gun bill, saying how
50,000 restraining orders were granted last year, and how these women
needed to be protected.  Caron noted that a restraining order was
granted for 10 days, and then a hearing was held to determine whether
the order would be extended to a year.  He asked whether she would be
satisfied if the FID were revoked at the time of this hearing rather
than after the initial issuance of the FID.  She gave some long
rambling circumlocution in response.

Then testimony against the bill was heard.  Mike Yacino (who looks
something like Einstein) got up and made the point that restraining
orders were issued on too little evidence, that judges like to issue
restraining orders just to let things cool off no matter who they
think is right (man or woman), and that the hearings for restraining
orders are lightning sessions with little time to consider facts.
Atty. Karen McNutt spoke with him a few times during his testimony.

Other pro-gunners got up to testify.  One said he had had to file a
restraining order against a tenant to clear her out, and that she
countered by filing one against him!  He noted that this would have
allowed the state to confiscate his guns if the new bill became law.
One of the junior reps noted that "this is America" and we have to be
certain that individual rights are respected.  Senator Jujuga
reiterated this, saying that "people who abuse smaller people can go
to Hell as far as I care, but we have to be careful about equating
conviction with a restraining order."  (Point and match, Senator.)

Another pro-gunner got up and testified that he didn't know his
citizenship "expired every 5 years," and that a driver's license was a
privilege, not a right like the right to keep and bear arms.

A third got up and said the problem was with the criminal justice
system, and argued in favor of a death penalty bill and public
hangings.  Senator Jujuga said he had himself tried to get a death
penalty bill passed, and joking responded that he, too, favored public
hangings.  The speaker then responded, "I'll make you a deal.  You get
me the rope, and I'll tie the noose."

Next came public testimony on the Simon's Rock bill.  A teacher
testified that she had been the teacher of Wayne Lo, and that "he
wouldn't have been able to shoot people inside a building while he was
outside" without his evil gun.  She said that the "loophole" should be
closed to prevent something like this from "ever happening again".

Four or five other kids testified in favor of this bill, one of
spilling tears for the good legislators.  One of the students actually
shot by Wayne Lo was also there.  Many of them had T shirts on,
saying, "As long as one person can buy a gun in anger, none of us are
safe -- support gun control."  The committee was reluctant to grill or
correct the kids, except for Caron, who corrected one student who had
claimed that anyone could apply for an FID.  "Only residents can get
FID's," he said.  (How much do you want to bet that this kid had no
idea he had been conned into testifying for a bill that would cut
out-of-staters completely off?)

Yacino and McNutt spoke again, this time noting that the bill as
written would affect both ammo AND ALL guns possessed by
out-of-staters.  Karen also noted that hunters in CT, NH, and VT could
be put away for a year if they wandered across the MA boundary
somewhere in the woods and got challenged by game wardens.  Yacino
underscored the fact that Lo COULD have gotten an FID as a resident
student -- and, hell, even an CCW, as he had NO criminal or mental
record.

One junior rep was upset that it would take MA residents longer to buy
a gun than out-of-staters, and thought it was "elitist".  Another
(Caron?) said that we need the protection of preventing non-residents
from buying without an FID because only two other states in the union
had "FID-type" cards, so complying with all the laws of one's home
state was "not enough."  One pro-gun speaker replied that this
resembled a mother watching her son in a marching band and exclaiming,
"Everyone's out of step but Johnny!"

All the Bard College people were filing out as the pro-gun testimony
for this bill was made, and thus only pro-gunners were around when the
other bills came under consideration.  The main bills remaining (and
GOAL's position) were:

o  H.4375 and four others: Notify police chiefs so they can pull 
   licenses when a holder is convicted (strongly supported)

o  H.1732: Require trigger locks on all handguns sold (opposed)

o  H.962: Require trigger locks on all loaded firearms (strongly
   opposed)

o  H.1350: Allow every municipality to enact their own gun laws 
   (opposed)

o  H.1731: Fund bullet-proof vests for municipal police (supported)

o  S.1097: State Constitutional Amendment for the RKBA (supported)

o  Several on police discretion in the issuance of FID cards (opposed)

o  Several altering non-resident license conditions (supported)

o  H.1135: Ban damn near all guns everywhere in the state (guess!)

Some of these took only 30 seconds to consider, as the remaining
pro-gunners raised hands in unison either for or against them.

Mike Yacino noted that, besides the danger in screwing with a trigger
lock on a loaded gun, that bill would make it illegal for a licensee
to carry his concealed handgun unless it were locked.

Caron blew right through H.1350 when he saw that we opposed it.
Again, he brought up the state's archaic records capability and said,
"This would create hundreds of different licensing systems."

The session ran late -- since it was the last scheduled hearing, it
could not be adjourned until everyone who wanted to had testified.  It
ended at about 6:30.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54275
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:

>>                                     A BILL 
>>   
>> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

>Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
>I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.
>-- 

>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...

I don't think your objection is beyond the bounds of rationality.  The
right mentioned in the bill is already established under the Second
Amendment; the bill should be reworded to reaffirm the Second Amendment
RKBA, and then establish the procedures for redress through the federal
court system.

The right already exists and is already embodied in our Constitution.

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54277
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do 
>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it 
>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?

This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills. 
In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them, 
you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54278
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Re: UPI News Release


Cathy Smith posting for L. Neil Smith

Dear Bill -- 

Very, VERY good -- you made my whole day with this post. Thanks
a lot.

L. Neil Smith

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54279
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>>I have been at a shooting range where
>>gang members were "practicing" shooting.
>
>How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
>or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
>
"We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on
the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.  There
are many, many bad things going on in that area.  Also, I have several friends
that live very close to that area who have had problems with some of these
folks.  By the way, where did I say that they were minorities?  Do you think
that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned
it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.  I
don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.  If
you would have been there Andy it would've been obvious to you too.  Of course
it might not have been.  Who knows.  All I do know is that I was there, I live
here and I know that they were gang bangers.  When you live here long enough it
becomes pretty easy to spot them via gang colors, gang signs, etc.  One last
thing.  My sister is a social worker.  She makes it her point to find these
things out (gang signs, colors, etc) because it is in her best interest to do
so.  She is nice enough to let me know these things so I can watch out for
myself as I live right on the border of the west side of the city. Enough said.

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54280
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <1qc5sa$obl@pandora.sdsu.edu>, chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:
}     A note on the lighter side, I've noticed most gun-banners (some of my
}   friends included) are the one who make comments that indicate they are 
}   more likely to resort to violent.  So are they really banning guns so they 
}   wouldn't end up shooting someone else?

Could be.

It is also likely that since they feel they are more likely to resort to
violence, they have a hard time believing that anyone else would react
otherwise.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"Well, I did say we'll put it out and we'll put it out when we can.
 But I don't know what we can put out or when we can put it out."
 -- George Stephanopolous.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54281
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
} 	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
} 	own, use or display a firearm.
} ...
} 
}       Given society
} 	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
} 	as many guns as possible.

Considering that the uses include self defense, hunting, target shooting
and collecting, I don't buy the notion that the vast majority of people
don't "own, use or display a firearm".

But let's say your contention is true.  What's the point of "get[ting]
rid of as many guns as possible", if they weren't being used anyway?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"Well, I did say we'll put it out and we'll put it out when we can.
 But I don't know what we can put out or when we can put it out."
 -- George Stephanopolous.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54282
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements


I don't know what Traders is claiming, but it appears to me that
the Oakland Tribune has censored gun ads in the past.  Likewise
for the San Francisco Chronicle, and I have never seen a gun
ad in the San Francisco Examiner.

Specifically, about a year ago on Thursdays, when Traders placed
its ads, the Chron. ad would not have any graphics representing
any handgun sale, though text could list it.  The Trib. would
run a graphic of a handgun.  The Examiner would not have a Traders
ad at all.

Over the past year while Oakland politicians have made a lot of noise
about measures to fight crime the Trib stopped taking the Traders
ad, then started publishing it, but without any handgun graphic, then
stopped, then started.  Since the Trib. was sold some months ago it
has not had the Traders ad.  During one of these non-ad interludes
a Traders employee told me that the Trib. had refused to take their
ads.

Yes, the usual Chron. Thursday ad was there today, with graphics
representing rifles, safes, etc. as usual.

Joan V

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54283
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
>> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?

There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year.
The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500
fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those
occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted
gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably
well under 250 per year.

>>If you fall, for example,
>> and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.

Handguns designs have included a "hammer block" since around 1960
or earlier. This is a metal part which physically seperates
the cartridge and the firing pin: Even under impact, the gun
cannot fire. The hammer block is connected to the trigger and
is pulled out of the way as the trigger is pulled. As a result,
modern pistols can fire _only_ if the trigger is pulled (or 
in some cases, if they are cocked by hand and then dropped.) 

>> The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of
>> deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.

I don't know about animal attacks, but there are 23,500 murders 
each year and under 500 die in the manner you suggest. If only
2.1% of the murders were killings by "wacko"s, you would be
wrong. Worse, there are also 102,500 rapes and 1,055,000 aggravated
assaults each year. These numbers make violent attacks, and 
preventing them, thousands of times more significant than the
accidents you are worried about.

(These figures, by the way, are from the FBI's "Uniform Crime
Report" for 1990. I'll stop by a library tomorrow and look at
the "National Crime Victimization Survey", which is more
specific about where and when the crimes occured.)

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54284
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: DeConcini -- ten years ago and today

 Dennis Deconcini, 1982
 
...In these and similar areas, the
Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5
U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by
administrative bodies.
   These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Sub-
committee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded
rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
   It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise
of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
   It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably search-
ing and seizing private property.
   It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property
without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens with-
out regard for their right to due process of law.
   The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was
utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the
Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities
were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons ille-
gally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to
be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently
made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documen-
tation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before
BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence
was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF
gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither
criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into
unknowning technical violations.
 
( Exerpt from: 97th Congress; 2d Session   COMMITTEE PRINT
     T H E   R I G H T   T O   K E E P   A N D   B E A R   A R M S
                                REPORT
                                of the
                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                                of the
                      COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                         UNITED STATES SENATE
                        NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
                            SECOND SESSION
                             FEBRUARY, 1982
        Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-618 O
                        WASHINGTON : 1982
 
 
Letter to Constituent: April 1993
 
 
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms (ATF), which is the Federal law enforcement agency with
jurisdiction over firearms violations and regulations.
 
It has been my experience as chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government which
funds ATF, that ATF is one of the most competent and highly
professional law enforcement agencies in the Federal government.
The agents of ATF have proven their value again and again in
successful, legal operations to curb the unlawful possession and use
of firearms, especially in the area of  drug-related crimes.  It
enforces the Armed Career Criminal Act which calls for mandatory
minimum sentences for repeat felons using firearms to carry out  an
illegal activity.  The Bureau has made itself a key component in
preventing gang related violence, also, both by educating at-risk
youth to the dangers of gang membership as well a s by depriving known
gangs from access to weapons.
 
The Waco, Texas case involved the execution of search warrants by ATF
on the Branch Davidians for illegal firearms and explosives possession
(automatics, semi-automatics, and machine-guns, in addition to bombs
and other explosives.)  In virtually every gun case, ATF is asked to
trace weapons through its' National Firearms Tracing Center, where
they keep all dealer and Federal firearms license information.  ATF
is the Federal governments' firearms expert and routinely works with
state and local police to execute warrants.  ATF, working with state
and local law enforcement in Texas and the U.S. Attorneys' office
felt it was necessary to execute these warrants in order to legally
establish that a crime had been committed and conclude a long and
thorough investigation of illegal gun and explosives held by members
of the Branch Davidians.  In addition, ATF carefully selected a
Sunday morning, knowing from their source, inside, that the men would
be separated from the women and children and not in the area where
it was known that the illegal weapons were stored.
 
As you may be aware by now, Vernon Howell a.k.a. David Koresh
spiritual leader of the Branch Davidians was tipped of the impending
execution of the search warrants.  Unfortunately, ATF lost the
element of surprise and the cult was able to arm themselves  and
prepare for ATFs' entry into the compound.  Once a hostage situation
presented itself, the ATF asked the FBI to become involved since the
FBI is skilled in hostage negotiations.  In addition, and military
tanks were brought in due to the serious nature of the situation and
firepower of the Branch Davidians.
 
Based on what I have learned about ATF's role in the Branch Davidian
raid, I believe the agency acted responsibly.  I am, however, deeply
saddened by the loss of lives of the 4 law enforcement agents who
attempted to enter the compound and the civilian members of the
cult.  I fully expect the Department of  Treasury to conduct a
thorough evaluation with representatives from law enforcement outside
the Department to be headed by the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement.  In addition, ATF will conduct its' own review of the
Waco operation.  I look forward to reviewing the findings of the
evaluators and hope this situation in Waco will be brought to a quick
and peaceful conclusion.
 
Sincerely,
 
Dennis DeConcini
Chairman
Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service and
General Government
 
April 7, 1993
 
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54285
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Crimestrike Alert for Texas

Fellow Texans and Members of Crime Strike in Texas
 
Crime Strike in Texas has a loosely knit coalition with most
Victims Rights Groups in Texas. We ask that you write a
letter protesting the release of the following murderer.
 
This letter should be written to :
 
Raven Kazen - Victims Services
Board of Pardons and Paroles
P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station
Austin, Texas 78711
 
The letter should be written if at all possible on RED PAPER
as that was agreed on at one of our first meetings . It
represents the coalition and all of its parts as well as the
heart ache of those left behind and the blood spilled by
these criminals. The letter should have only one name on it
so it can be filed in the folder of that criminal waiting for
his next try at parole.
 
List of Criminals:
 
Today we have only one parole to protest , On October 4,
1990, Mark Steven Hughes rendered numerous blows to the head
of James Allen Pompa . Ten month old James went into a coma
and died two days later.
 
On July 8, 1992, Mark Steven Hughes pled guilty to Injury to
a Child and received a ten-year sentence. According to Texas
law, Mark became eligible for parole on January 4, 1992 --
six months before he was even sentenced!
 
Would you join us in strongly protesting the release from
prison of Mark Steven Hughes, who beat a baby to death .
 
Mark Steven Hughes - beat to death the baby boy of
Russel Pompa -- Reference Mark Steven Hughes - TDC# 633546
 
 
Mark your envelope   "PROTEST LETTER" on the front and back.
 
A typical letter is indicated on the next page ---
 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
 
Irvin Wilson - Volunteer Crime Strike Texas
 
 
Date: April 13, 1993
 
Raven Kazen - Victims Services
Board of Pardons and Paroles
P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station
Austin , Texas 78711
 
I protest the parole of Mark Steven Hughes TDC#633546, who,
murdered James Son of Russel Pompa.
 
He should be kept in prison for his full sentence and not be
released at any time prior to his full sentence for any
reason.
 
 
Irvin Wilson
Houston, Texas
 
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54286
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio Legislative Alert -- H.B. 278

OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE  TUEDAY, APRIL 6, 1993
 
H.B. NO. 278- REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY
 
        TO AMMEND  SECTION 2923.11, 2923.17, AND 2923.20 AND TO ENACT 
N 2923.181 OF THE REVISED CODE TO EXPAND THE DEFINTION OF DANGEROUS 
ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE MILITARY WEAPONS THAT DO NOT USE BOLT ACTION, TO 
INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBTION AGAINST POSSESION 
OF DANGEROUS ORDINANCE, TO PROHIBIT ANY PERSON FROM ACQUIRING A MILITARY 
WEAPON ON OR AFTER THE ACT'SEFFECTIVE DATE, TO REQUIRE THE LICENSURE OF 
MILITARY WEAPONS ACQUIRED FOR A PROPER PURPOSE PRIOR TO THE ACT'S 
EFFECTIVE DATE, TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM IMPORTING, MANUFACTURING, OR 
SELLING A MILITARY WEAPON, AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
 
As of Monday, April 12, 1993  H.B. 278 had not been assigned to a 
committee.  Introduced as an emergency measure if this passes there is no 
chance for a reforendum, and would go into effect immediately as opposed 
to the state requirement of 90 days before a law goes into effect.
 
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54287
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio Legislative Alert -- H.B. 287

OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE   THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993
 
H.B. NO. 287- REPRESENTATIVES SEESE, DAVIS, BATCHELDER, AMSTUTZ, T. 
JOHNSON, VAN VYVEN, WACHTMANN, WHITE, DI DONATO, BOGGS, LOGAN
 
        TO AMEND SECTION 1531.01 OF THE REVISED CODE TO ADD MOURNING DOVE 
TO THE GAME BIRD LIST AND PERMIT THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE IN 
THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO REGULATE THE HUNTING OF MOURNING 
DOVES, AND TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION.
 
This would allow the hunting of mourning doves in Ohio and give the 
sportsman something they have been pushing for.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54288
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his
chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
Duke.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54289
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!

In article <1993Apr16.030706.3318@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
>>> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?
>
>There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year.
>The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500
>fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those
>occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted
>gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably
>well under 250 per year.

       I'm neither a doctor nor a firearms tech expert, but it would seem
that given the way a holstered gun points, accidental injuries inflicted
that way would be among the least lethal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54290
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:

> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
> >and unequivocally, without infringement.

> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last 
> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:

> 	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security 
                         ^^^^^^^ Militia

> 	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear 
                  ^^^^^ State

> 	arms, shall not be infringed.
        ^^^^ Arms

You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
Constitution. 

> This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
> to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined 
> structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.

Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!

    James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of
    being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
    every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to
    which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
    are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
    ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
    of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military
    establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
    carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
    are afraid to trust the people with arms."
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right
    of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed.  A
    well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
    country..."

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of
    the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
    respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
    will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
    a year."

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing
    armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the
    government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
    formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large
    body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****
    own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
    ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But *surely* Hamilton and Madison didn't mean the PEOPLE when they
said "people", right?  That's why the Amendment refers to "the Right
of the Militia"?...  ;-)

> Your average 
> 17-45 year old male does not fall into the definition.

You're right, the Militia consists of ALL able bodied males (and
probably females under current interpretation). 

> Therefore most
> members of The Militia, the one the every gun advocate refers to, are
> not members of a well organized militia and therefore are not directly

The Amendment does nor refer to "well organized", it says "well
regulated".  I have some targets you may examine if you wish to check
how _well regulated_ I am. 

> mentioned in the amendment.

> If this amendment wanted to allow every member of The Militia to keep
> and bear arms, why did it specificly mention a "well organized militia" 
> in the SAME SENTENCE as the right to keep and bear arms?

Correct.  That's why the Right is reserved to the People.  And that
was to insure the People could form a "well regulated Militia", not a
"well organized militia".

> It could be
> argued that the first part of the sentence is separate from the last 
> part.  If so, why was it include in the same atomic unit of written

What do Atomic Units have to do with this argument?  Any moron can set
h_bar = C = 1...

> instead of a separate sentence?

Oh, I see what your question is; Why don't you read the federalist
Papers?! 

    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
    Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
    to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
    recital of particulars."

But what does Madison know about the grammatical style of the 2nd?  He
only wrote it.

> The amendment also implies that the right to arms has to due with 
> the security of a free state.  The Federalist Paper's mention of a
> well regulated militia gives many examples of how this militia protects
> the security of a free state.  All these examples are actions of a
> very organized force, not some John Q. Public with a gun.

That's obviously because you've never actually *read* the Federalist
Papers. 

> All that the Second Amendment clearly states to me is that the people's
> right to form well regulated militias shall not be infringed.  That is 
> people have the right to join a well organized militia.  This well
> organized militia will, of course, provide training in how to use arms
> and in basic military tactics.  These training members of the militia
> can keep and bear the arms.

Can't read, huh?  Show me where the document says "well organized
militia". 

> Lastly, reading through the Federalist Paper's on well organized 
> militia it is very clear that many of the reasons for these militias.
> One reason stated is the protection from a standing army.  These days
> the standing army could easily defeat a group consisting of every 
> 17-45 year old male and female not in the armied forces.

That is *exactly* why EVERY PERSON should be allowed to own *any*
weapon currently in use in the armed forces.

> Another
> reason stated for well organized militias is to reduced the need
> for a standing army.  Well, the US Armied Forces have been a standing
> army for more than half the history of the US.

But the major reason is to protect against that very same army.

> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.

    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
    to raise an army upon their ruins."

So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
our Liberties and Rights.

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54291
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Nuclear/heavy weapons and the Militia [Long]

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

	Down to 170-some odd lines.  We must be making progress!
On an ironic note, where I deleted lines Emacs continually gave me
the message "Garbage collecting... Done."  Think it's trying to
tell me something?

>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>And thank you: It's a great change from the same tired old debates...

	You lurkers can join in at any time, you know!  Ahhh..
Talk.politics.guns -- the kindler, gentler newsgroup.  Who would
have thought?

>No, not exactly: The only reason for this sort of restriction is
>the possible endangerment of others. A poorly maintained 
>rifle is dangerous, but only to the user; since it doesn't
>endanger others, there is no justification for such restrictions.

	I remind you of shrapnel.  I consider 5' a reasonable space
limitation, but make no mistake a gun blowing up is a hazard to
those nearby, say in the next lane at the range.  My point was at
what distance, or level of threat, we draw the line.  Is it the
endangerment of others, so we do a 5' restriction, or the possibility
of being shot, hence we draw a 1.5 mile restriction, or a nuke and
draw a 5 mile restriction?  To me they al suffer from the fundamental
flaw that they restrict based upon the instrument rather than placing
the responsibility for usage squarely upon the shoulders of the user.
Perhaps Sen. Metzenbaum declaring the Barrett Light Fifty an assault
rifle has made this more apparent to me, since the Barrett has
only range and acurracy going for it.

>They have determined that their lives are worth the effort to
>protect their homes and families. Using nuclear weapons close 
>to home will not accomplish this.

	I disagree, on the grounds that a house can be rebuilt much
more easily than my family once I have died.  I assume that word
would get to the citizens that such an attack was planned.  If this
is not the case, the tactical and strategic implications change
quite a bit.  Personally, my home is worth, say, twenty Martians
intent on taking over the world.  My family?  All of them.  The
balancing act here is hard to judge sitting at my desk.

>There is, however, another problem: In any case of civil war,
>the strength of the militias fighting on each side should
>reflect the popular will. If the public is split 67% versus
>33%, then the minorities' militias should be at a 2:1 disadvantage.
>Such a need for popular support would, hopefully, prevent 
>insurrections unless the people really were behind the rebels.
>But heavy weapons owned by a small fraction of the militia 
>could distort this: What if the 33% minority included all the
>tank and artillery owners?

	That seems to be the case already, given that heavy
weapons aren't commonly owned by the citizenry.  With such low
numbers, obviously due to cost, I don't think the superior
weapons are going to be of great effect against a numerically
superior foe.  Furthermore, it is even more doubtful their training
includes proper tactical movements that best utilize tanks,
whereas the commonly rifleman is not so hampered in effectiveness.

>I think it is vital to avoid such a situation, where a small 
>minority would have a reasonable chance of gaining political power
>through violence. To prevent this, it may be necessary to give 
>control of heavy weapons (e.g. those which only a small number
>of individuals would own _and_ whose firepower would grossly 
>distort the relation between popular support and military 
>strength) to someone other that individual militiamen. This is
>certainly not a good thing, but I think it is the lesser of two evils.
>Whoever controls these weapons must be a democratic body,
>responsive to the will of the people.

	I had envisioned that the armorer, perhaps the officers
of a select group, and the like would exercise control over the
heavier, more complex weapons.  But, if Joe Bob owns an old Sherman
tank I certainly wouldn't ask him to give it up.  Follow orders
from the officers, yes.  Since the expense of a tank is so large,
though, chances are it would be jointly purchased and should
therefore be jointly maintained and operated.

>Here, I think we have to be carefull about _which_ "state" we
>are talking about: Certainly one role of the militia is to
>overthrow a repressive government, and it would be completely
>destructive to that end for that same government to control 
>the militia's arms. But the United States have several levels
>of government, each able to act independently, but not all
>likely targets of rebelion.
>As such, rebelions against state and
>local governments are very unlikely. I think, therefore, that the
>state (or possibly local) governments could safely be allowed to
>keep the select militia's heavy weapons. The risk of abuse, while
>still something to consider, is far less than the similar risk
>were the federal government in control.

	This I'll agree with to a point.  The State having control
over the heavy weapons should not be justification for the state
to have them centrally located.  Keep them spread out, such that
the ability of the State to lock them up isn't so easy.  Otherwise,
I would have to assume that State control would rest on the
authority of the Governor and militia officers.

>That is eaxctly why I think they should be removed: The select
>militia should privide the militia's heavy weapons and highly-trained
>specialists. For the reasons I have outlines above, I think 
>these heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc...) are
>better off being kept by local governments than by a small 
>number of individuals. However, local governments shouldn't
>be able to use the select militia without the support to the
>people. Ideally, the general militia, under the direct 
>control of the people, and the select militia, under the direction
>of democratic, local governments, would opperate together.
>But even in the worst case, the general militia should be able
>to functional without the select militia. Similarly, the
>select militia should be incapable of action without the
>aid of the general militia.

	I'm having a hard time seeing how these heavy weapons,
fairly few in numbers, could not be easily wielded by a few
people with government support.  Just as you argued above that
the weapons should be divvied up and under democratic control
so one side doesn't have all of them, I can't see where this
situation is alleviated in having the select militia holding
all the weapons and the unorganized militia being the infantry.
I think a better mix is called for.  But, I would argue that
the Federal army should rely upon the select militia and the
unorganized militia for the bulk of its infantry units.

>Consider, then, the effect of removing the National Guard's
>infantry and placing the Guard under the control of local
>governments. The government-controled select militia could
>not fight effectively without infantry support provided by
>the general militia (an inherently infantry organization.) 
>On the other hand, the general militia could function (although
>at a disadvantage) without the backing of local governments and
>the select militia.

	We have to assume that there would be those who would
side with the government-controlled forces, and if they've all
the equipment an infantry force 3x the size would be in trouble.
I'd like to see that heavy stuff, say tanks, offset by the
local troups having a few 105's and anti-tank weapons in their
armory.  These would be much more useful to infantry than the
tank would be when cost and training requirements are figured in.
I suppose I'm quibbling over what constitutes heavy equipment.

>>...but a mechanized infantry unit is what builds
>>dikes in times of flood, sets up disaster relief cities, and
>>the like.
>
>I would much rather see these things handled by the local, 
>general militias.

	So would I, but the resources often aren't available to
outfit local units well enough.  Thus, we will certainly have to
call in others, and a mechanized unit carries more stuff faster
than anything else.

>Perhaps the National Guard isn't as close to my conception of
>the select militia as I thought: I was considering them to 
>be the heavy weapons/armor arm of the militia, not the infantry
>arm of the regular army.

	Perhaps our ideas of heavy weapons are different?  I think
main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, and 155mm and up
field pieces are heavy stuff.  M113 troop carriers, 2 1/2 ton
trucks, HumVee's, old M60 tanks, 105 Howitzers, are more the stuff
of a mechanized infantry.  Actually, this is what the Guard units
in Iowa are currently fielding in some units.

	Perhaps it is just my innate fear of having the real heavy
equipment under State control, with little but numbers and light
stuff to act as a deterrent.  Allowing main battle tanks to the
states should be balanced with anti-tank capability in the local
ranks.  Similarly, local units would need to band together quickly,
hence small and fast response means mechanized infantry.  Finally,
the militia is more than just fighting.  Equipment is needed for
other responses.  The Federal army, I'm convinced, should have a
very minumum of infantry, relying on the state and local militias
for these functions.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >









Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54292
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>I HATE long postings, but this turned out to be rather lengthy....

	That's OK -- you can mail me if you want more discussion.

>Acquiring weapons in Norway:
>You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a 
>permit, and a good reason to get the permit....

	Around here, long-guns are proof of age and fill out the forms.
For pistols, nation-wide check for felonies and three days wait.  The
"good reason" is the difference, and one Americans tend to get annoyed
over as we see no reason the guy with the badge is any better than us.

>It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
>You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...

	Not when dealing with America.  I can drive an 18-wheel truck
with no permit, no license, and at age 12 if I'm engaged in farming
work.  Strange, that, but there is little to no problem with this.
Again, personal rights versus collective security.

>Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
>for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
>Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short 
>time befor the crime.

	Strange that the rates would decline, since killing somebody
is much more frowned upon than merely stealing a gun.

>Use of knives:
>It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
>You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
>in public -rigth ??

	Why attract attention?  I carry my sword openly to and from
practice, as that is the only legal thing I can do.  I also attract
a lot of attention doing this.  I'd rather be lost "in a crowd of one"
than be the subject of attention while carrying a weapon.  Think of
the word "intimidation" and you can see where intimidation is not
the preferable method for the normal citizen.

>Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
>We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
>to take action we DO.
>Ask ANY historian or millitary with an knowledge of europe....
>(Or ask any German who served in Norway in WW2.....)

	Aggressive towards whom?  Southerners?  Germans?  Precisely
why I think your society is less violent, weapons aside.

>Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
>extent....
>Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
>What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of 
>all the [masses?? -- editor barf -- Dan]

	Then the masses have the same rights as the individuals, because
everything comes down to the individual in one instance or another.  To
draw an analogy, Norway is involved in the EEC.  The USA in involved in
NATO.  The EEC requires certain changes in your laws.  NATO requires
no such changes in USA law.  These laws affect citizens, and hence
Norway is saying Europe is more important than, say, Norwegians having
motorcycles that make over 100bhp.  In the USA, we'd likely tell the
EEC to get stuffed since the EEC has no business, in our eyes, in
telling us how much horsepower we can safely ride.  While I note
that our own state governments often play with game with the federal
government, in essence this is a cultural difference between us.

>IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
>But should it have to be like that ??

	It shouldn't.  Since neither of our countries has managed to
remove criminals from society, in America we feel (and remember we
have individual states that are larger than your country) that if the
police cannot protect us then we must do so ourselves.  The criminals
in our country are quite violent, hence we prepare for them.

>Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
>If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
>it should be free to buy guns ??

	We don't.  E-mail me to find out just how difficult it really
is in this country.  It is easier than in yours, but theft is far
easier than the troubles we go through to purchase over here.

>I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
>neccities or toys.

	They are neither.  They are an option.  We would never force
you to own guns if you lived here.  We would, however, fight to keep
that option open to you.

>I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
>want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....

	Then you show you are a responsible, rational user of weapons.
Welcome to our ranks.  Now, how do we teach the young people this sort
of responsibility?  Cultures seem to have a grave impact here.

	I notice you didn't use my great-grandfather's name.  Well,
he didn't like it much either ;-)

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54293
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

In article <1993Apr14.165633.2170@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>As for the MOVE incident, wasn't the mayor of Philadelphia at the time Black ?

For the first Move incident (no bomb, several members killed in
gunfire, circa 1978) the mayor was the very white Frank Rizzo.  
For the second (bomb included) the mayor was Wilson Goode, who 
is indeed black.

-jim halat

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54294
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: A Scoop of Waco Road, Please

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>Your "lite" posting for the day, from rec.humor.funny:

>In article <S539.2adf@looking.on.ca>, bellas@tti.com (Pete Bellas) writes:
>> 
>> There is a new Ice Cream Flavor inspired by the incident at Waco.
>> 
>> It's called Mount Caramel, it's full of nuts but you can't get it out
>> of the carton.
>-- 

>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...


Even though I find this to be funny on the surface, the original poster of the
joke has  tried and convicted the members of the BD to be a bunch of "nuts".
This may be a dangerous thing to do.  It is my opinion that most educated
or well informed people of this country have some distrust of the government.
This should exist because as a bureaucracy, any government given enough time
will tend to exist for it self and not for the original purpose it was 
created for.  This distrust by the people should keep those in power in-line.
That and a properly functioning press.  When a sensationalism oriented press
portrays a group of people as "nuts" or crazies, a violation of those
people's civil rights seem justified.   Since we, as American's, have the 
gurantee of rights as enumerated in the constitution, to include the
2nd ammendment, the government must appease the public's opinion or risk 
voted out of existance, or if it has become corrupt enough to tamper with
domocratic process itself, being thrown out by force.
  Our government as it stands, must appease the public.  Therefore the 
official press releases portray the BD's as fanatics who are a threat to
public safety.  We must not prejudge people based on one sided information.
So far the only information that we are being given is comming from the very
agency that was embarrased by the BD(Branch Davidians sp?).  It is to their
advantage to make the BD's as fanatical and dangerous as possible.  If they
were portrayed as law-abiding citizen's, then they(ATF) had no justification
what so ever of doing what they did.
   So let's keep an open mind.  Jokes like above, even though it may be funny,
may mislead the public from the truth of the matter.

Just as an aside,  my understanding of U.S. vs Rock Island and U.S. vs Dalton
leads me to believe that the National Firearms Act, which allows the Fed's
(in this case ATF) to regulate firearms(machine guns), has been deemed to be
unconstitutional since 1986.(By two federal district courts at least).
And since, I believe the only reason ATF was involved
in this case is because of firearms violations, it would be interesting to 
find out whether or not the search warrent was based on the NFA.
It would be very embarrassing indeed if a search warrent based on a possibly
unconstitutional law has resulted in 4 deaths(Law enforcement). 


****************************************************************************
The above opinions are mine and mine only.
I'm solely responsible for my opinions and my actions.  If you must flame
then flame away, but a well constructed argument will be much more respected.

Young-hoon Yoon                         yoony@rpi.edu
211 North Hall                          n6zud@hibp1.ecse.rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute        N6ZUD/2   HL9KMT(former)
Troy, NY 12180


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54295
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr16.022926.27270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do 
>>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it 
>>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?
>
>This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
>coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
>national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
>must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
>you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills. 
>In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them, 
>you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
>so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
>24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
>your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
>wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
>the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.
>
>                                                 Frank Crary
>                                                 CU Boulder
>
Which works fine until you end up in the hospital because you were hit on the
head and your wallet, with your insurance card, is stolen.  This happened to 
me, and it took six months to sort the mess out.  These sorts of plans sound
nice at first, but in the end they just create a lot of paperwork and
bureaucracy to deal with all the checking and filing they involve.

				Tom the non hacker
				tsmith@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
				The return address is set wrong, send personal
				response to the above address.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54296
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

>>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
>>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
>>gun owners.
>
>       The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are
>significant difference between making rules for *use on public property*
>and *making rules for ownership*.
>
>       The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this
>have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and
>have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are
>never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for
>a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York,
>Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun
>owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the
>numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that
>intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of
>the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion
>they've already seen abused.

Gun safety classes sound good in theory, but they kind of remind me of
the "literacy tests" used in the bad old days to keep blacks from voting.
They came with the "grandfather clause": if your grandfather could vote,
you could vote.  Sort of like the gun safety laws that only let the
political ass-kissers have guns.
						Doug Holland


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54297
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>Well, maybe I AM overreacting.

This is probably the best part of your post.  Everything else is
shrill speculation.

Tom Gift
tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54298
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)


|You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
|mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
|neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
|gas on his/her property.  

There is no law prohibiting having biological weapons or nerve gas
on his/her property, or even walking on government property with such
items: ipso facto it is now one's _RIGHT_ to have such weapons of
"mass destruction."

Hell, the U.S. patent office has patents on the manufacture of nerve
gas that anyone can obtain simply by sending a $1.50 to the Patent
Office in Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 8). These same patents are
verboten to English citizens from their own patent office, which doesn't
surprise me based on the mistrust of the UK government against private
ownership of semi-automatic rifles.

|If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of
|the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?

So, you are saying we should have legislation prohibiting owning 
biological warfare agents or nerve agents? Will you pass laws against
owning chlorine gas or cyanide as well? Will you pass laws against
owning acetylene gas that could have been used against the Bradley
IFVs had the Branch Dividians known of their anti-combustion engine
effects? Will you pass laws against owning 5-gallon cylinders of
propane because they could have been used as flame throwers? Yes, the 
proverbial "Road to Hell;" it's always for "Our Own Good."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54299
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Change of name ??



	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY

	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..

	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup

	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
	let's say 1000 people ????
	



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54300
From: mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
> but here goes:
> 
> Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
> 
>                     MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
> 
> CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
> the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
> lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
> gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
> ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
> the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
> napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> 
> THIS IS MURDER!
> 
> ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
> 
> THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
> 
> I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
> it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
> still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
> alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
> 
> I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
> 
> God help us all.
> 
> 
> PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!
> 
> 
> W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

Flame on!!

Is this guy serious????

If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media
   for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts 
   are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe). 
   Any ways one of Koresh's DEVOTED followers that DID I REPEAT DID survive this
   "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine 
   survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David
   was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of 
   these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
   this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also
   someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat
   then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)

Flame off

" Aaah Daniaalson yah wanna fight,  fight me!!"      
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              |
| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    |
| Kent State University	| 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|      Look here for future advice.quotes.sayings.jibberish.philosohy        |
|                                                                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54301
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

>True, Congress has said that possesion of an unlicensed automatic 
>weapon is a violation of the law.  Congress did not, however, say
>that such possesion was a capital offense or a transgression worth
>getting four good government agents killed and 16 others wounded.


Even if it were a capital offense, the warrant was not even an arrest warrant,
but a search warrant.  In other words, there was no evidence of illegal
arms, just enough of a suggestion to get a judge to sign a license to
search for illegal evidence.

Question:  As in the Rodney King case, will the US DOJ institute
criminal civil rights proceedings against the BATF?  Or at least an
investigation?  OK, sorry I asked.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54303
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

>>Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this
>>thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business
>>as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order?
>>Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...?
>>
>>And if Clinton and friends have their way, (highly likely at this point)
>>the New Order Government will also have all the guns...  So what if
>>"1984" is going to be ten years late...  I think we are going to discover
>>that we will be paying DEARLY for putting this fellow in office for decades
>>to come.  Even some die-hard supporters are having serious doubts about
>>their Savior.

Ahem.  See the War on Drugs, as sponsored by the Bush and Reagan
administrations.  The precedent had well been set for federal agencies to
step on more than a few of what people consider "rights."  I won't make
excuses for anyone, but most of the damage had been done before Clinton
even entered the race in '92.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54304
From: kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19


In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
> Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
> by cult members.

Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire
was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away,
we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's
claims in this matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn       | Is your religion BATF-approved?
vanhorn@bert.cs.byu.edu |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54306
From: dswartz@osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF


A few comments on the ATF's botched handling of this case:

1. Attempting to storm the compound in broad daylight?  The explanation
   we were given (at least at one point) was that they thought the cult
   members would be at religious services.  My only comment on this bit
   of idiocy is that if you're going to operate as a quasi-military unit,
   you'd better understand basic military tactics.  One cardinal rule
   is that only a fool plans an operation where if one assumption is
   incorrect, the operation will fail disastrously.

2. We were told that ATF got four agents killed because they were
   outgunned, they didn't expect such heavy resistance.  When
   questioned about why such an overwhelming military-style assault
   was planned, we were told that it was because the cultists were
   thought to be heavily armed.  Can you say contradictory?  I knew
   you could!

3. The BATF has had a bad reputation for years as a bunch of arrogant,
   hotdoggers.  I was talking to relatives a couple of weeks ago and
   referred to them as a bunch of Crockett and Tubbs wannabes.  I'm
   more than ever convinced that's right on target.  An anecdote not
   related to the Waco fiasco is that apparently the BATF screwed up
   some of the evidence in the World Trade Center bombing.  There's
   now an excellent chance some of the forensic evidence gathered by
   the FBI will not be admissible in court.  This is not hearsay.  I
   was told this by a relative of my wife's who happens to be an FBI
   agent.  His opinion of the BATF was, ummm, well, let's just say
   uncomplimentary.

4. I have *still* not been presented with one iota of evidence that
   the BD's had *any* of the alleged illegal weaponry which was the
   reason for the raid in the first place.  BTW, we're *still* hearing
   this justification.  AG Reno, on CNN yesterday, made references
   to this issue, without any substantiation.  She also waved around
   the "He's a child abuser and we heard he was beating the children!"
   flag.  Sigh.

5. A point re the Feds in general: their handling of the whole siege
   reflected a complete lack of understanding of the probable thought
   processes of the cultists.  AG Reno said they pushed the button
   because they were afraid a mass suicide was in the offing.  My
   only comment on that is that if the cultists were that close to
   the edge, what the hell did she think their reaction would be to
   an hours-long assault on the compound where holes were punched in
   the walls and CS gas pumped in?  If I were a BD, I'd expect the
   forces of the godless government to assault me at any time.  In
   that light, whether they torched themselves or drank Jim Jones
   Kool-Aid is irrelevant.  Also, look at how the siege was conducted:
   Bright lights, loud rock music, cutting off communications and
   other contact with the outside.  All measures designed to make the
   BD's feel more and more isolated and threatened.  This might have
   been a great strategy - if they were dealing with criminals.  As it
   was, it looks to me like everything they did fed into Koresh's
   paranoid delusions.




-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54309
From: paale@stud.cs.uit.no (Paal Ellingsen)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com>, Jim De Arras writes:
|> Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  Humans died  
|> yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the actions  
|> they did.  That is the undeniable truth. 

...the question is: for how long? Even if the FBI had done nothing, I guess the 
BDs would have committed suicide, but maybe not until hunger and thirst gave them
the choice between sucide or surrender. 
The BDs was warned in beforehand about the FBI action. They HAD the chance to
surrender and get a fair trial. No matter who started the fire, the BDs were 
responsible for 80+ peole dying. No one else.

-- 
============================================================================
Paal Ellingsen       | Borgensvingen 67/102 | Tlf.: 083 50933
paale@stud.cs.uit.no | 9100 Kvaloeysletta   | DATA = Dobbelt Arbeid Til Alle
============================================================================

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54312
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....

In article <1993Apr17.082102.4155@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <KCKLUGE.93Apr16155756@krusty.eecs.umich.edu>, kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:

>> 
>> ...and I'm sure that people who were big fans of fuedalism pissed and
>> moaned about the emergence of the modern nation-state. Imagine, the King
>> allowing serfs their freedom if they could live in the city for a year!
>> Times change, technology changes, viable forms of social organization
>> change. While concerns about preserving Western notions of civil liberties
>> in the face of cultures with very different values is a valid one, it's
>> a waste of effort to try to turn back the tide. It's much smarter to focus
>> on trying to make sure that the emerging forms of social organization are

>
>	Your response is yet another sign of the trend towards One World
>Government.  Many people such as yourself, who are otherwise probably
>likeable and intelligent, show every sign of having been successfully
>brainwashed.  You don't recognize that your "inevitable tide" is rolling
>into chaos and in no way represents an advance for civilization.  Some
>of us do indeed "lament the passing of old forms", such as the Bill of
>Rights, which are indeed inalienable rights of man that cannot be
>changed, transferred or surrendered...rights of man that far transcend

>
>	Yes, Napoleon wanted a Grand New Order.  Hitler wanted a
>Thousand Year Reich.  Lenin knew that Bolshevism would give us the
>Universal New Man.  The New World Order is just so much of the same
>old tired garbage.  The pathetic part is that so many Americans seem

"Put not your trust in princes" is the Biblical proverb.  The modern
analog is governments.  At the time of the founding of the US, the
idea that citizens had rights above those of the government was not
that common, but was explicit in the writings of the founders.  To a
considerable extent, Englishmen also had those rights.

Yes, times change, and technology changes.  The possibility of 
a few governments enserfing all of mankind was not possible until
quite recently.  In the feudal system, the lord was almost as
restricted as the serfs, so having the people enserf themselves
does not make anything better; most feudal lords, and even most
slaveowners, did not mistreat those under them.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under real attack NOW.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54313
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.

This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
and then fire?

Do tell.

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54314
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Gun Talk -- State legislative update

April 19, 1993
 
As William O. Douglas noted, "If a powerful sponsor is lacking,
individual liberty withers -- in spite of glowing opinions and
resounding constitutional phrases."
 
The legislative scorecard outlined below resulted from subcommittee,
committee, and floor action.  Many important victories, however, come
from coordinating with legislators to ensure anti-gun/anti-hunting
legislation is either amended favorably, rejected, or never voted.
These quiet victories are no less impressive in protecting our
fundamental civil liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
 
  ****
 
Arizona - SB 1233, NRA-supported legislation concerning minors in
criminal possession of firearms  passed the House 36-18, is currently
awaiting action by the Governor.
 
Arkansas - HB 1447, Firearms Preemption Legislation was signed by the
Governor making this the forty-first state to pass preemption.
Preemption had passed twice in previous sessions only to be vetoed by
then Gov. Bill Clinton.  HB 1417, mandatory storage of firearms,
amended and then killed in committee.
 
Colorado - SB 42, mandating the storage of firearms with a
trigger-lock, killed in committee.  SB 104,  prohibiting the sale of
certain semi-auto firearms was killed in committee.  SB 108,
so-called Colorado Handgun Violence Prevention Act, including a
provision for a 10-day waiting period, killed in committee.
 
Connecticut - Substitute Bill No. 6372, imposing a 6% tax on all
firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment killed in Environment
Committee.
 
Florida - A bill to require a 3-year license at a cost of $150 to own
or possess semi-automatic firearms with a second degree felony
provision (15 years in prison) died in committee along with numerous
other anti-gun owner bills.  No anti-gun legislation passed in
Florida this year.
 
Georgia - SB 12, supposed instant check with provision allowing for
up to a 7-day "waiting period,"  defeated in House Public Safety
Committee and sent to Interim Study committee.  Mandatory storage
bill -- SB 247 -- was defeated 39-15 in the Senate.  The same bill
passed the upper-House 52-2 in 1992.
 
 
Illinois - HB 90, prohibiting the sale, possession, manufacture,
purchase, possession, or carrying of certain semi-auto firearms, was
defeated in House Judiciary II Subcommittee on Firearms. HB 91,
mandatory storage legislation, failed in House Judiciary Subcommittee
on Firearms. HB 1550, repeals FOID and makes FTIP, point of sale
check permanent, passed out of Judiciary Committee by a 10-4-2 vote.
Presently on the calendar for third reading in the House.
 
SB 40, mandatory storage bill, defeated in committee.
SB 265, imposing a handgun excise tax, failed in Senate committee on
Revenue's Subcommittee on Tax Increases.
SB 272,imposing a tax on all persons engaged in the business of
selling firearms, failed in Senate Revenue Committee's Subcommittee
on Tax Increases.
 
Indiana - SB 241, Statewide Firearms Preemption, passed in the Senate
34-16, and in the House 77-22.  Twelve amendments were introduced on
the House floor to SB 241.  Among these amendments were a ban on
certain semi-auto firearms, Mandatory Storage, Trigger-Lock, a ban on
"Saturday Night Specials" (Similar to 1988 Maryland Bill), and
Handgun Rationing (one handgun per month).  All were defeated.

	[I read this morning (4/20) S.B. 241 was defeated -- lvc]
 
Kansas - HB 2435, providing for a 72-hour waiting period on all
firearms was defeated in committee.  HB 2458, presently on the
Governor's desk, HB 2459 and SB 243 and 266 all relating to victims'
rights, are expected to be enacted into law.
 
Maine - Funding for the Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-94
budget, was restored following severe  reductions in the Governor's
proposed budget.  LD 612, an anti-hunting bill which included reverse
posting and 1000 yard safety zones, killed in committee.
 
Maryland - SB 6-(Firearms Incendiary ammunition) died in committee on
a 8-3 vote, SB 41 (Reckless  Endangerment - Firearms - Sale or
Transfer) died in committee on a 11-0 vote, SB 126 (Gun Control -
"Assault Weapons") died in committee on 9-2 vote, SB 182 (Weapons
-Free School Zone) was withdrawn, SB 185 (Weapons on School Property-
Driver's License Suspension was withdrawn, SB 265 ("Assault Pistols"
- Sale, Purchase or Transport) died in committee on 8-3 vote, SB 328
("Assault Pistols" Act of 1993) died in committee on a 8-3 vote, SB
682 (Baltimore City-Firearms-Rifles and Shotguns) died in committee
on a 9-2 vote.
 
HB 274 (Pistol and Revolver Dealers Licenses - compliance with zoning
laws) was withdrawn, HB 366 (Regulated Firearms-sales and transfer)
died on the Senate Floor, HB 374 (Handguns and "assault weapons" -
Advertising for sale or transfer) died in committee, HB 384 (Handguns
and "Assault Weapons" - Exhibitors) died in committee, HB 495
("Assault Pistols" Act of 1993) died in committee on a 14-9 vote, HB
496 (Gun Shows-Sale, Trade, or Transfer of regulated firearms) died
in committee on a 19-6 vote, HB 601 (Firearms - Handguns - "Assault
Pistols" - Handgun Roster Board) was withdrawn, HB 683 (Rifles and
Shotguns - Registration) was withdrawn, HB 945 (Pistols and Revolvers
- Private sales  or transfers- required notice) died in committee,
and HB 1128 Prince Georges County -
 Weapons - Free School Zone) was withdrawn.
 
Mississippi - HB 141, closing a loophole allowing felons to possess
firearms, passed both Houses and signed by the Governor.  The bill
codifies into law mechanism for certain felons to have their Second
Amendment liberties reinstated.
 
Nebraska - LB 83 and LB 225, mandatory trigger-lock bills, killed in
committee.
 
New Hampshire - H.B. 363, providing for reciprocity for concealed
carry licenses passed.  H.B. 671,  increasing the term of a License
to Carry Loaded Handguns passed.
 
New Mexico - SB 762, imposing a 7-day "waiting period," defeated in
Senate committee (0-5) and then on  floor of the Senate (15-24).  HB
182, mandatory storage legislation, was killed by a vote of 1-8 in
committee.  HB 230, legislation safeguarding sportsmen in the field
from harassment by animal rights extremists, signed into law by the
Governor on March 30.
 
New York - Seven-day waiting period was defeated in the City of
Buffalo.   Ban on certain semi-autos was defeated in Monroe County.
The tax and fee bills to be imposed on guns and ammo were not
included in the 1993-94 budget. SB 207, making pistol licenses
provides for validity of pistol license throughout the state, passed
Senate.  Currently awaiting action in Assembly committee.
 
North Dakota - HB 1484, granting victims compensation in certain
circumstances, was signed into law by the Governor on April 8.
 
Oregon - SB 334, banning firearms on school grounds and in court
buildings, withdrawn as a result of gun owners opposition.
 
Rhode Island - HB 5273, mandatory firearms storage legislation,
defeated in committee by a vote of 8-5. HB 6347, an act prohibiting
aliens from owning firearm; defeated by unanimous vote in committee.
HB 5650, excepting NRA instructors from the firearms safety
requirement, reported favorably. HB 5781, exempting persons with an
Attorney General's permit from the 7-day waiting period, reported to
the floor by a vote of 11-1.
HB 6917, extending the term of a permit to carry from two years to
three years, reported to the floor unanimously.
 
Utah   HB 290, reforming the state's concealed carry statute, passed
out of House committee.  SB 32, creating civil liability for
so-called negligent storage of a firearm, and SB 33 creating the
offense of "reckless endangerment" with a firearm, killed on Senate
floor.
 
Virginia: S.B. 336, and S.B. 803, requiring proof of state residence
to obtain Virginia Driver's License passed.  S.B. 804, which
increases the penalty and imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for
"straw man" purchases of multiple firearms passed.  S.B. 858,
allowing possession of "sawed-off" rifles and shotguns in compliance
with federal law passed.  S.B. 1054, making it a felony for first
offense of carrying a concealed firearm without a license (which the
NRA opposes until law-abiding citizens can acquire a concealed carry
license for self-defense), was defeated. H.B. 1900, increasing the
penalty for use of a firearm in committing a felony was passed.  H.B.
2076, requiring proof of residence to obtain a driver's license
passed.  H.B. 2272, providing for a referendum on the imposition of a
statewide three- day "waiting period" in handgun purchases was
defeated.
 
Washington: SB 5160, calling for waiting periods and licensing for
all semi-automatic firearms, died  in committee.
 
West Virginia - S.C.R. 18, which calls for a study to control
transfers of handguns and "Assault Weapons" was defeated in the
Senate 24-10.
 
Wisconsin - In a referendum up against all odds, the determined
efforts of the Madison Area Citizens Against Crime paid off on April
6 when a nonbinding referendum banning the possession of handguns in
Madison, Wisconsin, was defeated.  Despite opposition to the ban --
aired largely by firearms owners at a series of public meetings on
the issue -- the Common Council voted on February 17 to place the
referendum on the ballot, allowing only seven weeks of campaigning to
reverse public opinion on the controversial issue.
 
An October 1992 poll conducted by the Wisconsin State Journal found
57% in support and 38% opposed, with 5% expressing no opinion.  By
election day, of the more than 56,000 voters who went to the polls,
51% cast ballots in opposition to the proposal while 49% voted to
have the Madison Common Council enact such a ban.  The campaign
committee, spearheaded by the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement and NRA-ILA,
relied on neighborhood canvassing, direct mail and radio/TV
advertising to educate voters on the civil liberties implications
raised by enforcement of the ban if the referendum was approved.
 
Despite the surprising defeat, it is expected that the Madison
initiative's chief proponent, Mayor Paul Soglin, will attempt to have
the Common Council enact an ordinance banning handguns.
 
                Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-719-6406)
                A service of the
                National Rifle Association
                Institute for Legislative Action
                Washington, DC 20036
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54315
From: bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones)
Subject: Re: Letter to the President

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

>the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury,


In case you haven't sent it yet, it's "Bentsen", not "Bensen".

Brad

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54316
From: mporter@cis.ohio-state.edu (matthew dale porter)
Subject: Re: Reasonable Civie Arms Limits

In article <1993Apr19.223925.2342@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>A poster claims he 'always asks [anti-gunners] what they think would
>be reasonable personal firepower restrictions'. OK then ...
>
>Caliber : Not greater than 32
>Muzzle  : Not greater than 300 ft/lbs with any combo of bullet wt/vel
>Action  : Single shot rifles and single action revolvers 
>          Revolvers bearing no more than six rounds and incorporating
>          an 'anti-fanning' mechanism to discourage Roy Rogers wannabes.
>Bullets : Any non-explosive variety, HPs just fine.
>
>Now - these specs leave the 32 H&R magnum as about the most powerful
>allowable civie cartridge for handgun or rifle use. It would be
>reasonably effective against home intruders, muggers, rabid wolves
>and other such nasties, even with the firearm-type limitations. At the
>same time, this caliber/power limit would reduce the ultimate lethality
>of hits. The chances of the average joe encountering a gang of huge
>individuals all drunk and stoned on PCP and crystal meth and with a
>bad attitude and all armed and willing to die ... well, it's about
>zero - far less than the chances of getting killed driving your car.

When will you people realize that our right to keep and bear isn't
primarily intended to be for protecting against criminals and beasties
in the wild?  Granted, it is a big part, but we also need military style
weapons so we can fight off the government when they come to our door.
When ten agents come to my door, it would be nice to be able to shoot
all of them for 'not upholding the constitution to the best of their
ability'.  It will be a lot harder doing that with the puny weapons you
listed above.

Please read the Federalist papers for all clarification on RKBA.  These
documents have cleared up plenty of misnomers that friends of mine have
had.





-- 
Matt Porter       
mporter@cis.ohio-state.edu
mporter@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54317
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> thomasp@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Parsli) writes:
:
:
:	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
:	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY
:
:	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
:
:	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup
;
:	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
:	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
:	let's say 1000 people ????
:	
:
:                        Thomas Parsli
And everybody who talked about the evil arising in Europe was labeled 
reactionary in the late 1930's... after all, we could negotiate with Hitler and
trust him to keep his end of the bargain... at least that's what Stalin and
Chamberlin thought... I guess they forgot to teach you about your country being
overrun by the Germans in WWII, 'eh Thomas?  And I'm sorry you consider outrage
at government excesses to be ####... Everytime the Israelis conduct a mass 
operation against a terrorist group that is actively killing their citizens and
soldiers, the world gets indignant, but it's ok for the US to assault it's own
citizens who were a religous minority and accused of sexual deviation and 
hoarding weapons... I find it real ironic this happened the same day Al Gore
arrived in Poland to recognize the sacrifices made in the Warsaw Ghetto where
the same 'justifications' were raised for an armed assault by black-clad troops
with armor support...  

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54318
From: jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
> 	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY
> 
> 	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
> 
> 	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup
> 
> 	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
> 	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
> 	let's say 1000 people ????
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 	This is not a .signature.
> 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
> 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
> 
> 
>                         Thomas Parsli
>                         thomasp@ifi.uio.no

How about a group called talk.that.thomas.parsli.approves?
-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)
-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54319
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
>>next?  The Mormons or Jews?

>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)

I believe we still remember Masada, where Jews killed themselves rather
than being captured by the Romans.  While I do not agree with the
Davidians, I must admire their willingness to die for what they 
believed, which Jews have had to do often.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54320
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>
>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
>in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
>out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
>and then fire?

I've already corrected my mistake earlier in this thread.  I saw a brief 
news report which led to the above inaccuracy.  I have since seen detailed 
summaries that show the tanks returned in the late morning.

So, why didn't the BD's leave when the gas was first introduced much 
earlier in the morning?  Didn't they care about the children?

Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?

>
>Do tell.
>
>  -joe


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54323
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>
>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
>in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
>out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
>and then fire?
>
>Do tell.
>
>  -joe

Not to mention that the story was rewritten today. Those two BD's who
"admitted to starting the fire", forget 'em, they don't exist anyone.
Today, "a few saw someone starting a fire" and "our aerial surveillance
showed them starting fires" at this morning's press conference. 
Tomorrow, even this excuse may evaporate. A reporter pointed out
that a BD being brought to arraingement shouted that tanks knocking
over lanterns started the fire. Curiouser and curiouser.


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54324
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93109.172450U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz 
[...]

> It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up
> the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on  
the
> gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part.
> 
> Jason


I guess that just means "Everyone else" was mistaken?

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54326
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <C5MzyK.E7G@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>
>No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed
>is defined as:
>	To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath, 
>	an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate.
>	To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach.
>This definition implies the following of some form of existing 
>agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance. 

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution were considered to be
pre-existing.  The only agreement was that they exist.  Therefore, no
law grants such rights. Laws can only guarantee, protect, or infringe
such rights.


Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged  1986

infringe
  1.a. to break down:DESTROY
    b. DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
    c. CONFUTE, REFUTE
    d. IMPAIR, WEAKEN
  2. to commit a breach of : neglect to fulfill or obey : VIOLATE,
     TRANSGRESS
     vi : ENCROACH, TRESPASS

infringement
  1. the act of infringing : BREACH, VIOLATION, NONFULFILLMENT
  2. an encroachment or trespass on a right or priveledge : TRESPASS
                                      ~~~~~
  
Now, by what stretch of the imagination do you get your ideas about
infringement of rights?  

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54327
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

>>The two situations are hardly analogous, unless you wish to make the
>>>dubious claim that the US legal system would provide equivalent treatment 
>>>to BD children that the Romans did for those of conquered rebels.

>Actually, all the analogy calls for the the Branch Davidian _feeling_
>their treatment would be along these lines. After a military
>assualt (instead of a peacefull effort to serve a warrant) and
>weeks os siege, such a feeling might not be completely irrational.


Actually, if I were one of the survivors and wanted to institute a civil
rights violation lawsuit against the Treasury Dept., I would claim that
the BATF/FBI itself was to blame for any mass hysteria/insanity...

without due process, the siegers shone lights, laser beams, multi-colored
spotlights, all the while playing loudly amplified music consisting of
everything from Tibetan Chant to Heavy Metal, and coupled with the fear,
the poor nutrition, the rampant paranoia, I'd say it was very likely
those poor nuts were made even nuttier.  After all, isn't sleep deprivation,
sensory overload, etc., part of the "new age" method of torture?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54328
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
 
>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:
>
>Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
>
>                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
>
[...]
>
>THIS IS MURDER!
>
>ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
>
>THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
 
      Well, chalk one up for driving away sympathies by looking like
a paranoid lunatic.
 
>
>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
>
>I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
 
       Last I heard there were nine.  Apparently as of this point they've
found no bodies, except those killed during the initial assault a couple
of months ago.
 
       Be cute if Koresh hit the trail.
 
       Maybe he was bodily assumed into heaven.  Wouldn't that just
make AG Reno's day?
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54329
From: tmh@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Todd M. Helfter)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge


>Does anyone have any idea about the size of Waco?  I'm just curious because
>if it were a small town that may have something to do with it.  Possibly not.
>It sure didn't take it very long to burn down though.  I was watching ABC and
>it only took like a little over 30 minutes to burn down.

	Waco is a city of about 100,000 people.  The population temporarily
   raised to about 102,000 people when all the feds, and state police officers
   arrived.

	I tell you what, I stayed in a hotel room about 4 miles from the BD
   compound around 3 weeks ago.  I have never felt more paranoid in my whole
   life.  There were at least 100 state police in the hotel.





>
>>The claim "we had the water turned off, so the fire engines had to bring
>>their own" doesn't hold up:  If they had cut off the water, they surely
>>could have turned it back on just as quickly.  They just didn't want to:
>>There were some scores to settle.  Message to anybody else is very clear:
>>"DON'T FUCK WITH US.  WE WILL DO YOU IN..."
>>
>Not that I am one to believe that everything that the government tells us is
>true but if that was the message they wanted to send why did they wait 51 days?
>I think the message would be better sent by charging in there right away - not
>waiting for 51 days and pounding them with sound, etc.
>
>>A bunch of dead BD members are not going to be so able to tell their
>>side of the story, so now all we have is the story according to the BATF
>>and FBI.  Also, Mr "care about the rights of people" Clinton, or his
>>administration approved this action (FBI said 'Washington had approved
>>it').  They FBI said the gas masks used by the BDs have a finite life,
>>and were close to running out.  WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE JUST WAITED?
>
>Well, there are 9 people supposedly alive.  They can tell their story.  As far
>as Bill Clinton is concerned don't you think he has more pressing matters to
>attend to besides some small group of people in Texas?  How about Bosnia?  Now
>there's a problem......    Why couldn't they have waited?  They waited too long
>as it is.  Something should have been done earlier.
>
>>
>>They gov is trying to say it was a mass suicide.  In the past they had
>>expressed this was a real possibility, but now they decided it wasn't
>>a possibility so they could go on with the raid.  Apparantly what they
>>feel Korash was or was not capable of or going to do was driven by
>>what was most convenient at the time...
>>
>>Now this means that:
>>
>>1: The public and media will forget about all this - having become weary of
>>it.
>
>This has already happened for many people.
>
>>2: There will be no investigation (independent or otherwise) or a whitewash.
>
>Very much a possibility.
>
>>3: There will be no unsealing of the warrant and related documents.
>>4: What anybody will know about this incident will be the BATF version.
>
>With the way our government is I wouldn't doubt it.
>
>>5: The BATF has just been given Carte Blanche for further abuses, with
>>   the effective support and approval of the Administration.
>
>Clinton said on the news that he knew about what was happening but that it was
>all in the hands of the FBI.  That is if you choose to believe the media.
>
>>6: There WILL BE more abuses, with no concern of Administration censure.
>>7: The precident has been established that the Feds can kill in quantity
>>   to achieve their aims.  Especially if the target is excercising their
>>   rights under the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,
>>   and is a government-declared un-nice fellow.
>
>If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why
>shouldn't they have done something?  What possible use would a religious cult
>have for a rocket launcher?  Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of
>Rights?
>
>> : LLs and CLAMs will be pleased.  Dung Tsow Ping(sp) will be pleased.
>>   Saddam Hussein(sp) will be pleased.  Idi Amin would be pleased.  Stalin
>>   would be pleased.  Even Hitler would be pleased.  Any self-respecting
>>   despot would nod and say "Well Done, Bill Clinton!!"
>>
>Well, then there are probably a lot of self-respecting despots in the US cause
>I'm sure they feel the same way.
>
>>God Bless America - Land of the Free!!!  (past tense).
>>
>>Well, maybe I AM overreacting.  But I see on the TV as I am typing where
>
>Maybe, maybe not.  There are a lot of questions that should be raised about
>this incident.  The problem is, who will do it and be heard?
>
>>govt spoksewoman (the new attorney general, known to be almost rabid
>>about private ownership of guns - wants to ban 'assault guns' and just
>>about everything else), is saying the FBI had "amazing restraint", then
>>falls back into the official goverenment line about how the BD were
>>guity of child abuse, and were into it in an on-going basis, and so on.
>>Note that according to the Liberal Elite, giving a child a spanking is
>>regarded as child abuse (seriously - if it gets known, the STATE can
>>take your child away from you if you spank your kid).  She also is saying
>
>Which state is that?  The federal government  or an individual state government
>?
>
>>CLINTON PERSONALLY APPROVED THIS OPERATION - she "told him it was
>>appropriate and so on, and he SAID OK, DO IT".  Somehow, I am not
>>surprised - the people MUST KNOW WHO IS BOSS - WHO IS IN CHARGE!!!
>>And it is obviouly no longer the people.
>>
>It seems to me that the people haven't been in charge for a long time.  If they
>really were I don't think the government would be doing as many things as it
>has in the past.
>
>>And I maintain the appropriate response, as far as this raid by BATF is
>>concerned, regarding child abuse is "so what?".  BATF are not our Child
>>Protective Services Police.  Yet.  After all the BD had been TRIED on
>>that charge before and found NOT GUILTY.  The gov't people have pretty
>>much gone silent on the terrible illegal guns BD supposedly has, and
>>stress the "continued child abuse" (apparantly to make it a seem as sort
>>of a 'rescue' operation, figuring everyone hates child abusers, and
>>anything is OK to use against them).  Occasional references to ammunition
>>possesed by the BDs and so on is irrelevant: it is NOT ILLEGAL to have
>>ammunition (yet).
>>
>True but is it illegal to have a rocket launcher?
>
>>Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this
>>thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business
>>as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order?
>>Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...?
>>
>>And if Clinton and friends have their way, (highly likely at this point)
>>the New Order Government will also have all the guns...  So what if
>>"1984" is going to be ten years late...  I think we are going to discover
>>that we will be paying DEARLY for putting this fellow in office for decades
>>to come.  Even some die-hard supporters are having serious doubts about
>>their Savior.
>>
>Shit, if people dont get what they want right away there is an instant problem.
>Clinton has only been in office for a few months.  Give him a chance to get
>something done.  The guy had a lot of shit thrown in his lap in the beginning.
>Give him a chance to work on things a little.  As they say - Rome wasn't built
>in a day.
>
>>Yes, I am UPSET.  I see NO GOOD as far as civil/individual rights to
>>come of any of his proposals/decisions for the last month or so...
>>We have really been HAD.  Or Bill of Rights is now nothing but a quaint
>>curiosity.
>>
>I highly doubt that it is that bad yet.  How about the Rodney King trial?  The
>two people who were most responsible got the axe.  How bad the axe falls tho
>is yet to be seen.
>
>>Anybody for impeachment?
>>
>Nope.   I would prefer to give Bill a little more than four or five months to
>solve the nations problems.
>>--
>>pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
>>         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
>>WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
>>         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien
>
>Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54330
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r0v4c$i1j@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)  
writes:
> In <1r0poqINNc4k@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:
> 
> > In article <C5rDAw.4s4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> zed@Dartmouth.EDU (Ted  
> > Schuerzinger) writes:
> > Well, it's now Tuesday morning.  Where are those two arsons, now?  I said  
> > yesterday they would vanish, and there has been no further mention of them,  
> > just the desired "impression" is left.
> 
>   According to KIKK radio in Houston, all nine survivors are either in hos-
> pitals or in jails.  Inlucding the two who allegedly helped start the firess.

In the FBI briefing, no mention was made of having the fire starters in  
custody.
> 
> > Why could no one else even talk to them?  Why could Koresh's grandmother  
not  
> > talk to him or even send him a taped message?  Why the total isolation?
> 
>   Well, it wasn't TOTAL, 100% isolation.  After the lawyer snuck in the first
> time, they (the FBI, etc) let him go back inside several times, including, I
> think, the day before the final assualt.
> 

Why not his mother?  Why not the media?

> semper fi,
> 
> Jammer Jim Miller 
> Texas A&M University '89 and '91
>  
_______________________________________________________________________________ 
_
>  I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
> "Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing  
System."
>  "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
>       ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54331
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu> mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu  
(The Lawnmowerman) writes:
>Also
>    someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the  
heat
>    then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)
> 
This tops the cold-hearted bastard list!  Unbelievable!  Had this countries  
morals sunk this low, that the death of innocent people is so callously viewed?

> Flame off
> 
> " Aaah Daniaalson yah wanna fight,  fight me!!"      
> -- 
>  
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A               
|
> | CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)     
|
> | Kent State University	| 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |		 
	     |
>  
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |                                                                             
|
> |                                                                             
|
> |      Look here for future advice.quotes.sayings.jibberish.philosohy         
|
> |                                                                             
|
>  
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54332
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.151131.8531@news.uit.no> paale@stud.cs.uit.no (Paal  
Ellingsen) writes:
> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com>, Jim De Arras writes:
> |> Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  Humans died  
> |> yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the  
actions  
> |> they did.  That is the undeniable truth. 
> 
> ....the question is: for how long? Even if the FBI had done nothing, I guess  
the 
> BDs would have committed suicide, but maybe not until hunger and thirst gave  
them
> the choice between sucide or surrender. 
> The BDs was warned in beforehand about the FBI action. They HAD the chance to
> surrender and get a fair trial. No matter who started the fire, the BDs were 
> responsible for 80+ peole dying. No one else.
> 

This is, of course, your opinion.  I differ greatly.  There can be NO doubt the  
FBI at least shares in the blame.

> -- 
> ============================================================================
> Paal Ellingsen       | Borgensvingen 67/102 | Tlf.: 083 50933
> paale@stud.cs.uit.no | 9100 Kvaloeysletta   | DATA = Dobbelt Arbeid Til Alle
> ============================================================================

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54333
From: croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale


I will add my voice to the (hopefully) growing multitudes.

I hereby pledge $1000.00 towards the purchase of CNN, under the same conditions
as already described.  I will also post this idea on the other nets I can 
access (RIME and Libernet).

We may have to organize this ourselves, so I am looking for help.

Frank Ney  N4ZHG  EMT-A  LPVa  NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA 'M-O-U-S-E'

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54334
From: dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54336
From: oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham)
Subject: Blast them next time

What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
of ours.

With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
to death 51 days later.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54337
From: mech24135045@msuvx2.memst.edu
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
> the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
> lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
> gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
> ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
> the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
> napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.

Well, actually, the Davidians (Koreshians?) started the fire themselves, 
the last I heard ( around 15:00 EST). Eight people ran out into the feilds
surrounding the compound. All were captured and two admitted to setting the 
fire. I don't buy your napalm theory at all (although it would have made a 
great commercial for my .sig). Why the hell would they have a wood stove
burning on such a warm day?  Flame throwers use liquid petroleum, napalm 
is more of a gel. Now to further dispute your theory, the diluted CS gas
was inserted around 06:00 if I understood correctly. The place didn't start
burning until around 10:00 or 11:00.
 
> THIS IS MURDER! ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
> THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
> I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
> it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
> still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
> alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
 
Calm down kid. Vernon (Koresh's real name) said himself that he would not leave
that compound alive. The inhabitants thereof had accepted the fact that they 
may very well have to kill themselves before it was all over.

> I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!

There are at least eight survivors. A caller on Rush Limbaugh today suggested
that the rest may even be hiding in underground bunkers. That's not such a wild
idea considering their weaponry and resolve. 

> God help us all.
> PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE 
> CHILDREN!
> W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

Sheesh! Get over it. I haven't heard (read) such ranting since the Hindenberg
burned. This should have ended 50 days ago. I'm glad my tax dollars have
finally stopped working to pay a bunch of guys to stand around and give press
conferences. Now they can get back to more important things, like catching
cigarrette smugglers.

			Troy
Napalm sticks to kids.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54338
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r00ug$d60@btr.btr.com> michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn  michaelh@btr.com) writes:
>Pol Pot				100,000s Killed?

I've read estimates that Pol Pot killed somewhere in the neighborhood
of 2 million.

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54340
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>
>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
>
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.
>
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.
>


Well, it's said that people get the government they deserve.

Don't worry, you'll get yours.  You'll sleep much better when
everyone with thoughts not on the government 'approved' list
is rounded up and executed.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54341
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <121415@netnews.upenn.edu> egedi@ahwenasa.cis.upenn.edu (Dania M. Egedi) writes:
:In article <1993Apr16.222604.18331@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
:|> In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes:
:|> >wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the
:|> 
:|> Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.
:|> 
:
:Aha.  That's the part that makes me nervous too.  Who gets to decide if
:I am a threat?  Based on appearance?  Would someone feel more threatened
:
Actions determine whether someone presents a threat... and I don't carry a gun
so much for people, cause I tend to fade if there are any about, but due to 
several encounters with formerly domestic dogs...  these critters ain't scared
of folks, and can get aggressive.

:on staying at and saw someone sitting there cleaning his gun.  Softly I backed
:away, and hiked another 5 miles to get *out of there*.  I'll freely admit it here:
:I'm not afraid of guns; I'm afraid of people that bring them into the backcountry.
:
I'd count that as a fear of guns... somebody having the sense to keep their
weapons maintained isn't as likely to present a threat.  The Army taught me to
clean any weapons DAILY, since they usually need it, regardless of whether 
they've been used... You'd be amazed how sweaty a holster can get, or how much
trail dust will get in it.  And I guess you'd be scared of me and my former
Explorer Post... seems the advisors were National Guard Special Forces grunts,
and considered it heresy to be out in the woods without a weapon... course, 
usually you wouldn't notice 'em... :)  They tended to avoid public scrutiny...

:Of course, that may be the way to solve the solitude problem.  Just carry a gun
:and display it prominently, and one probably won't see most of the other hikers
:out there, who will be hiding in the woods.  1/2 :-)
:
: - Dania
My 9mm goes in a hip holster, mixed in with magazine pouches (hold lotsa stuff 
in them), canteens, knives, compasses, and such...  Not so easy to notice, in 
the off chance I decide to be visible... I prefer not to be, since walking 
quietly away from active areas increases the number of non-human type critters
I see...

James


-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54342
From: William_Mosco@vos.stratus.com
Subject: RE: Blast them next time


>        #DELETED BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TWISTED" 
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed 
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is 
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look 
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country 
>of ours. 

 ##flame thrower on## 
 Well I don't want my tax dollars going to that kind of philosophy. 
 maybe if the good folks you are talking about are people like you 
 than I might be inclined to accept it. What does the batf do anyway? 
 Why don't we have a bureau for militant, paranoid, freedom killers 
 like yourself. People like you are more dangerous than alcohol, 
 tobacco and firearms. 
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with 
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few 
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn 
>to death 51 days later. 
 Maybe we should just have nuked the whole city, I mean, what's a 
 100,000 good souls anyway? 
 Get real, you sound like a racist.  I guess life isn't so precious 
 to you, do you realize that there were  24 children KILLED!!! 
 They will never get to fall in love, they won't see another sunrise, 
 no prom, no first date, no football, baseball no NOTHING.  Why doesn't 
 some people think first before they let everyone know how narrow they 
 are. 

 "Flame thrower off" 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54344
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>
Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."

>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>scenarios.

The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.

>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>ludicrous.

I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54345
From: mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:
>
>Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
>
>                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
>
>CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I watched the CNN report and I never heard them report that the ATF started the
fire.  They did speculate that the type of CS gas might have _accidentaly_
started the fire.  

>the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
>lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
>gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From my understanding of the CNN report it was 6 HOURS after they started.

>ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
>the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The track vehicle that I saw in the vicinity of the building where fire was 
first noticed looked more like an armored recovery vehicle (the type used to 
tow tanks of battle fields) and not an armored flame-thrower vehicle.

>napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
in Texas.  It seems to me that it would be very poor planing to hope for a wood
stove to ignite the "napalm" when the stove would probably not be in use.  And 
I doubt that it would have taken 6 hours to ignite it.

>
>THIS IS MURDER!
>
>ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
>
>THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
>
>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right Clinton is in office.  (Sorry I couldn't resist, please no flames :))

>
>I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
>
>God help us all.
>
>
>PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!
>
>
>W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

In short Mr. Gorman (I am assuming Mr. as a title because I don't think a woman
would be stupid enough to make this post) I don't know what episode of CNN you
were watching but it obviously was not the same one that I was watching or your
tears seamed to have blured your hearing along with your eye sight.

Please excuse any mispelled words as I am a product of the Arkansas education
system which Slick Willie of the "Double Bubba Ticket" has so greately improved
during his tenour as Governer of my great state (taking it from 49th in the 
nation in 1980 and allowing it to drop to 51st, how I don't know, and bringing
it to 44st and back to either 48th or 49th in 1990--sorry I can't rember the 
source of these numbers but they can be found).

Michael F. Rhein



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54346
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: So much for "infinite patience"

In article <1993Apr19.225700.3976@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
:
:So much for "infinite patience."
: 
;I find it hard to swallow that prolonged exposure to "massive" amounts of
:
:And they said that the bomb dropped on MOVE wouldn't start a fire, either.
:
:The real kicker, though, is the stated justification for the government's 
:sudden loss of patience: They wouldn't be able to "rotate their teams" 
:
:This outcome could be foreseen a mile (or two) away, but Reno didn't even
:
:Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick

The really good part:  "At this point we're not negotiating," FBI spokesman
Bob Ricks said at a news briefing about a half hour before the fire began. 
"We're saying,'Come out.Come out with your hands up. This matter is over.'"

Criminal... so much for Billary saying we won't force the issue... anybody
have the WH information number?  Figure ol' Bill could use a lesson from the
ROTC he scorned: "You are responsible for all that your unit/troops do or fail
to do."  Want to ask him how he enjoys being responsible for violating the
Constitutional rights of a group, resulting in the deaths of over a hundred of them, plus four Federal agents...

James

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54348
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
>>next?  The Mormons or Jews?
> 
>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)
> 
>Be thankful that the BATF standoff at least got some of the kids out before
>the cult committed mass suicide.
> 

	Dont you believe that the Branch Davidians committed suicide for one
minute. I would not put it past the FBI to lob in some incendiary grenades
while they feed your their story. Don't ever ever trust what your wonderful
government tells you. Janet Reno and the FBI have the murder of a hundred
people on their hands. Hope they can sleep at night....

P.Vasilion, kb2nmv
SUNY @ BUFFALO
<<STD.DISCLAIMERS>>

"All you cult haters happy now? Just hope that your not next."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54349
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>
>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
>
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.
>
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.
>

Did you forget to put in a sarcasm flag?

Al
[standard disclaimer]





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54350
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <C5sE5E.Coy@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>Ahem.  See the War on Drugs, as sponsored by the Bush and Reagan
>administrations.  The precedent had well been set for federal agencies to
>step on more than a few of what people consider "rights."  I won't make
>excuses for anyone, but most of the damage had been done before Clinton
>even entered the race in '92.

Not to mention last year's Weaver affair.

Anyway, here's how I see the Waco affair; I'd be interested in other peoples'
interpretations...

1. Koresh and his people were basically minding their own business.
2. Some weapons violations may have been committed and I wouldn't have
   disapproved of prosecuting him for those violations.  However, I think
   the BATF was criminal for starting negotiations with a military style
   assault and for firing into a house where there were children and other
   noncombatants.
3. I don't see they couldn't just leave a token guard on the place and wait
   the BDs out; I don't approve of the tear gas approach and, if it caused
   the fire to be started, I think the FBI agent responsible should spend
   10-20 years in jail.
4. However, if Koresh's response to the tear gas was to kill everyone there,
   I hold him largely responsible for their deaths.

   don






Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54351
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

Hmmm... I hadn't heard about rockets. ATF must be escalating their
tall tails... anyway
>If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why
>shouldn't they have done something?

Why should they have "done something"? The Davidians had not attacked
or even threatened anyone.

>What possible use would a religious cult have for a rocket launcher?

It is not yours nor the governments right to tell others what they have
a legitimate right to own.

>Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of Rights?

Is child abuse now within the jurisdiction of the department of the
treasury? Attacking citizens without due process on the strength of
unsubstantiated rumors about a violation of a law which does not
fall under your jurisdiction is a pretty serious breech of rights.

>Shit, if people dont get what they want right away there is an instant >problem.
>Clinton has only been in office for a few months.  Give him a chance to get
>something done.  The guy had a lot of shit thrown in his lap in the beginning.
>Give him a chance to work on things a little.  As they say - Rome wasn't built
>in a day.

If he gets any more done we will really be in trouble!

				mike

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54352
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

Hmm... am I the only person that remembers Masada?  This isn't the first time
a group has committed suicide to avoid persecution/capture... and you seem to
miss the point that the raid SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
I find the FBI actions too damn reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto... fitting 
that Al Gore was in Poland for events marking the 50th anniversery of that...
Remove any references to dates and you have two raids by government troops
wearing black uniforms, carrying automatic weapons, backed by armored vehicles,
against religious minorities they claim were practicing sexually deviant 
behavior and hoarding weapons... Too damn similar...

James

ps: I am not advocating the BD's, I just find the whole situation too damn 
troubling.

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54353
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>Anybody for impeachment?

Yeah, me.  Both the Slickmeister and Hillary's buddy Janet say
they're responsible... I want both their resignations on my desk 
yesterday.  I also want both thier butts up on federal civil rights
violations.... something which carries life in prison as a penalty.

Oh, and I'll contribute $20 to Arlen Specter's presidential campaign
for having the 'nads to launch the Senate investigation.

-- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)       ==================
America in Distress                             ==================
(flag upside down = SOS)                        *******===========
Save your Republic before                       *******===========
it no longer exists.                            *******===========

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54354
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith

In article <C5D05G.6xw@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
}In article <1993Apr10.155819.18237@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
}>Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from
}>bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be
}>for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.
}
}Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.

Japan did this.  It required near-total isolation from the rest of the world
for 2 centuries.

}Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
}die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as
}long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few
}shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One
}assumes they are moving!)

Hunting weapons are great for extortionist sharpshooters.  "Send me money or
else I'll pick you off from 2 miles away."

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com

Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54355
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <16BAECE99.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
}In article <C5D4Hv.8Dp@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
}papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
}
}>In article <92468@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHPLEIGH) writes:
}>>
}>2.If Guns were banned, and a bunch showed up in south florida, it
}>would be 100x easier to trace and notice then a small ripple in the
}>huge wave of the American gun-craze.
}                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
}       Do they teach courses in rude in Canada?

They don't have too.  Canadian culture is handed down largely from the United
Empire Loyalists who fled from the American Revolution.  Canuckleheads tend
to have a "cratophilic," or government-loving attitude towards authority.

Paul Prescod is right in line with this elitist bigotry and prejudice that
all my Canadian friends hate in their fellow citizens.  His sort of snobbish
Canuck have an irrational horror of American democratic "armed mobs."

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com

Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54356
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

In article <C5D42C.88K@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
}
}>  Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
}
}Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
}
}No comparison.

You, sir, are an ignorant fool who knows nothing about either the drug
business or the gun business.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com

Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54357
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: WEIRD SCIENCE -- by L. Neil Smith

Posted by Cathy Smith for L. Neil Smith

                           WEIRD SCIENCE

Everyone knows how to tell when a politician is lying:  his lips 
move.  What may not be equally obvious is that there are 
politicians and then there are politicians -- and that the phrase 
"political science" is subject to more than one interpretation.  

Years ago, we heard how "scientists" were worried that a new Ice 
Age might be coming, and later on that "nuclear winter" -- smoke 
and dust thrown into the atmosphere by full-scale international 
unpleasantness -- was a possibility.  Something like that may even 
have killed the dinosaurs.  

What we didn't hear was that no actual data supported any of this, 
that real-world events (the burning of Kuwaiti oil fields) tended 
to discredit it, that mostly it was propaganda meant to weaken 
values that made America the most successful culture in history, 
and that the dinosaurs probably died of something like the Plague 
when continents drifted together, exposing them to new germs.  

We miss a lot like this, unless we listen closely.  Prince William 
Sound, site of the famous oil spill, and Mount St. Helen's weren't 
supposed to recover from their respective disasters for at least 
100 years.  That turned out not to be true, although you'd never 
know it from watching network nightly news or CNN.  It doesn't fit 
their agenda to inform us that the earth is vast and resilient, and 
that nature is rougher on herself than we could ever be.  

But for once, the media aren't entirely to blame.  As ignorant of 
science as they are of everything, they trust "scientists" to 
unscrew the inscrutable.  The trouble is that today's "scientists" 
have agendas of their own.  

Nobody in government, that wellspring of scientific wherewithal, is 
going to offer grants to an investigator who states truthfully that 
there is no respectable evidence for "global warming".  The money 
and power for bureaucrats and politicians lie in mass transit, and 
they hate the automobile -- blamed as a major cause of the mythical 
crisis -- as a source of privacy and freedom they find intolerable.  

The same appears true of "acid rain", a deliberate hoax cooked up 
by the Environmental Protection Agency (which hates private 
industrial capitalism almost as much as it does your car) and 
foisted on real scientists through trickery which has depended on 
specialists in different fields not talking to each other much.  

The list goes on, always with a common, disreputable thread.  
"Ozone depletion", for which evidence is even more suspect and 
contradictory than for acid rain or global warming, is no more than 
a last, desperate attempt to indict private capitalism in an era 
when state central planning and the command economy have failed and 
can only find this final, withered leg to teeter on.  

Decades of anti-nuclear alarmism, resting on foundations of myth 
and panic-mongering, have failed to erase the fact that nuclear 
power is the safest, cleanest, most efficient source of energy 
known to mankind -- and more to the point, that the greater amount 
of energy there is available to any individual in society, the 
freer that individual -- and his society -- become.  

Honest studies on the effects of individual gun ownership and 
self-defense on crime -- conducted by investigators who began as 
ideological opponents to those concepts, but which show massive 
reductions in the latter to be the result of the former -- have 
been suppressed, most recently by the California state government.  

And what the media didn't say about recent EPA "discoveries" on the 
effect of "secondhand smoking" is that, although some harm to non-
smokers may have been detected, it was less (by an order or two of 
magnitude) than that associated with frying bacon a couple times a 
week or keeping a pet bird.  It's enough to make you wonder whether 
there was ever anything to the claim that smoking causes cancer.  

That, of course, is the real threat represented by politically 
correct science.  The world is a dangerous place.  It would be nice 
to know the hazards.  I've never believed smoking to be a healthy 
practice, but, given a lack of credibility on the part of today's 
science, how am I to decide what to do about it?  Nicotine is 
highly addictive, to that much I can attest from experience.  Yet 
the stress of quitting may be riskier than to continue.  There 
isn't any way to tell, thanks to the corrupting influence of 
government money on the scientific establishment.  

Two centuries ago, the Founding Fathers spared us certain agonies 
to which every other nation in the world has been subject at one 
time or another, by creating a legal barrier between politics and 
religion.  Each time some short-sighted individual or group has 
tried to lower the barrier (most recently over the issue of 
abortion), blood -- real human blood, hot and smoking in the street 
-- has wound up being shed.  

Real human blood is being shed over scientific issues, as people's 
lives are ruined through the loss, to agencies like the EPA, of 
livelihood, or property it may have taken a lifetime to accumulate, 
to diseases caused by toxins associated with burning fossil fuels 
for electrical power, or thanks to bans on things like cyclamates, 
when they die from the effects of obesity.  

What we need now, if we hope to survive as a civilization for two 
more centuries, is another barrier, a Constitutional separation of 
state and science -- including medicine.  Knowledge is valuable; 
real science won't languish for lack of funding.  The money will 
simply come from contributors unwilling to pay for lies, and 
everyone will benefit.  

L. Neil Smith
Author:  THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN, 
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54358
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

In article <1qksp9$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
>> and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
>> don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
>> an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
>> me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> does not make it LAW. 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.

I guess what I am really asking, like I did above, how does my government
who is my servent, tell me the soveriegn what I can or cannot possess?

It would seem to me that the act of possessing a machine gun is no less
"criminal", by definition, than the act of possessing a television set. I also would seem
to me that it would be better to pass laws that say, that if I harm
or kill someone with the machine gun or the television set that there 
would be specific penalties for doing such. 

>
>> Everyone knows that laws are constitional
>> until it goes to court.

Sorry, I was close.

>
>Not exactly:

>"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
> bound to enforce it."
> 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
>      late 2d, Sec 256


-- 
Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'    	 
Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
brians@atlastele.com           U

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54359
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back



>>Ron Miller wrote:
>>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>>"no, it's total amnesty".
> (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)

> I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is 
>no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing. 
> 
>  
>	Myron Petro
>	NRA, USPSA
>        DVC y'all
>	**************************************************************************
>	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
>	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
>	 Second Amendment.   

If amnesty was their concern, they should pay in cash rather than moneyorder
and they should check to see if the gun turned in was stolen or not.
This way if a gun turns out to be stolen, then even if they wanted to 
prosecute, they don't know who to prosecute.
Since the only concern of these(HCI and the like) people seems to be the total
eradication of guns( legal or illegal ), why should they bother to check for
stolen property.  If they knew who the rightful owner is, then they would have
to return the gun and hence contrary to their intent to ban all guns.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54361
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

In article <1r1173INNajc@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> 
dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Even if it were a capital offense, the warrant was not even an arrest warrant,
>but a search warrant.  In other words, there was no evidence of illegal
>arms, just enough of a suggestion to get a judge to sign a license to
>search for illegal evidence.

It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from
the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search
warrant AND an arrest warrant.

     don



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54362
From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>I am sick, dismayed, discouraged.  And ASHAMED of our Administration.
>
>Anybody for impeachment?

I have already called senators, legislators and the Governor demanding
that the warrants be unsealed, and that all involved in this atrocity
(including the President, Attorney General and Governor) be suspended
pending an investigation.

I seriously doubt, however, that anything will ever be done.


Welcome to Amerika!


-- 
                            REMEMBER WACO!
     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54363
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1qvjh9INNh4l@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)  
writes:
> NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!

I really don't understand all this!  I watched on satellite network feeds as  
perhaps 90 people died before my eyes, while the two Huey's fanned the flames,  
and the FBI stopped the firetrucks at the gate. 

Something was VERY wrong with that scene.

Perhaps if I'd watched RAMBO movies, I might've been dulled to the pain of  
fellow humans dying.

Thank GOD I still feel.  I'm very sorry for you who don't.  For you who think  
they got what they deserved.  Can you really believe that?  Even if Koresh was  
the sadistic mad man they said he was, did the others deserve his fate?   If,  
in fact, he was mad, wasn't that even more reason to believe he duped his  
followers, and therefore they were innocent, brainwashed, victims?  Is there  
any scenaro that justifies all that death?

And if not, it is clear that the deaths would not have occured if the BATF has  
not FUCKED UP initially, and now the FBI got impaitent and pushed Korech over  
the edge.

And that's if you buy the latest version of the "story" hook, line, and sinker.   
I have believed all along that they could not let them live, the embarrassment  
to the BATF and the FBI would've been too severe.

Remember, this was a suspicion of tax-evasion warrant.  There were no  
witnesses, except the FBI.  All information filtered through the FBI.  All they  
had to do was allow one remote controlled pool camera be installed near the  
building, and the press could've done their job, and would've been able to back  
the FBI's story with close up video, while incurring no risk to the press.   
Unless they did not want the public to see something.  The complete lack of any  
other source of information other than the FBI really causes me concern. 


Sick to my stomach, and getting sicker from all the Government apologists
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54364
From: zed@Dartmouth.EDU (Ted Schuerzinger)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:

> I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
> but here goes:
> 
> Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
> 
>                     MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
> 
> CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
> the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
> lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
> gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
> ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
> the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
> napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> 
> THIS IS MURDER!
> 
> ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
> 
> THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
> 
> I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
> it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
> still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
> alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
> 
> I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
> 
> God help us all.
> 
> 
> PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!
> 
> 
> W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.

The latest news I saw was that two of the eight known survivors (not NO
SURVIVORS!!! as you so rudely put in all caps) said they started the
fire.

I won't go on with the things the wacko of Waco did.


--Ted Schuerzinger
zed@Dartmouth.EDU
This is not the secret message.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54366
From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote:
> The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
> transports. ...

> With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
> mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
> women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
> to death 51 days later.

Is this a joke?  The legal way to serve a search warrant is to knock on
the door.  Tossing in a grenade to serve a search warrant violates the
US Constitution and is hence, illegal.  The BD complied with legal
search warrants in the past.  I do not understand why the BATF used an
illegal means to serve their search warrant last February.

- Steve Kao

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54367
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: my reply to NY Times editorial "Dear Member of the NRA"

In <1993Apr20.004532.23086@husc3.harvard.edu> kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:


>as a legal gun owner, I must disagree.  Even when I don't see eye-
>to-eye with the N.R.A. on a particular issue, they are the only
>national group which has effectively fought for my rights to target
>shoot, hunt, and protect myself from dangerous criminals.  

One more time.

It ain't about duck hunting.

It ain't about lone perps on lonely streets.

It's about DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS from the *GOVERNMENT*, which 
has seen fit to ignore history and attempt once again to take
them from us.  They WILL SUCCEED if we don't do something NOW.

That's why I think the NRA is a bunch of WEENIES, because they
have FORGOTTEN that fundamental fact.

Pardon all my shouting, but there seem to be a whole helluva lot
of people on Condition White, fat, dumb, and happy, sucking that
glass teat for all they're worth.... Wake up and smell the cordite,
gang, they're shooting at us, and it's high time we shot back,
at least with our keyboards..... 

my two bits'

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
fly your flags at half staff and upside down,
to mourn and protest the death of the BoR.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54368
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: AMA Support Brady Bill

In article <1r044aINNh9f@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

>The following was sent to me by a friend of mine (a med student).  It
>originally appeared in a medical discussion list.
>
>--GUN CONTROL - The AMA expressed support for S. 414 and H.R. 1025 (the "Brady
>--Handgun Violence Prevention Act").  Citing its strong support for the "Brady
>--Bill" in past Congresses, the AMA termed as "particularly alarming" violence
>--associated with, and stemming from, the widespread and easy availability and
>--use of firearms.  The AMA proceeded to comment:  "While we recognize that a
>--waiting period of 5 business days before a handgun purchase will not address
>--all of the difficult problems that have made violence so prevalent in our
>--society, we believe that it is a beginning and will save lives.  Physicians
>--are first-hand witnesses to the horrendous cost in human life being exacted
>--by firearm violence. A reasonable waiting period before the purchase of a
>--handgun is a protection that the American people deserve."  (Letters to
>--Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum and Representative Charles E. Schumer; March 11,
>--1993.)

       I wonder if the AMA has an exact listing of "lives saved" in 
Tennessee, California, and other waiting period states.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54369
From: chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote:
: What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
: had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
: compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Initial assault on the "compound" ( more like a wooden farm house if
  it burned to the ground like it did ) for WHAT?  Regardless of who
  started/caused the fire, NONE of this would have happened if the
  ATF can HONESTLY justify their initial assault and handled it 
  properly!  

   QUESTION AUTHORITY!
  
<SNIP>
: With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
: more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
: the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
: at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
: of ours.
: 
: With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with

    Show me some evidenence instead of repeating what the FBI/ATF
  told you.

: mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
: women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
: to death 51 days later.

    Then I'm sure you won't mind if the ATF or the DEA raid your house
  someday on a bogus informant tip.  So what if they killed/wounded your 
  family "accidentally" during the raid, it's just a fair price to pay
  for law and order in this country, right?  Answer this question 
  honestly before making anymore ignorant statements!

    What is even more disturbing than out of control government agencies
  are citizens who allow them to be irresponsible. 

--F. Chiu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54371
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> thomasp@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Parsli) writes:

>	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
>	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY

>	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..

What does this <censored> from NORWAY think he's doing telling us
how to run the place?  I wanna know... somebody please 'splain.

Guess how NORWAY survived the Third Reich?  Give you a hint,
it wasn't by passive resistance the way the Danes did it....

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
wearer of asbestos underoos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54372
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:

> Yet, the FBI mouthpiece at this afternoon's press conference characterized
> the quantity of CS gas pumped into the building as "massive", and speculated
> that after a few hours of exposure any Davidian gas masks would become
> useless.
> 
> Does this sound "not harmful" to you?

Hm.  A previous poster argued that the fact that the BD's did not rush to
escape the burning building indicated that it was they, and not any of the
government actions, that started the fire.  On the other hand, I wonder if,
with a face full of "massive amounts of CS," *I* would be able to escape
a burning tinder-box like that ranch house assuming my best efforts.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54373
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Waco, they did it.    ( MASADA )

In article <C5rtLJ.Aqz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:

> I can't see these people standing calmly around while they burned to
> death. Sorry. I just can't see them choosing a death as horrible as
> this. The story doesn't wash. It'll take some convincing to get me
> to believe it. The FBI said today that Koresh had earlier intended
> to strap himself with explosives, come over to the FBI agents and
> detonate, but lost his nerve. He lost his nerve for a quick, clean
> death but not to roasted alive? Sorry, don't believe it, even if he
> was nutty as a fruitcake.

On Ted Koppel last night, the ubiquitous Australian woman claimed that
Koresh trained the women (years ago) how to commit suicide by swallowing
cyanide or by putting a gun in their mouth.  With cyanide on hand, why
choose to roast yourself?  There are too many unanswered questions here.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54374
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!


In <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET writes:

>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:

Fret not, you made it.

>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.

Not while we still have our guns.  <evil grin>  

Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys,
it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming
houses and violating civil rights under color of law. 

Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution?

-- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54375
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:

   [flame-bait, pure and simple]



-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54376
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
> In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:

> >> The massive destructive power of many modern weapons, makes the
> >> cost of an accidental or crimial usage of these weapons to great.
> >> The weapons of mass destruction need to be in the control of
> >> the government only.  Individual access would result in the
> >> needless deaths of millions.  This makes the right of the people
> >> to keep and bear many modern weapons non-existant.

> >Thanks for stating where you're coming from.  Needless to say, I
> >disagree on every count.

> You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
> mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
> neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
> gas on his/her property.  

> If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of
> the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?

I don't sign any blank checks.

When Doug Foxvog says "weapons of mass destruction," he means CBW and
nukes.  When Sarah Brady says "weapons of mass destruction" she means
Street Sweeper shotguns and semi-automatic SKS rifles.  When John
Lawrence Rutledge says "weapons of mass destruction," and then immediately
follows it with:

> The US has thousands of people killed each year by handguns,
> this number can easily be reduced by putting reasonable restrictions
> on them.

...what does Rutledge mean by the term?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54377
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

If anyone is keeping a list of the potential contributors, 
you can put me down for $1000.00 under the conditions above

Keith Emmen
kde@boi.hp.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54378
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>>
>Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
>really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
>a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."

Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
come out with their hands up several weeks ago.

>>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>>scenarios.
>
>The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
>that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
>how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.

More than someone who would not release children from the compound.

I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.

I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.

>>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>>ludicrous.
>
>I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
>risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
>were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
>
>Drew 
>--
>betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
>*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
>*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
>*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
>    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54380
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: A picture is worth a thousand words...

begin 644 outOfControl.gif
M1TE&.#=AN@*6`?```````/___RP`````N@*6`0`"_@Q@J)O-[XQ4#IYX::Z3
M9PUB4ZAY9`<NY59*:/!2L0C-J^W>2(>?[-C3Q70,6A`H9)&2OA=*ELQ)?RW+
MP3HT5F%1RQ%INGZNVMF4&WR0?4+>"OO!,-7(-SO,K#^I=2_<=J?4,QB(`X-V
MN)-X>+;C1^B&UI7C&#E)=7E&F)?9"?9X`OEH.77CE(*I!5KI^08H-I8PMC9:
M26HW"RLFN]LK>@NH1PN[UT>YQ,&ETL#[)#=BVO0<ZZ=VB7S=**D)!?G+\]M&
M%`[<2MY]$=[*JFW8V>6ZYHSZG6V.#DVZ-XS?[8*X:`@M6;SB;5M'<""U3VS&
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MTGT]+%:WZW&B]=*%2U.U2(3>*<)[FRUT68-87I>_N_I:3DF2`\/^UWLI1I^)
M_L:?@]D18E6AIMQ1A2F6T&S-074@3R+(%$5V]ODCDGI(I71:=_&)UYHJL#4H
M3(`U",?67N?A@B!A$:18FQ$%O;C%;B>!4Z$OF!!(8BF**:21?@8.J(1++A5H
MV&:118><=*PEEY^,$X)&6V;DL.B=@E)&.>1W[/&&TGL,;>FC<<:(R1]\C9'G
M!(.Y(1(-2,4YZ$]G5)H()7U!PHACBDQ5)I6<EH%YHD)P>,EDFF"5XV&&U=G4
MD'KV:*C@HW0-Y^<V%FY7(G?[04E,F_;DV>"??74*VF'7L4E=@N8IF1&5[&'S
MVW%^018<8Q)-8YT5KQ[G!IAIK"7A;KZ2Z%ELSUFZ_DI\RI)W47@6+:@HA`DV
M&DJ1ITK*:K,_X->K4=P"I!M@-5Z:#YV>*IDH9$%N.I^DQ>F)WFS'+E83<GEA
MB.I/)H4W)X>I601%I+PM9VZEPVXU+WA%FANP>U_86.>_CG(Y[KG<ZFO+*_RP
MVJ^6'!-,%#6S=)D/O3:^:F#"@9+\W%\W3A?AC,`@BF^U_";9\,+$+BMPGR])
MZS%S/&8YAXH2[ZP5Q#*&&Z.F8[);C,A0P3CUH&&HNZZJQ*#'Z9Z1Z@=KO7;A
ME300BSP+8K`7GPTMM@9=60Z[)_+<6L^IPMGOCJ7B[0Q-SB)-,=<4^L9,6/"M
M'6*]I)(Y<7VQXIIR3R4G_FY-5B+#K)G-FMV-VLI>#UXLC0I/;F;!N08>](:-
M2_=4EF.O&G3J3)YY,^H(&UOBAXP*FQUV`OJ5"NQZUR65D24_[C6#I(L-XIVZ
MQKLDN;1OF;OANB>)**>9.MPNDM,;&RVA>;]T\-RN?U^TSH";\FU^K5[7Y/7*
M_RF4<T[E$J;D(Y.)2\AAW[N9`0GN;M#C%?^X%S5W:()M<(D=D1*X'N)`2WH_
M`A30;J>HZ55I>/!26<5^!9C:X2R$WQH5?[03+E,QC&I#XY,!*Z<4>RTI:?LS
MTE7PQC\8BDI(QZ!.0T0TL_B!2WRE:U%7E,&Z"Y4F?'GP$/.26)+Y(5!>4FSB
M_ODL`1W&?<U"[0O(D5("CAGMBC3/RYE3=G*_,\8J:_B;UCXHUR[@=7"'-)RC
M#SL&P5J@$%D1&YWG("B_[FD1:!MYS\^&Y2X.;E%E'^M0``_904.A2FQFX-U/
M,$8?\`UF5V#KT<MZY"C@C<B*D&O$(Q>YA'LEXXJ)>1`F[V.W]!`1B4$13HZJ
M()]9GL^`BJ2;EM#'LQ9N+D#54UN^=B@:9$7#<X1B(Z[X8;]FH**-SGGAY1K'
MR#J6[UTMBV';.H2=^`&S#2SBG-%,IS/*G,9\BD03BJ!&H$:R,S>3>@44L2G)
M4NUM1(;@7>_DF3(*DJ$H]A-EYJ0YOQH&4!6G;,XH_L=&0_35R$RJ*6'&)CH^
MN0CH%+Q$&2Y?]QV!T/*>533=E,J7KEC:\V`T8QRD9&G16S2O'ERLA6W$2$#C
MI!(WB[G<-$TFJS)"CHYJ<J,9=>J8>39R@9($H[_V=D&4EDT>VSLJDM3I1POB
M,"WH.)/;1C5%A&)0H/OJ#=MF]=5)BE.!TS'E$R-Z/VLJ1X;&"X0$M[I!M![T
MHX.DW=HNR30=-?,_BA/L^HPHCD+!+*4@S:A'+[78>HY%'04=Z3D7%A;$B?2R
M3$7;*E=J2_WEL)IJS$5IU4C0,$5/:,W+GS2IJL&7LC6?:J-6'XE5NBQ"2IX^
M@YL@'4E(DQ*S9YP]%\[,_H%0ZU`P=W$B'&,X&,(*`==%YK,A'G"37+[P,PZ6
M]&#?D!I'2OE,5B4][KB8ZT6#M<AE@K,2/<DZ3A,I-FJZ]*U7WQ))MDIUMMX%
ME8;2:[3ZKBA?WC(N4/*81LMY\F0)[531/`FDU2ZO2O-R[4K0])$]=I5BARV3
M+Q\82T@6]S^'_&H_PI>I^!9ON\YM4^\"8^!WP+BQ)HN;`.O3)6C&58Z"RJWH
M>-C1U':RL@<4$A$?BZ\,?]"=`AVF?0%*18FNIX`)317G5/?(`2X3N)Z@+'OM
MMJ_H"D].W-C64`E;U%/R-+PAFY8.9:PU03[%B>"]B.8<FAD/[Y'`8$;N?.LK
M_CN5"@S*!*'Q\;`HPFT:3)6\Q>UF'4M"$VKQ>2Z2])I=6E<W]SBUK\4NV%2[
MK5,IH\Z?BW.FLTS>SD$YR>R@V4E=-59AMFZ%O]T?)4&%.4?Z-UE$$R[+&%OJ
M/SIYQ-?R78TQ&K.<&11B?0WH&C6MOQFV6<X&SFDU!!5);;+,KIBY"0GA]V%W
MP@/9EO5U8_!8R-6A6LF0OK.*VXMN$6ML14!4ZXM'O>-W:G4?U;PTCY?M;_SY
M;\':O;&#!WI1ZTE-JT,&\JY_[4"]I%>%A$FG*B4[V$D+[^(8?+C5\%K=;$'V
MT$4V]W(%/5,7JY"/Q_`T3P`=\#4CN-\R[S&#+TTK_H0KK1TU].$T;_Q&N4&Q
MOS4#EZ7X#%\L$_:F%?-XK9J\;>9Y>+Y)/T]2>EWRR$;=6EJC*>A\$W-HAMU_
M-5]VOGGZVK-/.^PTKM_VR.C@M'>3:-I4L'@SMZBOAQ2(LV9X!6?>;NI*EI:.
MUNF282U1/*,XD>+>I$DG;F^`1UOL!24MV<?NZ4X'7+MKI_RG\22F,H-R4M@.
MJK.1K.((L4_4K<ZU+>\Y[,-W6-=V5)]Z$X_7JDOX?]_LWLP#Y6>*=XWM,0>]
MP#&/_.33_/@N?[3EP2U\@W?FN;Q^>>\;*KZCR[YXZ`9IP'B-^)2JVL2*I^\S
M=E_8U%_=T+P/<%4G3%FY_O>SL\-/OMJ5C__\VW_YF;\\-R&L7*EV94`"7C-D
M-@Y702/4-$,45>`W*%Z%*7,`>U<5@5WS)>.3)]/'$JBF+0GX=]GW9]=63LTU
M.`*A?R?(?"C84Y)W?/>W(^LB%%A&:G>"1G5'.NK'8EWD5HN7+;*S@2)$1A/$
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MN'+P1(O;R(WZMQ/^]V]QAWTZASS8EH`^!8T(XB8`5B>K=H#.(H2^Y4<=PWC/
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M7?F-!\=\(!:$*!EH:2:"^\@A70240&>6`&EQ&!@]:>@>K:-4?K>$7-:,]'1L
M'WE]7T2!Y%(N/LESW@>6-/=,&[.87JF8-:>9-S)7<H>4B_,[^":-E51L&;1Q
MU@8R9W9D'&4G579>+Q1O;<.1#+6(RCEE@D!EUTD\Q+EHZ<>07>:2]L6"@2@-
MA`>.MZF%N0F+.%>9!?>4_DY'C&]2&C%%BI:9E^LD?<ZX6WRE,!VX'Y;HB_N%
M<M+I/>O5=;]48;9#F/$(@SM&),1!GN@YBPM&F_UV.]DEF;H(1YQXF<'HE!%)
M74L76>0WC?")>WP'2%^TG*VU=6A%>Y]S8:<SD>]7FN&D6X'4.2EXF'W9/VLD
MH86(<_<G6AL(DZ0$9-FYG=#'<AAYAU/W5O=9BJ(XERKYI&+)DCGYHM9)B<")
MA%"*HO=5GA^$H[[);^S)I4>JHS^:GBWH<D-:F8BT:2Y:9^#T7@P4<N,'0#D6
MI?TYG'\9@`88GPFJ5Q#RI?A)DLA`>)O(H(7Y>]43)Z88;!8V5]-F)RDG>=>%
M_H)+`Q+",E!+@WSJ.9[%=S+T,W09RE7.]W4V%F6C*1E$&&M>ZE@5)Y59FFH\
M29H,]7_#^)Y$M:*V"H?%R8Y3"52:!W"C)W5A*8N::G1BD0Z>ZHUCIW9?`BO<
M!*F*YT&M-TELN9FUAGK6.%5S@Y-]&IQ1=G[^V7%>&GM".3!/%Z#J)*XQ2C`#
MZ4+T,ZIA6*2ZV93(:J^QVJG8A6^CUJ_/2HL>6*N*&JD7%GEJ!6>_^3KU"6*?
M0CD-"(5SJHIH*I)[*9FFAK$4>#3P93$QPD)MZ9BBY((0&XXCNYY?N35I]*]\
M`;#XEV!;.:BDYGWZV)/`&D'#!FRLHZ)3.D]WX8#+_N`JK#D>XPB$C&A^KI>D
MU`IOZ8JF:?A>9K6LTVHYDR>(_0BJG@<^*^NOA>:R0OJI69BT[>>7=.@K]N9<
M!SJC([JSCB.@;\BNZ@JCA+2P$CN&@7J?R!27WMI#@_890+L+\=)\/A6V.!JV
MH6I:7"LY2/2RS:J"Q'J%&ONMF/BJ9ZM<X;E9G4FTR+FHH^B`PK5B34MRQ]E;
M9/NY<TBF:E:@>(N72@H40T9P]RJS)V:"LVF3FL:RSNJL1-&XA[NF<9JK!\N+
M$\1NIC*=0J.V!6NN*QEXN/<W,KB4]BEG<1:5RBMO?9<H@W>5=6ILEK9PMF.Z
MHBHNB(NRD`NJRMJL3J*X_FH:DV68<RPJ7B.XCDMFM!"1M[#3I3PI4Q'+JBUZ
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M*R\T6:&+F[OJJR_,RLI6&\4B/$`%EJT^2\N)6,4';&NZO+J4'&M/J8\/J"J(
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MBQET[&HQC$N_BXR6O@>I_D2;EO"(I9XHA.A-SN%:UK!K*R.\2`$)Q;5=N?3F
MDU(KIA+W?0IM:D8LT#,KTMMLBUS=W81(4/+GIU08>=JVU'\JO0S>>S<3@7;H
M?/H=UW+*OU(<8A1LVL2'PD:ZR?[(R3DZ<!!1>659BXZIT;JT98\JF@B>X+Y+
MTU[LS<ILVQ)MJ`Y=RY2]W?CHTS#'6SE\PJ"&V#>W5PW\>J&840T-M'QBG9=J
MU1Q\BTZ#(?0M;9]<XPKNXEKF5)FEDY3YD3>,H:BXV[C,M`E3-0\)A@C3=S0L
MM\P(O%=];:ULJ4V]*>A"Q1,7G\8*0(-;$0:)Y^2TP,U9O6S"JEU.Q%MCX`M'
M_M>L)\AQ+JV_;+%WO88VG'CJ:++]I8G!3+%I;'84[%`J"YJ%%WW?1J@@2;YU
M+K8WJKF:"UK&U^6Y.7J<P74'0M(E;>>W+96^^E*:+25C.>OQ*KTO:<Z<I.?]
M3*%GRE6AZIR_?;.3B#@X/+*3:N4_1YX4NMJN1LAJ3>B,WG\D6WIWF$\$J2>8
MX\O92V?"Z)Q&6<`W7EBC*W1\B*2+NN+,-L/YENASN>,F[H<G2MRV.WFT7N4%
M_V44I\7(UNLV)^Y6*Y?9;1_KRH82SAI;EXHAB?%U&=(97Y4-5,@!&91FV]Y5
M7HEXP.^(_%?T%N9.$O`I]J!>W=K0+-!9/(RJ>ANU_@>D3LRE2E0XM?600F[#
M!!B:S%VHT4F&TVO4A%K97-:&L<AIL@O81P4X:?(A=$[CJ;U\*=^FYD;?34J$
M]A*YX?Z[9I?LI7SJ]POD6F[MQ%7DICW2?HI#VJ*K1?V)98[GM_=I_3?`6^H[
M?$3:MLS5--[LQ%?HN4[O6,VZ.ORX`'.0>,)"HV%,AP[OO"F2%CG1LR+,$XXB
M/PW('.ZTI5[1JX3:(?)#<WRR,5F'A(RYW8*Z!#ZP!Z_-X!BM5AZ:^R;[ID[V
M.[]VCVCBZ+ZB@OL[.GN,M!;O/%TM&_V_G+WYK]_"9%YVZ=[JGC_W[YBM@"_X
MU5?8):N0;`:&H3;R[MWJ_GE/\#)Y:&&$LX8XXIP$J.S.2NA\S-D9\Z:?E".N
M^'!OY\M([SO*IN0;5^-*`('Q5",;(633T5,QT)MW_\'0$L6D,S>#5,G30M5X
MF2]:;O&[H?$^K#2L("?S8$AVR<EPF%D`ER;@E`F5P4;7Y[;8K"Y?S2Z%*N5F
MH^"M[2M,O]=.M/K'M+MS:6?WVK\8'P)KK.(*Z7P0$Q'Q>AA!'!^#^%*^SJ`4
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M=I.RV*26H_$\:]4:4*_HX$I5#`UQ93:>W*S<'&GQVT-A$Q$<)VV?QQ:E#4=>
MV%6FWW9_$Q-M3$@VDH:CD[V#;)=PQJ.Q@,>ES:9X_IN!A+'*O20][3;.'YU=
MY_JG6=2<3%$)32\IKTR!K)&]INJ.VVWX-1H'%HK:.^S<2@ZKB)'?D##NO,%J
M>^P]@>38Q3KB\K-IP>7$`TR[.99)\+1_BC'LDN^ZN=!#T:)+)SP1X6FNJK8B
MP0ZBD91K:*C5GJ(1-AD9!/$S!7=,L)\4TB%Q+]PB!*L4Y8#*9C2G-,2/0]T.
M'.<\]!X<+B0?*R0M.>]6LDU'UW@,R$0#S6ONNB$+J@Z/7=ATJ8X/S4G/"&Z\
M_$@WS#:BAJS4\H/LN(%8)#`OS5QKTZ'PI#SS3RHSQ-#/G7C3\DE(K<.0.R(=
M:=.]`.7[4K,EUQ+TN<=(_FU43D<?BO)%NN(<*X\ZI_NO2LY^PE/&H>[:9Y@"
M<[4RILKN4D,N8!4=\5;)`A1"0N$F%`O'[-:1PK.>M+G0I&<];9'*894DL$#@
MU-LMBV'3%)=/"NMCL;Y#M\JVU7.S/(V_:XTTZJ!2@;S34#5)S0A;!'LL,T=J
M?R444R.+K50Z`/7[=;)SA'6S8'>5U2-)=PPD,[0*)RV+.5W-,JNT55F*S5UD
M/G85P-[TG,VN@X^"]B(L1_Z4)X`)%ECA<N,%>%Q%G4W*YX;Q6J7@6J?KST'5
M3EY79U'DQ'C:/W/>%EWHV"JHY`'[(ZGD>6$5*5$M0>0Z:&;,A<IL%*'>:N2.
M_JD^N\85J4-2N$?O`)7MN']L;=&JG$45K:1M;#I:C=AI1F.R(XU[M8D+SR-R
MPRFW,^07*V8U+,#Y73RT(BC]=R%EELO1UH`U17UL9!L?4>AG3ZR2=3/KYH1/
MNNTS/&41,?ZK+\#N'9W<*ZNUW*W+*T_>\LP)*9Y6YX.U,'$!Q;:9"ZRY'.MU
M:@UFMSL-5[;YR5B%MW(NN3D_\A_[X%3>+>E!]ZU7FN\FLM.3PW9?__WY4ZWM
MS%%2OGQ1)GY).IVUD-4COQFP)0XJ$Z,2N+?"I&X[!PQ<68C7/OXE['-"XM4#
MC;4PH.5/1R3<X`E/"*]\-!`<N^,9XC#SE5K]"';B_GGAI<#BNHKP+((0Q`YC
M6O<N?=V0![:[7PK3YJT@1>^'`4R._93',A1.D8J>4I>=%E878G6/,7@;X<[4
M-ZK@$'!G*PR."WNX*>R%KBN+"M&6JE@H0(WB<P.SV@I;8T+PY,Z*<?0C_L"D
M+BW*3H[BZUD,T;6C[Q'RD%&B8)%"J!#NI2QA`=M0A*28JB)2$7YHDYI>@$>W
M<'QQ<C":R1]1F<JR:9)\O8%B&7V(/D-2J$--1%.D'-84EUF-C+63V.:NE<NI
ML*^4R0.B)V<6'5TB35K,TAM:Z+$Q54Z3FBC<",,>*1M.,0N&/*0#<L`I,^L)
M1H`,K!H4#;@3EV@0E,6D_MQSX/(MBA"R>7DD%/*Z%@4]KK*:_>3DK8H4(S/5
M8T)HM&$,*0D\T^2P>K,)UU,F@\N'#HU)-<KG$?=W,?)X2YF.K!>XEI:],Y((
MCE7<IS]1VK(N>D8J/A3A)0,G/5G6T''A!*&3?M@Y/T6LE=VAW6"PJ+6,GI)Z
M="P1WL9G3P;6=*##W.!)4QK5SF"0.;Y,FCX&R42$'LM6HFBA2"EEQ'V=K3I<
M5%*EL/71W`P.JJPZJT]X]4D(V?1ZC+NJ2[G*4R0B[7T.A:94J9FU4VTJB9RR
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M"H`F;8^@DXNB>V:OHNI=3ZD;.F-`[Y=DF#79?<[B0$MSY';3Y98BT3O2/BO;
MQ^U+]C>OQM"YGEFQA4W6HE-;.1'+KZ.F6K7/PKG4*[($S.Y4B9#<&6/_WB=0
M;JIT9ADMW3+;$+*T_NG4:,G""J:EWBR#7)4-_=Y]4UM[X/;FS]@CXW@#<L0<
M190N80H1\"WE;;U>I0DG_C)9A>N8C]-<Z_B"?>YR8:^V93W$,S,,S&4U&]LZ
M6+ECR-1+QNJV?B7-VA3Y\$&BJ3G2L90H=(J9$NYV>7.+`RR8M3LOV(JN%MA^
MDQM?:IKM?:;?&%8?M,F-;+&9_%PMKC?Q+*A4_M[INTDG=F<[5,#H^MKK6D^?
MTA=N/.YN]G]^YKC9A^KG2587@W2"^9S-EVJ.27)&AJ4ZP5M58)J#4<VS+?36
MQ^OM%D]ZW10[4\Q9RDX#JTV'<$V\Q..^&:%[3>VDA/NP^\H=>FG3[IAS(^&/
M"^?-U_G!HD0K^9C=Y"XBCM=@(EJ8Q"EY7%>3(NL;25$R;ON0R]WB?_YKQLF.
M_O>6H7+<T0KIAJ<J\]M?OWG*13?)_;=FQ/>RFS`E\LCS?6R4<[KY?F3C-?;"
MZ+T-.D]P@M=>^3(JO._SI-+'=(M8+[PD9W8,8HBX+Y;`JNSZJZJTC`'%:^_X
MJ@`/QLG>[G5&9Z?\2?^:KOV(8-MJPK9>I8^.CVIB!L>>9_E.KX2@;(^,!W=R
M1\L"K\>@"Y8.JWO(SHFZ9*LFCY=^#I+NI;RXZ7P"T-S^RP&Q9.AN053H3V5^
M3]WZKN/^JCWJ*D\23'*L4`1-D,YL1/584)L>2>J:<*$TC86J9^\8)0SY3-3&
MJ]68*=^`SZ&Z;^,\3OBHD/F@K^&^ST7\KO(&1T]P_J+6IHSH1.[D.J+1GK`+
M_<[E0M`'O5#\^.7PQNKOD&S1;,]0*&Z9FJZ9;&*(PG#^`JCZX@C4Y*40"R57
M+"0E0,P$5ROT@@GM-I`4<X`*&0:)B.ZYG(T/)8VF\JJY3([I[*P1>:L`QRX2
M(82IVNP1\6O)*,V+6,__^*GMU.G<EG`:R_!RG+%_YLCH?N/L(*:X:A&0NDS8
M^"[7M(48[^P3*;&L%N_-$LC\8D04^>T4<$@`MPJ&ID`=U]#>$(S`GK'$\C#G
M7(P57RSA@DSS7"^#:DS`#'(%I7$4(4^`5N_/WHL,O<L!HZO=T)$"&2^@E"_.
M4JX$5:ZV+"@>ZS"5-FX'_I]'[>8GN6A,((N0+]*/"!]-S+[L&[]DK33I[22P
M)=WLRA[2!;4O]CH,@,8JX`+JA322=!:L[F(NR;I*?&I0&(T+\$K+#^Z0O#J%
MRRZM#S40N\IQG2:/G<01"@O1-N9Q(CN(S!#/H]Q,G03NS4@2(@]-UHX0%0ER
M-X+(VBS%#2.1(5TM)QVR(35P)`4,T,XA$(WCH-XH%Y'N%DM2)HDIO@+I1L[I
M!<$K`<<P\HB+'2./Q<(,IXSEP&00[(8+[9A2"+WO_%2LRMSOU0*A=Y*)A'+N
M-,ULX+BIVJ;*+&%2/7"R#SULX>3P"K]C(2]P*2-G(@D.'KD,!H.,_%Z.Z>82
M_@'S\8X\B-M6DKUTZ"G;P-"L*9`*:!.YTU=,DRIIQ"*)JMCZJ"OU`]@@;9,T
MR""O<?,8DS*%#P!_<"/E!>E$I^L2KR_7!0BSJOM^21%_J73:0>PJD1/;3A<%
M)13M:V:THE?.,R;?X_>BCQGZ`FU(C\;$R#FRC?E,RV2(<P!Q<=;*8/26QZ_L
MLJ"^*?Q"#>@^\N!L\)+";1EGKL2N4[DZ[S"F)))@T:W(X$$YZ^%H#C&%"Z`\
M;<)\J^?N[A\_JCRI:Q!+%#+5LD3?4J8(L>1@DC\+%+MJ,Y]\=!?%4SL7U/'B
M$+DD=)X^JQ,-L*5P;B8^D,K^9]^P;`G/\-\NK]MX_M+I3BO:@%+2;NY'\V?_
M<+$="3-00XKV[`I)M0?W[&^6`O'O&,G4>*F0Z.Y`BVW*5+)1IA/VL+&MH$:>
M=&[,A.VXWC,@-4V"'@\+7;'X'N>=?@TEN7$$[PP4:V]158@B_^^\'O`2C7!U
M[,T"'77-U$A^>L=C0B4[OO""MLD/I[0;C=4?62TAU;,O-]-7EN40.<Y)"^M:
M835657!R=DRA?!,C@>Q*.Q7BON(H:U`+]='$V)61@I3$9K$5-56M$M(IWTIS
M2B@V(U45@[5HR+(%26<(M?7B!L]?@K$U;55*%Q,6"'`%R^V[UK/B&&K9X-#=
M4@19KZY\L`PU[>5!UZ98_A9HIFHRP$1T.$E68`^SD:#4*4?*^$!,!"7EIG)0
M3/$OZ6864.M3-UM1#*$K2<FP2VGK!HO,(H'2$H.1N#!5T5)62$U-*#,Q/IT5
M<CY5]C:U9E3*/<_P8,$Q`=$3.JGT[+!I*\>QZBBU82]35M@,-Z&.JOIS`X>2
M$"O3!J7VQ.9U1$]49M:Q6!'N39DU.,/,54M592LTTT3.2]Y/\.#RGZ022*^H
MU6C+&]FJ<3]/F":T8W4O$_GN)"-FX&8GLB[(70611".4]\"K*6E5/KT,1^_P
M830G4^B1`Z/T+_GT6Q_7<(\4('?O3<9L0!%RM`ILO:H1=55-,`CPPLZU0"&/
M_N7")W8?Q$@ATE6GCVK!YA\[]#/!-5_=S7J=]4=O<D.M%DBA-';8;U=&<:68
MMZ'4UV[]2S\7J1VYL$S#[G@9:R`#[1T9%0\Q:F)037"Q=:-$U2+\,4=5-VR<
M\/-N%_54L$[*S?]"576>*Q9?<TYV4/6T<GB+,K>,L=T:L#/;]RV=BZ2*=V?Y
M*1MQQ=B*-ON";MW\=U7J"#8=SCK7CD1!=/FHUGLST"^WMO%JU6LEX7<43V[A
MELE&>-*TB$O]0'BC[B'KD4Z#EUS,+E/-HXTXCTG!U#^.5+YR$!OT#P_K[@;[
MZ@GOSR49V(R?=7/[4>QTIM?&9&ZW1B'R*C3E`7/;_E!7T:^#/15YJT"G4!56
MKW*.5UB#0PZ-FBDKX`]J"UB>I#!\`NSK?NV,)9D;2_/KIH0/7Y.`G?A#",P,
M+\O@-#-C\56)M3AH:315_\]L0V6__E6H`+A-:^V*E5`)W2:3:Z*^?@<V$ZO2
M?C=$QW:2<VQ9]=*!*YA4Y[,:)^MLE33\=&TSP2\?E]>2EMA4T[4*52Y^B!>*
MHQA.,92&!]@4"5A4Z$AJ3/$[.959`PN84VIBZ>67]Q>VN!0A*VHZ2:W:KN^'
M-==:\!-IE52,M:V1U3!XV)<%@Y1P6[4Z9_A>8>PB?"/3(!D`(#JB)7JB(5J'
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M_J]GZK1WVY>$6'`[R2I_CE>3BFR$;);K:Y&E&J6WVHB:^[O!.[S%FPL)&SU7
ME*)3&Z?*.Z?'*+3]9J_W$J;C4@`7;T=Y&[U)*E`UV[3C]#&+6[/56@?/VG/H
MP[43^F41F+FI&K]-6[P=_,$AO+:YFXKOJ>H$&:SMAM)DI4CW&ZC:M:X'L[XC
M.[1S.RV]\L:>)BLW6Z9N=$?GU.'`658SVH$=F\0C_,9Q/,=#6G8;'+,[S.TV
M>R<OL)Y'?,7;>FJ\Z^KN-W=+/*T34VU1>[8;&F5__,CS&Z/'-Q^@6JF_\V91
M$,MK?,9U?,S)/,=#+;)O&O>.F`U/.SL;'+Z3&[B5_IL9K?Q4%%R?ZC.\^1&D
M97B0Q3Q[.1',JUBH`UN<%URT[T^_RWS1&3W,Q5S0V[RGV-O(C5S#W#NF9LVS
M?DS3F<J*2V_WQ%&'F9G/!]RH>B][!?32,UO%EGIOZR_2'7V_&WW6:3W"0U==
MX^+8]"W*>2IJ@YR:*[!B?[''PV6RX=L,-[S6_SR64['2_7JP95W0%:.UPQE<
M`G-B%;>CH5S9N;W;M7W27\+3T=S9D[0WA]TNTWK<W?*4Z=Q:^9O<X:O#;9S4
M%UN10;W.05QNF'S2"4:)"!R+[URK;]O;"=[659.3`5Q5X%SC^!NQTITO$:88
MSV\2(;`@:_J8_'N\V]C*_FV69:,=OX&]@)V4B;!]WG<<P!]]?`M^Y1O=W87)
M8LU5S2$9V2?0PN#<B#E5:(&EXN^4X\M8S^71I;+V\>+OOW4UK_M;3SF:G27<
MY%G^Z0G^`,W1TH%N@[-3:+-*WCMQYE'=LR<NR(^>W+_9G16[?6M6_4[:Z-<;
M'S=KY'W;J:K2Z:%^[KU=ZC%1WN5;P\>]G&Y^X2F=BJ]KFGV>TED]="W,P,F>
MJ]57REP1ZW[59^VHJ7G7GUF:NU<=TND^\VG=BB5;O7'+$L]2YOL:;@2_N7K=
M%U.XW'$0[[_/EC=1Q_V-U^DGPP5)]%:?0@&Z7K.=Z;^\R.4^\34_^+^];TH'
M_F0-#^5'T]@;U:J>5.*ED/8EF/!W[,CCJCG'G"C?'=.%+O0M/^*E/*_]F5$I
M[Z-!5?C-_[NE%O0W=O3W\A+;$K6/Z>_3_7`5WHL@=?[Q'9=5^^&OGW`&G\<(
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M(4%RI,E@5JA(N'D*%S(T1`D<0$EI1)WBQNY;N%+;,,7+Q?&<OG<@]8W[4\;/
MAU3C).;3U#"@-C9@DJ'[5[$D'W\Q=Z0P2._!P)="AQ)%9@J8*I=$<*VKR30I
MR961-+(B4R+=S(M>5G8;!<P54BE!ZX'ZA:_H#)\$C=I<=]'?0YCF?*I]U/'N
M3K1Z][KAQS$B-D]^;1X=Y#5;5L-XVL:S6%4J64CMR'S]:@HGT&$3^9JK03?D
M,2I8S,+M9*]O9T&J'SVU_I6Z)>?81$6*!:U-<DN`3<65EG6D-U:H*JE.]3'0
M'>5^(,F.Y`V+I>Q[=MOJ+DX:IT'FR]B2DJFXS1N/T<<W2U>8*WJ+^\)[*];U
MIDKX@B^A&2XN*NC)PY1'#GU?("Q8D$>+3J-A)%YM!2;T$W>*"/C:6K`-.&%Y
MUC6GQ'O"D00/?5MI1-A!'"+8RDW+<?(;1929EE(G$W78XH'S6<8<A=.M4=-@
MC\WW5EYR$7.0:8M)&"%%OF5&9(U).A+?8]?\LYM6^9%8F%.-K2=?=1]&Y&2'
M^LU8&GOMX:-@4$I.)R4DSFT$W%DT'7D;D#WR)">$8\IE)IZ>H7=E)H<)YF)&
M_M_YR66@]CEVHHA58GC@&&:485]94,74:&UUXCD+E,4%%A";BT9X(Y`T,A++
M64;VE">J#.*FI5MBU;=HFKS0=@QB&UF8C3PM$K?KE)6MJ"*4&;[:RZP;7I:J
MG`)6ZE(<7:XY*70[N95/73"T``Z=R&IKUZH8X=9>K&KZQXM[W7U['&2()8@H
ME7?1!NRC.5YIEI4Z2;HM,M,.4F)!.VX*("XCJE9MFWT.B1J^"1,4UVXZ=ENO
MIK=6:N"FP@;J(:#H1OJ627V4B..U=NX8RX\S647P;.4"!NF/^]A*:K;2!-S0
MJQ1;^A+*"L_9+3R%%AEN=Z8.6UT3AZJW944U8Z9T_D[).7T2T5:B:6Q8%NJ+
MKZBKB=?OE%(9T]IV1;4\],$ZFQWTG[8=%[6"_)83G)C7\3@8*IX>IMTV7C9'
M--*1?F&>2/"UG.K@0O;\9F*&SAFS7B&KN-F2!K^8\]D`/ZMIHG!*[!S@N"[6
M9-Q!NPKCY%;G'6]*I((*M-'!T$TNW%B7.E?1_;(GHM!<<W8W=#/7,CC9GE;N
M798?2=U;$[Z!_='?A/&=;IR&A^IR3E"/,.W#TT><N9B<?ZSS@];>F9NW/U>H
M=337Q7?F4D$R5CW,PW_>J[S!!;_T]QT5#_%V@2,?+/^>DSH654U6YCJ5Y+"T
M&=9Q:G:H\AVUI(2D>AS-_D$WB]S7HG0U\?EO3U6"H/P."+K$X`IO?!*>4PR(
MN;0Q"6UJHA>)O*0X$+K):^GYEV*(P[@!A2DU6>.@D&SHC!ZFCT_84M6?BM7"
M$+JF>!W<7Q1:L[D(EL^`+0Q>Z71XGH[]BH!56PVV<!2B5D3-1-C;88WJ4L$W
MO6\L-_CA!8>(,8204"T!8QKOU,9$HSQQCG^!50;OP[OV^>QY$M%AN/JF++OM
MIV,O"N3LU@@F6F70641,TO66,<`!>F&3=$02&(.X"!!"@UX?VAKZ-.27+F5J
MCU74G@G])HOW3*Q<@K2D4O07PP!NC(P!^M7&^@.J7I*KDK8J$J/^HZW4T<&3
M_EYT)D+T!$/PU()FN7)A'!M!.5=>+E-O.V"N8#<2]8#(>8P4V#?71:D5!>ED
M)D*E$WWT+!JI,VW+?-0M6,0"?>JN=VSTSK[$YK8>%0Z#>>3FXF3ID?T9R6*Y
ME-Y3K"B/K'RR;J3S62#!U`[YF&I@M&+HUYS4T=A)RX$\9"90HIG)?GZJ5MM4
MDCUHB%!,(M.;['I0V%XF.C$P+($415Q"#-G3RCB*F>ZTV!$39[S^70Y<LESB
MI<`B@HJ>Q*.@%-BHQ(>S@@V3E#,=3[$`J;G,B$9XS'+7-]8UTJ0HT654^8.O
M5*I0&#HJ=+6CX"J3!2"SHC$Z4E4!2CM)53U)KZ\-_CJL7TWZ59HB,)G*6V'M
MG"K"?>&QC5,<UB'15I6X)D>G5--0V,9F+D4Q;5Z]A*FNHHF*:SE3JV43Y2A1
M^\_7+E:@$169/P7IPD3:R92765Z<[A=%!:)D,D<=YVE=$[$=;+1,,;K7-:.*
MDI1:H[5PY(EH:ZL,Q6JWB$OU3S@-EMGY3;%\D,TM]_A5PC7QQU[`;==WDH<'
MRTA6N:]\:>.@H-JKL!81:D1L=Q&6W0`+Y79B[1S;CO58=6A,BFUM[&?A-]UG
MMA.0N"MI1AW"SE;13Y[<)0\T^ZN%_>JUL6DB<#5/1<?X,99"2J5=0\\C7TDM
M<I>/#(]NE&K3)^@-7N5`_B#>BGG))GK,N>-3<71A"DW`[I>?!`(PBIN(%U3N
M[E+)0U=8SWG,TF%&F845%V9QAYQG%G6+#PV9S#Z<YE>@$)*=&::9FDQB)W?2
MFE'>V9'6%^<]>VZA2&Y,:*,54&*:;I=SC6P,R\S%1?8QBX!:4%HV/&,#,_5$
M<6:*G$6<RO_>>;L^;BIL^8)?.6;XCP73Y<Q`M[T8F[=DE&SK+Y[6#YP^]GK4
MB]8W[_'I0?N0MDJF;C,U3>I1N_)Y]1S?D!5"[//5.+*/U.TI#7P\4Y_8=96.
MKT8U4T!<SK"LD-*PGL4+K67+C]SD+G8EVMMG@-EZQIV&R7N->.7OT=*<$%LN
M_H\4E;?.SLBMW90@RQQ"X3+F&9+G?C?"=>V)<"^,U^]V-;6]K#(@"RJXK2:K
MZ7+*P%D34-O0+J2UZWE*:MHZ?`4_[,'MO)"4HQ@Y%2888!I'TV)*S5_Q[/(9
MQTHH5@O7C!WH>"T-4Y^`R\VK:>EWM;MZY(0SW<Z*UA%J6!Y"-->1HY3%MLAB
M56]Z]A;D.S6NQQG]QU6PJ>@D_W0!/<PUJ3<=X?SVMF';#FXJ0F1^XD3PN-Y9
MV&K;DM#5:V>G',UM,FUW"/SN,RF3+??%`W2>@F:\-L%YQ^0F<-R!23`)%^3;
MP+'7>D@W]0I)8[^X&Q-8/D;[K:\*^=7S,>Q68;VR_B'\8J8BK8]K[>!I:>WG
MW&F[N?*:VPRQ`\Y(?Z['96\\[),/;^&37OE1/_.?U\+UL>=/A6U&]637R?%'
M:ZG#.N4RM^;9XXI3V?GF+_TQS_^,,%$,$$3/'W@':DLI=CV)`5ITWFOO>/J6
MW.'/I[VD?1Y_0,O%J!_C39*1&6!LE1:RO<;*$->%F!!#"1YV@-U0,<9/L</H
MQ=R@55!SN=P5$98",ITDJ=D(`A0`YA7W89-8T1M>G,;RY1LP`9V"A9?PM0[E
ML06'D<*N(>#^\=4)WIG2!2%#X-B4>=3T34^TI1):B5)_Y%#O[<>_]*"]M<T3
M*I8PC1=<-,KIN-?2$6'+_CD6&)82]*7?$S:8UZD:&]5=9LW*K$%-5"`%;J6(
M4ZG5X]F8<<A@C06?#Q84[+'=&)I?D'64!T5<C*0:'C90ZP%:(PG@QX5$.MF<
M\=@.\-G?!JK/WBR8E2FA8Z$,(&YB(*:,Q4'@Y$E??045)=X7M('%")U7KDT<
M]NV@E+7.\5E.'QK>_GUB^)D@)1(<PC1?*+J8I<E1!F8>*G)4SMF&"_J7#H[,
M#+K/`QZ.%IH6:?5B]FD%R(C?#R+2%X+5UPG0-,Z6.`;CV?3<6/F:]NP4I%D6
MU_50=OB4'L*AZ4U-$+$A$Y94T*5BJ1BC$,6C#[K/$7H7^="<*0ZBOZV=(K9>
M_NP8'3EJV"@&TS:*(8?]U+41H.4=D9]=US>:WL\%("?BCY2)UXWAF9@IE-7Y
MGAMFW.7QHG2DF")*&]PP)%!A816R2T.2FDWRW,7IEM51&0!.9%X`#^VL$<=,
MF$=.(03.(4&QU1VR(/HURS`ZXP\68E,67E7&%D_BEQ_.XOM0TDUFE42:V7IU
MXE"^)'25W[Q!'.)1(_P\3AEM7@.ZXQI:T`;-)3ZJ`NHQ)7X,6S<"HU79(!`1
M#]`YDAG`U55^Y5RZDTOYFR-BF%>.I=(XCDFA6<5AT2])55YB&2KZH5JVF<F1
M%66VX,EAW0UNSK=$'J)M%68M(D\1'RZB7?O0%PXA_B825J;CU0HN9HRX*1,`
MK1FAJ5`6JIMPZN9N@1Z3#=;*0<Z0)*#..:-:B1;;<=X\,,-G0!C=2>';S2!A
MIA]M8F,!@B#&T`WOB>3P94MH6A70G%,';-A&2:48D4R%R1><Q5U%]F6=1&9>
M?1`A6I"EZ>)2-B,,4F=K<E8`/IW'^:4!UM+QW:(LFF3T;.0">4\#\4ULXI_N
MU1_\$5G'C6/A-8Q>>2(2*HY\[N?<:='Y*)>`"A&#YN(S+DMW5LQ6?%]I<J'?
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MJG&@GTH3<3'HZ:EIKT&98U9:SX"I@[$GX&'I0.$><[*8D6*K:`K$-A59^9$J
M6"[H#9E9ANS>F:RK93IELS:<1"'@=K8-C$5/3%$E6K7J"!U>8RHH:.VH9T6J
M_HSU'YXJ'%WAFTQ:(T3ZHR2.GAC^3G&B9_7-JXU(XHR&W9:]FF8ID-+U7%*-
MU'I**3K5YG\PH#>.J+=PIK]$FKTD+/+!HJ-)WH_>IL2AA7^&FO+QJ0"-G\D^
M#F`^E]8L*R$NK.@UDHP>+(V-5ZGM+/7<%G+69K`6ZUX%&FI>ZX+)H7YRZHTH
MIE6:I>*M7S:1X#4&+3@Z4L=*;*WEH,6VG_F\86>%3IB5YZ`0JD\.!2)>!4LR
M:YJ=4)Z&;:T68[J`J021*YJBXR96K=P9;9,@G85"3BG6U+2>&!H>V,]:CPKJ
M:=2:#TM-+C4E%'K![*92;%S$H)*JDK?636S"H]!._L'<RJSLC""@HBWJ&>V$
M.FTLH2CO=A[AE=;R9"G%%23]B6"3(FA@NF2V)J1#AE=)_EL`@>N%8>RV]*'/
M?DG,&N']W*-=FET%MJBN\LJMQ>DN(M:Y,2?%&E:[`EBY0J'JYEL><6Y([:KL
M4J^HR8@V#N?)N%P'>ABGC2?5=I%'NE%"3NX9IB-"%JTF^FWYJAR:EDG#3A!N
MOA-2T<_(S2_C*J[]%A%LSJ.]-DT<W@OES*=O29C<)FD97IPXE2U_#FHU0>W?
M7C`+_^)OF>FW'<I#.ND&5V_:=J&:QA7'UMTNY"R)&B)[R="\*:7#Y*N?</"Q
MJJ9`&2DC4>0RDF))8$I4_NZPE=''[0JP^N`?QMF1:UX,V5'IYI)7*VGF7L;>
M&ALLIDJQQ6;L9'TCIZ*P2$UJ!&MQ8GVP[YGP&2OG;,(@^OQ8JA8FQW;/ZMP)
MZ*(O6)XB%",OI2*K"+9CZ"FCJ.JQ$`9QM&)FY-+H:&;=;&T6D'V)MN:=B?$8
MR@+O\38O1<EA<LXP*&I,NS0:?!D3)A<;JK;G]?;QR$GG<UUA(O:PK)E3*5[8
M]&FOFS6R5&[5U,4?K]"R^-KR+<^46\JC'P.L[RXE%F/MN!2SYA8F#4Z;)N[G
ML!+?ISHKK7UF*,*9-PO5QTYSI_DJ>*HMH&[J:0S8^&;E@/IPN[YBMKJ)JD(R
M_GF!9@:?8$6*7/3",#Q[8Q<#L99>,[$^7O;\)OZ2F34;*_9EM+$6-,D!)$,J
MM/W.YT*CVSQOJ^U>\ZSNU77N'@!U\&VZL[1-5$BJGNA&B6^.M(`MINJ!-$ZG
MZP`WM/5J1IBN])_5WC#SGY9=&V4^6U%SKW0LL;-B91%;Z3V?ZQOW]/W2<Q!O
MXZ)-K_QE'M9V]:*&\$>AL0.6V&&"ZI$FK@8;KR23HR`#<#/N(\JM,E:?;13^
M+NL^!XPDLP['*#_+[:\^%1W^+;/`ITJ3[IZ2'D<G)EZ33Q!6]0&#VI)"\%O?
M-6%6:4E[\%X[$+[6+2H7%;P\L1':]%U)<V/;*/GV_D7*22`@WTR7KEX&WDK?
MN7`D"30F#\=1F_2_2B&QIBB;4I^4NJB#KBJO9=E!QDRHIC5-"^LH[NU+\32(
M&3;YE36/LL352#<8YL$F_W`V=PK&K605*RTGR:+6ONHVK]5Z>:BQ9;$NU&6F
M7K`Z=R9N#P_AKF_SI?9=$]GI;+5AGC#R'"9,9M\'0@]XZ<NE&JY=F=4*FR;Q
M-"])6N35#:1=5\Y2,[@^R^]^$Z,)WRX?Y^5F_O%><W*$F5=`67:7IK%7:J;P
MOFQ+UC==8I=]:7>5S61PL]1Y739FHV3P#7`(<W,+KO`7&[(K'XY#/>#'5A;*
MVF)^"O6#6]-\>_99TWB-_BOPUAZX7]O7AK]17I]JAZ>6/9V:YPX7.,?G.,<V
M\Q9DJ%':*1.VFN=Q>%,Y@UBYV4YK-LD4C.^WAWMW@<_C8KN9,6O@HO8;'0NU
M_!+<'8OYQ(&?]Y*N=C/CX@2HCA/.(#?@BN-96V\Y5YXTY+J>=\ZVT]J=&<LF
MG5Y2ULS>=TEY$W/GD;KLID.J6_?N*R]6\=+)J7\R+&NZHV>N.J$D2)958NMI
M=].@+&/Y$L<K%-THI+<I&>N1-:ZVX,ZZ;>$MA-OUD,&1`>LZN'$Z/YOT'SO7
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MNDQ\X)*1N"O/^8MGO;077$]Q%YJ+<9R/?>0XS.\.(!].`S(/>Y_RW=&CL"[E
M<'%M4MRT%Q5JGF?\G-5WOM.[9D$1?HV_(S%S8C5'_N*Q?.;I&CXS,U`Y-<^A
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M])&T-4PDK3.T2B1L&#`@R(Q:KA55.8.@/I0E1U8CES(.D'U!>1F#R;)G.%_%
M)HZJ@/*<.ERYRF9%FU8M36'`CL9$:H4HN;%"YW:ZJO&GQ64,!Q(58^SMV8PR
M_D]6P^=4F@N>F.P6Y7J4JBNLV:`UK$KWEL.HGE0FMI;3Y%K2I3D:%EK3&P.E
M)D-6Q<M3H[T>@#U^E")8IVF=)9,^G`;V:\5VSH3,-/WVGK_(23_)E*@NFANQ
MGGE?QTZFV4U3_(Q#4G[/-;_)!GN1#V;535L]XO.&[^?2<&?@3:EI#BY;*[)(
M?N'"@@^GC@R)ZB-!(O*JE-`0/"D[!Q_D@KO<T@.OC$I<*P@)K(`BJ+^VN,GK
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M-E]]PX5Q)@ZWRM-&>`7U;\UN82N//W>^&=>)7-')-<%E]TQ+V!.[:3*?J;CE
M44"O?!5XI7U')AF>-<T#_E$U0`@-:M4257TQ4!35C3"ZPWH$F>"X3!:HW6]K
M/<7$?FXU5$3+:"XYZ5(-_@]F/VJCCB]CBQWH:"LS]*7:EBS.X2NF'%9P8HIY
MEE$[:[%^^>)7+<M,&Z.Y5CKN2@?FLVRZC61/8<>:RSD*:66>&?`:O69P,?PH
MK#@;N)^4[,:4B2S;'X`%S/!QN2_?-U@H3X6:Q*Z6H[8W#PEI^5<A%UN2K'2M
M0SQQ8;C^6))#G[QZRQ>56QQSW;&#KZ\B?:>RS$<H+5H_EN>-LD+3[13S0#<G
M%9GI=<W.<V@C_Z9-1K['8'=W[TFC%3;K14\42IIM\TG<W]U;WV^.Y[;!K!RE
M_LLM=^Y'O_^FY/VEG=\-T[[;]P1HJM<QB3/S`0KI,$(Z>M$.1-1:F?D@.#;X
MM:9!SL,06)!V.>_XCFK7"-_:6&&_`98P1AN+SY\T)BO(82-T(A3>;=A7&6FQ
M0V"D:HJ/\`.5]:#F=,":G#;P%:MXD`E])D2B?!H3M6<`#%X?Q%_RTG:[*4&-
M>+6KG.R6!S[HH4LS#G&<`#?UP'<)#D"_Z-X6D[C&53P1:Z3H6[;21RBZ/4XW
MNZE>U1HX1L^-2B)>/,QX0L;&8<U0C4K<("$5::GA<8M_V]N-]")XK/,$+VH$
M*YZ4$MDPM0@'CCE<71A)."17G8@0H[3)(E5)O03>_BN,4TN?VY:X-ELU4G24
M!(FVS.C'!=''DZ`ACGI6F:9A%M.8F<BC_MBSK1LM4'(%.Y)N)JFGUIV&D;/S
M)2`A>4SQ5?.8WTPB%$]EOBQ&DX5(>DTSW2C%TO&/@A`"$GT"R2)W6@Z<\;IG
M/K]7-/VY$U.F!%T0Y;BW#KE,0K5#)8J4THE'7?)?^H1H1,$903\Y:5O8.ED,
M\P88OMVP2VC$(P[1E2P$M>EZ6I-H2E6Z1O>U$X\*/!ZLY&A+2[Z1-<@49K[H
ME#U[?F>E/P6J&&'9SUO^$VTTG2G[DEI.Y*TS<QK<21K_D]"@5M6J:/D9`HU:
MMW/RJ7R,:FD]M2A#JC;J_I!IDNI5U;I6WC%)0@;[*"TUF3>C(72.QL);'^=V
MF;+NC*U_!6PG%?>Y)I)S'HH:GW<&2UBDT;%_*>UK8"4[V1G%;&(-U,LY!Y8P
MQ!:P<S%M:2RY2EG2EM:TX2+J(Y4:(.!EKYF:Y"B@^+C-T];6MJ<5)]O,8KM6
M/9.Q>.V<'F%9M9VE];;'1>Y*PQHPRG&.DPR+Y00W9U%O56\^R<5N=M7:2A52
M#J?6S:Q8R[=`9BI,2P0]JW;5NUZY[;&B%=UM#>/RPL4R\[K,E=K+;A@S]O;7
MOT+]''4/FAJ,6JV*ZAKO'?]40.7E-[+_A7"$UP*=@]GTO@D#:5<K&9N!MD^8
M_IO]D.>,*V$2EQB>^+4A29/Q/[7E5ZF]%2Z1SI*Q3(S8Q#?&L5EG5SI1VM2P
MZC.OY<"ZI`Y[$V\I[E:.E;QD1.K7E?#%)D/(6%?.!EA*/PL:3=:YEP`RV<M?
M/N-R':M:EKT6IPS#<I&#RS@M^M.\,`1SG.5,S-FNSX"A3>PRJ>A$-;TV913U
MZ3@C-V="%]J9<67N03_:.$M*E\%E)".+^4Q#1QK:TI<^<`==>&<_Q^:S(M9L
M5(],X`.GL(?CPW2JE^PRII+/@&?J;(7QJCRJ]?%IMZ$*9F>39E7WFL2QDF\6
M%4NON^TWH#+%,IZON.59<UFT>O5UM-7;RD2[4I9#_IS<0Z'XJEN'MJ<P`X^C
M66UC:9>;LE@*MCI7R]AE%]2<LHUQ+9$G7/K2&'$/-G>^5<E`#U?[U!E`6;/5
MK>>+'O79((;O7*478F,Z3]\/[X)3$^Q2ZG9ZO_76$UQUMCV#^L7;+93E/14+
M<9+7.,/V[9BBS?QQ74H:2Z'6<UVGFUG^7DO8;`13,$L.\5J+]]I,]+$X"^[J
MF#KMV6SNL>0&U>=!LQ1D0MMYM)E]RK&V?--\+>>H,UX(3UEXJ#5%>7G+K/1)
MAU.;_(WZI8==:K]MI]5(;F37#U1Q:5K;J5%,YYK16YRE;Q)S.QIYVJ6-\@T[
M&\I'C?)C&`[<GG7TU&VN_N2:&8]A62,QE%`7?*$/'WFO^WS1#-ZQE1/URTFI
MQXT)]R!=(<-AW7KO80OY=N9OK/<H1;K'<I>B^YI#U*-]/H-E-'W<>\:Q&0.-
MG9:_X,]E+^>OPEB(5^<CD35T874Z=IZ2XM5H=.G;MF%+RDOE\SX]"?OT+C^Y
MW9VDXT_N4-R<(,J'4O#T+]B:6[PWR6)57\#1"=O"[&XX;N\R\XLPRJ,F_&N^
M:ILFQWLKF,LF72&<%=HSM-D[+"*_&(.\OW,XV,,\`3R_JS,Z#&LB,@,@3M.T
MS<$L'5&62)F5K^L\X],_IANNO&NO^ANYV.-`Y**VF?(Y<#L\'Z(ZH$L]WW!`
M_C'1LO?A,>*;I0R;M9#:I<2!&T'SKAO$K1%LM5<20=X3,-S0F.*CGP6D/PM:
MP=^K.`TS)YO;B&^QMW<Z(S3YFBK#-RE4I+:Q0&"[/Z;K.I>:%^T3,`H#I>=X
M$\0K*E9+E:O1M0V<.#5<0Y0*#%+S(3B4+$130O8KP3J[+DW+%$"S1&#ZHB',
MQ%'#'@(LP0:CLO[CK<#)'4%K1$<$K.:CO$.\PIO;OBR<D^<CO[`IJ5WYO1U+
M-W*B-#LSL*S#L\!I.G#ACX]Y0U7<)PEDO$9#,=`)'?LC05AK/^?8H=_P-^D:
MLP93E+';NG<#L0%J*'XJ/V1<)83#)'4#0??`ID?2_L7?P4+H$94O'"DZC+EU
MDY<D_,8->ZGI>0>-LS)R!*K8"JBA:T;V>SXK!$*Z@SXP(3TPM"4ZM")\$L2B
M6SRF.48O0*5J++B+!$B2^<$W:T'=*\-K?+5,%$EB&#\PNCP)JD.]ZD00BB*-
MRC:_RQPP4DB.[,BEB3=TE#7[4T!)Y#1:?#7,\!HP)`S#,L>L41M(7+"7(S?7
M"Y1TS,E\HCYER"B+^C2/<C*K4SGUNRF'B92ZN!*OFZ(##,H@^S"Z(@R<[*05
M1+6I_*;B&3<4VKWM&SI,'$%*/(<[>!0BS*V@^S[)"S0C$Y<C\BNXS$EGHSG.
M4ZT]>ZLK]$)?N;TKVT3I_J@U'MRZ(:-"\3$VLL,+!4),<DS`G^LY@\3#A#S(
MU`(^ZDN'_-C!0AS$FUL]LJR2IH0VEF#+T,PQ@IJX('RRJB2.5XQ,)&O$/5))
M75.\"QRO<Q1,\/(L900<Z-+-J(NKP,M+U'PRCP$ZB(%%!'REFRD]K^PVW=I%
MK;-!F2DO0CS,Z2RY[F+,(DPQUAPPX>3.>;,ZJ=F,L#//BZ`O=^NF\<PJ7GP;
M_)F@W&3/<UN4ZE)+H5S+:-S*U*P+)RO,]@,X[IPY(4.Z`9/%%S.>L;JD_1G,
MG1C'`[VM[C.D[*2XIHI&^C3)G$G(B]JIC;PR@6.T2WD,UA$:C).KYKI-"350
M_A)=I.K\RMWS1EM8KI+,FO?S-_[+S).Z3XH$/G6LL+4#.YY2S_B4C;Y#*D0$
MTM*"KL;,0I%\QJ"<NS*=3`_32L.;18($J2/]S%_Y1D1!MZC<#_%<TS,9T/[L
MTD?,-,RD1]AD4*'<RUR<1>TLT$`4OGF#P9`#+_WK19D$4>ULO-;C.U)+CCU-
M1B,+O1XL2)^<3'_QU+\$QCYSN$B2(0Y=QBQMCYE432WEJ*X<U1:4U%/=FNQ<
M0$RUIL#\MTVS4\]#TE#=SFV+K30-U%^=R3P:R/[I3&A"IGRDL8\T3<S4'D!I
M(XRT4B[D4ERU'N\S41&\R>IZS$#U5(?B2E*5S:ML_C=]%,?Y<K4I.E,B[4Z@
M-%1*C46WRU93J\0U%5:*:T(L"DTYG"Y1+<Y)!<K<"L/ZK+V$!4Z[NM-.Y$E?
M)%84*B1`W"CH"]8V5;-WXSXX(T:0,]?&_+A;$M6.3$5[@L9PA5#=Z\(5;<8[
MQ$MC?:%;4\+_@3O;.[V#K%@63+_3O,X`RR1(?`5[TTL(U4<ZHU0!G#K0`TPU
M/4GG<DLBS:#A[,YM>[N`K32R:RU9?4B))9Z8U<%*RY@K2J:6Q3IJRA]_?4_<
MP[^IE1^Q],7VK,<3'=?(K!.3#%<Q1,AXG41)O;NZA=@D2[I0+,UA);B_;54I
M[4:[`ME=N]<S$U'?L]"D_KJ4N1Q3DG/5GK18^70;%HTC6.59D@S)@GVL9%NL
M_7O8"57.O$(?X"0/4+5)X</*#V4D9'7;=U38VONBI^.Q4R1,[?+!8X/(<X79
M"L366_753PI=-XO8)$U.;BL[]"O2=`0TGM7+X%5=LL1&LSU;-WQ0YV*X.&59
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MO?W$+UQ;U9LUS;TM5^.%SH2"VC8>P[O\82SDEXJ%U\T[H6$RWPZUVJ5%7]`E
MU+$DHD6639ZTW@WN/52MLNV,6YUAH3)K1Y5#34.^3M[;0)]QJPSVON0=RAYM
M&-ZD2QA3X^.#P:>,EK$E2N&]V\`MR4KFVQ(QY0R<Y,K[3@=S7J6T0-\"WC$,
MM2DN2UD<Y`E..C*\XO!U6">-+R]$3HJY7YI#8L#M_L4I6RI=7ICF#3;%'#@_
M)EMBTU?JW5T4_6-;[3<KEJ_E?+QT1<.--6/,)60#S+I&Q5D]O29M3LL"H]OB
MR^:(M#,QB])4C-04GLVR8A=_(M;^!=;%!63.+65(B]WU-;A+EF1:9E+5LYV^
M$^C\#=.5BV9H%J\Y/<$Q-KE;U<;]U:^.+L6:!ESGS=K0'>5;AH(R?=KSE#%[
M?F`9/>1)UL,VK,\&EF)P_4#&:#N6+M;5C6B,U<_A&^!PCL@XMDM@ON5YEM!T
M#E]W;1K+W-LQIKJUU6`(WEGBW.<415L]YK!-'M<Z/%BASN)?YF!YY>3!;5+,
M'=,*7+^!%=]5%=&9W4]._D;</^VMQ%NQ9C;K4JI68O;?LW7I:J$M=.55MF7=
ML5AH%_V1>^[&^[7DSVYIRVS;32U;ZI7K4JWF=G)#UW;!@0Y@;TU4_!VLT0Z_
M-;:^Z!-N>3A)FK92%R7`R_;`]#W43([J++XSCG9.2`IK$*W<=UUM$@S#+@1K
M"8KMARYD0Z+/#DN1W*4I@C3'C-KH+6[-0S7L+:P^N*XICRP[5*T'3HW@NGM%
M@O;F"*U@(%8Q-I[B.A-P2F9?!![FSU;2B_WNH>#KSOL;##I"9L-/.[2^43Y=
M]SU?]^UJSRQ:I8G?)4R2CW3GW_7@J/YK4T;833SPD_6N\>[K%2YP=C3FL);N
M_G\>;XX38TYMZ_SL%2:660\V0@+'2Y<5-1PG8;X&;B;THY?69[12[`+\5@K%
M;+K^Z^AN$!Y]Y\R>K1MN94!^:NV>X2W_:.P67D"$Z,!C16N4;7(&:8';U9N-
MXR7]P?NZZDY3/!P&EZ\FV`#DSYB#5UB62U?VW__N;W(%[$@^TH45TJ:MX+V.
M\1:]6,#\9THW$5)`P><A7WYK9ZH>Z3B'/(,EZY6-1=6V<]QQ)EFNZX!A<2B=
M$6Q]O.?L8_>+]!;?RAHOU&81<V-.V5->\=JU=<^MY^+]U"B^[32>YZ-464TO
MO98<S>3T5NYE]#Y'2`!D[SD%Y35&\V.?5I&(6(,V_MJ.&^KO-'(G1FX5;BK6
M7N^5,'0V9G`&_>AVE_="?^%V$W9E9%ID_O+NB#Z-!:W-I+=4WEHW5?`0EG6G
MG6\CC,#[N1=57L]/5C_0Y%PM+&('M69AOOA@G_#LAG&AGO<<IV<RG?,ZPF*,
M1KO\'+_F007GZR'C%,@;9UYKSV,3_\DWNCCJD%,5DY3DXU5>EW"4-W;"\[@*
MIV*!QW=J+G92+^WN_GCK@G0?QW(4_WBGUFF-=_$'+UH^EL$4/QP,LMWZK4*C
M.\V(3]C?>GF2!-/@7=[-B%!U#CX$O_KO:N2;?^,.K_6I_]5VAWMZ!_#_5?=Z
MMWJ-7VKD1=CK9>)L-^VN_O>E+FIJU/WN</ZZ_G9Q3;;XJ2[BJ/5TR)9Y-@'Z
MI]=J\M9PN=7C%IUV;Y8[JC=TOYYF[=MKME_WP)=W'M_Q._?HD53V!_T17.Q<
MPV%WL%U--`7^F;;IOVQ'Z);1XZ6GONGANHSZ+@;3/>'?N9;,L79=6"4]E53^
M&<_IO1]MU?=^0VUZC/])DQ==JL?]=;;8Z&7S'!JILUO&!DU0.1ZJ#:=_ZT;H
MTE=*C)=7@V>*$)S0N24`)):XVLX0I28GI`]8??OV76@L(%:*THE]9JN@V=&J
ML!C/;)1[;L5L'!;.$;R1#C)DDO1B+D<C6["2J0I]N>)ERMUZNT,M%_@5;\6X
M_J<S3`:C0+Q5NXH-_^YCO#N__]+2.H&!:48427T:$U`IB'^.A(]PD),\?X6,
M?G,K6)AH64<OBTBA2D=+AXN),EEF'YF-H3V3;9B/5WN)J9%KF["?AJ)0)EZO
M>B6*>)UZ6LO)E+K/-7`UP(=KRKW64\Z1T8#0VFHTW8S>.C<6<2G.J594IJ:Z
MUTX1@YGE9YUTO^C/5K>]6+'#IHZ2I4I$[LD+%K!,'7RTS*'1)I'0I1DG)!W;
M*%&?L5L(.68<9I#AN%\<+Q)$I)((,DV-1I4J)0\>O"@A03:4PXW/QVPD^?7,
M*5!5R7!#R@$5)$H-*7,(C;;KR%/6RF/56IXB.?)D_C>AL>9AS!I2!55OX")J
MG*6P;;JPM`3)5(*1ILPH9'?F*P+0JA"??CWZM>A6V`\PP:S9$KS/WM-5`Y<"
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MIAAA9\G]J-*")+)WT8-%<8A2/#,M1^!AAEF8U!PU`K&3EE;:TR)H768)(7TI
MS?BFDP%*AMYT@+WD$!_"%6C>A#2.>$<Q(KZ958^"=C4EEY0!^I$Q!?F9"Q67
MXC0F:/54)E^3-C;3#QV.$KD6J#@R^1B6EDXSYJ#[!2D)I)[)VJ.AC+Y8*V?>
MG2GG-R0ZXF%%.$9UYG^DE;E/<(1>:,1Y`/9AY:TZ+:H0:Q]2$Z*?XV2T74\`
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0]L;ZY[6@LL*75&U^40``.^KE
`
end


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54381
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <1r1887INNcsd@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:

> In article <1r0v4c$i1j@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)  
> writes:
> > In <1r0poqINNc4k@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:
> > 
> >   According to KIKK radio in Houston, all nine survivors are either in hos-
> > pitals or in jails.  Including the two who allegedly helped start the 
> >fires.
> 
> In the FBI briefing, no mention was made of having the fire starters in  
> custody.

  Which one?  The one yesterday, or has there been another?  If it was yester-
day, catch up.

  IMO, 90% of all "conspiracy" charges are easily explained by the simple
fact that in these days of instantaneous news transmission, all kinds of
stuff gets said when people really just don't know what the hell's going on.
Then the story changes once the facts are in and suddenly cries of "its all a 
whitewash!" start.  Naturally, everybody wants to cover his/her ass.

> > > Why the total isolation?
> > 
> >   Well, it wasn't TOTAL, 100% isolation.  After the lawyer snuck in the 
> > first time, they (the FBI, etc) let him go back inside several times, in-
> >cluding, I think, the day before the final assualt.
>
> Why not his mother?  Why not the media?

  Damnfino.  I just tend to take issue with absolute statements that are ob-
viously wrong on their face and tend to inflame, not inform.  The isolation
was significant, but not total.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54382
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: FBI Murders (was Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN )

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:

>I have believed all along that they could not let them live, the 
>embarrassment  to the BATF and the FBI would've been too severe.

>Remember, this was a suspicion of tax-evasion warrant.  There were no  
>witnesses, except the FBI.  All information filtered through the FBI.  All 
>they had to do was allow one remote controlled pool camera be installed 
>near the  building, and the press could've done their job, and would've 
>been able to back the FBI's story with close up video, while incurring no 
>risk to the press.  Unless they did not want the public to see something.  
>The complete lack of any  other source of information other than the 
>FBI really causes me concern. 

>Sick to my stomach, and getting sicker from all the Government apologists

Well put, Jim.  I am as concerned about the media's complicity in this
growing coverup.  Can you imagine the media outrage, the lawsuits, the
investigations that would emit if the government kept the media away from
any other story?  Particularly if a Republican administration had been
behind it.  What's going on here?

Let's look beyond the initial blunder and examine what happened next.
I'm a student of human phychology, particularly in the area of psy-ops
because I've found some of the techniques to be useful in business
negotiations.  That puts me firmly in the amateur ranks.  This AMATEUR
knows that the first thing to do when sizing up the opponent is to do a
psychological profile on him.  You can bet your ass the FBI had
professionally done profiles on Koresh.  Koresh's behavior was
emminently predictable.  It is typical of people who move away from
civilization to be willing to fight to the death to preserve their
isolation.  It would also be typical, given Koresh's religious
orientation, for such an individual to interpret a government assault as
the apocalypse.  Suicide is as an acceptable alternative to being
consumed in the apocalypse.

IMHO, the FBI knew all this and decided after 50 days of concentrated
psy-ops to initiate that apocalypse.  I believe they chose a course of
action designed specifically to push Koresh over the edge while publicly
appearing to be acting reasonably.  They KNEW that Koresh considered the
tanks to be the Chariots of Fire mentioned in the Book of Revelations.
They KNEW that sending tanks, oops, combat engineering vehicles,
obstensibly to perform "gas insertions" (love that NewSpeak) WOULD push
him over the edge.

Look at some supporting evidence.  Koresh's attorney mentioned on TV
earlier today (4/20) that one of Koresh's major concern was the biblical
role of the tanks stationed around the compound.  The FBI (through Reno
on Larry King last night and at the news conference this morning)
claimed to have listening devices in the compound.  If that was true
they KNEW their actions were driving him to the brink.  They KNEW they
were pushing the Davidians toward mass suicide.  Any rational and
reasonable agency NOT interested in killing those people would, at
the first sign of preparations for suicide, have pulled completely back and
would have gotten rid of all the armor.  Instead they continued with the
"gas insertion" right up to the point where flames appeared.  The image
that will remain etched in my mind is that of the tank strutting back
and forth in front of the burning compound, gloating over the kill.

Let's step back and assess how this thing could have been ended without
bloodshed.  This technique would have required a law enforcement agency
interested in constitutionally enforcing the law and in the preservation
of life instead of achieving a military victory and of vengence.

The way to have nabbed Koresh was simply to have announced a pull back,
abandoned the assault, torn down the concertina wire and removed the
armor, maintained covert surveillance of the compound and then exploited
his ego to flush him out.  Exploiting his ego would have been simple.  A
simple invite or two from the tabloid talk shows to come on TV and tell
how he whipped the US government would have been something he could not
have resisted.  He could have then been nabbed when he left the
compound.  Simple, clean and safe but because it would have required the
FBI to execute a tactical retreat and would have deprived them of the
revenge they sought, it was totally out of the question.  Not without
all that testesterone floating around.  After all Jannet Reno had to
show the world how big her balls are.

Yesterday was a sad, sad day for the American system.  I am sick to my 
very soul.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Lee Harvey Oswald: Where are ya when we need ya?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54383
From: auerbach@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
> In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>>but here goes:
>>
> In short Mr. Gorman (I am assuming Mr. as a title because I don't think a 
>woman would be stupid enough to make this post) I don't know what episode of CNN you
 ^^^^^

What an incrediblt sexist remark! Come now, Mike, what ever possessed you to
make such a un-PC remark?  I hope all women out there reading this are as
incensed as I am. Remember, WOMAN ARE JUST AS GOOD AS MEN!!!! 

Women stand up for your right to be just as stupid as men. In fact, insist on
every oppurtunity to be even more stupid than men! You've got the right, use
it!

Hey, it's a slow afternoon and I really don't want to get back to that
report...;)

BTW: mega-smileys for the humor impaired...

Karl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54384
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
>> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
>> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear gassed.
>> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
>> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
>> 
>
>Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  

Unworthy of comment.

>Humans died  
>yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
>actions  
>they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  

Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
That is undeniable truth.  My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion 
to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.

>You seem to say  
>they got what they deserved.

I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
wanted and put into motion themselves.

I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair 
from the start.

>Jim
>--
>jmd@handheld.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
>that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
>"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
>in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
>WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54385
From: mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r0mtoINNa59@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Gordon Storga writes:
>
>>Gentleman, are we also forgetting the near genocide of the Native American
>>for the barbaric act of being "heathen" (i.e. a non-Christian) by a
>>predominantly Christian government.  That's a little over 200 years as I
>>recall.  I'd say that for the most part it was religious persecution
>>(their religion dictated their lifestyle).
>
>This is a stretch.  In fact, a great many of the persecuted Indians were
>Christian, a great many.  It would be simpler to state the obvious, that
>white people wanted land the Indians dominated or threatened.  I really
>don't think the government cared a hill of beans about the Indians' religion.

My Native American Girlfriend asks: "If the government really doesn't
'care a hill of beans' about our religion, how come they're still
busting us for it in Oregon, Washington, and a few other places?
You'd be a Christian, too, if the U.S. Army marched you into church
at gunpoint."
-- 
=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=
Michael McClary						mcclary@netcom.com
For faster response, address electronic mail to:	michael@node.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54386
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In <donbC5sL24.Ewu@netcom.com> donb@netcom.com writes:

> Anyway, here's how I see the Waco affair; I'd be interested in other peoples'
> interpretations...
> 
> 1. Koresh and his people were basically minding their own business.
> 2. Some weapons violations may have been committed and I wouldn't have
>    disapproved of prosecuting him for those violations.  However, I think
>    the BATF was criminal for starting negotiations with a military style
>    assault and for firing into a house where there were children and other
>    noncombatants.
> 3. I don't see they couldn't just leave a token guard on the place and wait
>    the BDs out; I don't approve of the tear gas approach and, if it caused
>    the fire to be started, I think the FBI agent responsible should spend
>    10-20 years in jail.

  I think the legal term would be "negligent homicide"

> 4. However, if Koresh's response to the tear gas was to kill everyone there,
>    I hold him largely responsible for their deaths.


  Well, it's nice to see someone with a brain, a general lack of paranoia, and
a willingness to put his thoughts in public.  I tend to agree with all you have
said.

  "Never assume foul motives when stupidity will do." -- Jim's Corrolary to 
						          Occam's Razor

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54387
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Letter To David Skaggs

Here is a letter I sent to David Skaggs, (Dem, CO).  Before anybody says
something, yes the letter is a bit "sharp" in tone.  I have been writting
reasonable and polite letters to him for years, and all I get in return
in the HCI party line.  Since he already is NRA F rated, I don't think that
upsetting him will harm the cause.  Sorry if you disagree, but recent events
in Texas REALLY have me pissed.

-------------------
							April  20, 1993
Representative Skaggs,

Recently I wrote to you regarding my outrage over the tactics used by the
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, (BATF), in Texas.  In your response
you stated that "Events in Texas underscore the need for stricter gun control
legislation to keep guns out of the hand of groups such as the Branch Davidians.
My question to you is, "what grounds would you use to deny them access to 
firearms?"  Best I can tell this statement underscores your apparent total
ignorance of the subject, and highlights your personal bias against firearms.
I say this because there are only two possible paths of "gun control" which you
could have been referencing.

Either:
1) You were talking about their access to semi-automatics firearms.  In this
case I should point out that semi-automatic firearms are legal in most areas of
this Country, including Texas and Colorado.  In addition the members of the
"cult" have never been convicted of any crimes which would deny them the ability
to purchase these weapons.  So under what grounds would you deny them these
guns?  Their religion?  The fact they they live in a large group alone by
themselves?  Because you consider them to be a cult?  Maybe I consider your
Church to be a cult!

This line of reasoning by you borders on the concept of "thought crimes."  You
and Pat Robertson should really get along.

2) You were referring to the ALLEGED FULLY automatic weapons possessed by the
"cult."  Under current US law, FULLY automatic weapons have been covered by
some of the strictest gun control laws in this Nation.  So if David Koresh
illegally possessed them, he would have had to circumvent some of the strictest
laws we have.  How will more laws help?  By the way, it has been reported that
David Koresh possessed a Federal Firearms License which would have permitted 
him to possess FULLY automatic weapons.  If true, the 85 people who perished
Monday in the fire, died so that the Federal government could collect a couple
hundred dollars in taxes on guns David Koresh didn't declare.

I have heard claims that they were "stockpiling weapons."  Yet considering the
number of people in the complex, even 200+ weapons would not have been out of
line with gun ownership statistics for all of Texas.  What's next?  A siege of
Dallas/Ft Worth for alleged "stockpiling?"

Face it David Skaggs, You have voted for virtually EVERY gun control law that
has passed through Congress, yet you claim that you are only for "reasonable"
restrictions.  Bull****!   Handgun Control Inc. is struggling to maintain
250,000 PAID members, while the NRA has just exceeded 3,000,000 members.  They
are still growing at a rate of 2,000 new members per day.  Driving around YOUR
district I see NRA stickers every day.  In eight plus years of living here I
have only seen ONE HCI bumper sticker.  When you vote for your "reasonable"
gun control laws, are you really representing your district, or are you
representing Sarah Bradys'?


					Thank You,




					William J. Vojak





							April  20, 1993
Representative Skaggs,

Recently I wrote to you regarding my outrage over the tactics used by the
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, (BATF), in Texas.  In your response
you stated that "Events in Texas underscore the need for stricter gun control
legislation to keep guns out of the hand of groups such as the Branch Davidians.
My question to you is, "what grounds would you use to deny them access to 
firearms?"  Best I can tell this statement underscores your apparent total
ignorance of the subject, and highlights your personal bias against firearms.
I say this because there are only two possible paths of "gun control" which you
could have been referencing.

Either:
1) You were talking about their access to semi-automatics firearms.  In this
case I should point out that semi-automatic firearms are legal in most areas of
this Country, including Texas and Colorado.  In addition the members of the
"cult" have never been convicted of any crimes which would deny them the ability
to purchase these weapons.  So under what grounds would you deny them these
guns?  Their religion?  The fact they they live in a large group alone by
themselves?  Because you consider them to be a cult?  Maybe I consider your
Church to be a cult!

This line of reasoning by you borders on the concept of "thought crimes."  You
and Pat Robertson should really get along.

2) You were referring to the ALLEGED FULLY automatic weapons possessed by the
"cult."  Under current US law, FULLY automatic weapons have been covered by
some of the strictest gun control laws in this Nation.  So if David Koresh
illegally possessed them, he would have had to circumvent some of the strictest
laws we have.  How will more laws help?  By the way, it has been reported that
David Koresh possessed a Federal Firearms License which would have permitted 
him to possess FULLY automatic weapons.  If true, the 85 people who perished
Monday in the fire, died so that the Federal government could collect a couple
hundred dollars in taxes on guns David Koresh didn't declare.

I have heard claims that they were "stockpiling weapons."  Yet considering the
number of people in the complex, even 200+ weapons would not have been out of
line with gun ownership statistics for all of Texas.  What's next?  A siege of
Dallas/Ft Worth for alleged "stockpiling?"

Face it David Skaggs, You have voted for virtually EVERY gun control law that
has passed through Congress, yet you claim that you are only for "reasonable"
restrictions.  Bull****!   Handgun Control Inc. is struggling to maintain
250,000 PAID members, while the NRA has just exceeded 3,000,000 members.  They
are still growing at a rate of 2,000 new members per day.  Driving around YOUR
district I see NRA stickers every day.  In eight plus years of living here I
have only seen ONE HCI bumper sticker.  When you vote for your "reasonable"
gun control laws, are you really representing your district, or are you
representing Sarah Bradys'?


					Thank You,
					William J. Vojak

---------------------------

                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54388
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 5.

Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 5.

Monday, April 19, 1993 was the fifth day of the trial.

Synopsis: Government informant Kenneth Fadeley testified that
Randy Weaver sold him two shotguns in violation of the National
Firearms Act of 1934.  U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge
asks jurors not to hear accounts of the Waco fire because
of possible influences on the Weaver/Harris case.

The testimony of FBI Special Agent Greg Rampton apparently
ended without further incident, as it was mentioned neither
by KTVB nor the _Idaho Statesman_.

The day was highlighted by the testimony of Kenneth Fadeley,
who had been posing as an outlaw biker and illegal guns person
named Gus Magiosono.  Fadeley testified that he was acting as
an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
in his dealings with Randy Weaver.

Fadeley began by stating that he had met Weaver in 1987 at an
Aryan Nations summer conference in Hayden Lake, Idaho.  The two
then met again October 11, 1989 (note the huge separation in
time) at a restaurant in Sandpoint, Idaho, to begin a weapons
transaction.  He stated that Weaver had said, "He felt like he
(Weaver) was being prepared to do something dangerous for the
White cause."

The two later met October 24, 1989 behind the restaurant and
later went to a city park to make the sale.  During this second
meeting, Fadeley was wearing a small recording device to
tape the conversation.  Weaver allegedly showed him an H&R 12-
gauge shotgun with a 13-inch barrel and an overall length of
19.25 inches.  He additionally showed a Remington 12-gauge
shotgun with a 12.75-inch barrel and an overall length of
24.5 inches (NFA requires minimums of 18 inches for barrel
length and an overall length of 26 inches).  On tape, Weaver
is reported to have said that he could perform better work once
his machine shop is set up.  The two then discuss the possibility
of future sales.  Fadeley then counts out three hundred dollars
for the two guns and promises the balance of one-hundred fifty
dollars when they next meet.  (Note that the ATF could have
simply arrested him here.  Why did they wait until January 1991 -
over a year later - to arrest him?  This is not explained).

The next meeting took place on Nov 30, 1989.  Fadeley stated that
his "source" had only come up with one hundred dollars instead
of the one-hundred fifty he'd promised.  At this point, Weaver
suspected he was dealing with an informant, "I had a guy in
Spokane tell me you were bad."  Fadeley managed to convince
Weaver otherwise.

The _Idaho Statesman_ states explicitly that three tapes were
made of conversations with Randy Weaver.  Thus, each of these
meetings must have been recorded.  However, the _Statesman_ also
reported that a tape of a telephone conversation involving Vicki
Weaver (Randy Weaver's wife) was played to the court.  There must
have also been phone taps.

These tapes were played to the court via both headphones and
loudspeakers under the objections of Gerry Spence, Weaver's
attorney.  Spence said to a KTVB reporter that he wanted to
make sure that the government proved its case, "...if it has a
case at all..." according to the rules.

Randy Weaver tore off his headphones and wept when he heard his
wife's voice on the tape.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge asked jurors not to hear
accounts of the Waco fire because of possible influences on the
Weaver/Harris case.  Exactly how such information could affect
this trial is not explained.

Other notes: Sunday evening there was a report on KTVB concerning
Kevin Harris.  Unnamed agents within the FBI admit that they are
surprised that Kevin Harris is still alive.  First, they were
surprised that he survived the initial gunshot wound(s) sustained
in the initial firefight at the Y-junction.  Later, when Randy
Weaver was struck by sniper fire the sniper had reported that
Harris had been struck (not Weaver).  Finally, there was a report
that the FBI agent who killed Vicki Weaver believed he was aiming
at Kevin Harris instead.  (This is what was reported).  Critics
are charging that the FBI was blatantly trying to eliminate the
only non-government witness to the deaths of Samuel Weaver and
Deputy Marshal William Degan.  Some local people believe that
Harris's survival is simply due to divine intervention.

Tuesday, April 20, 1993 will be the sixth day of the trial. 
Kenneth Fadeley's testimony is scheduled to continue. 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54390
From: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Subject: Clipper Chip

I thought that the Clipper Chip that was posted to t.p.g (sorry, I lost
the original post) was a joke.  I really did.  I didn't believe it for
a second.  But on the way to work this morning, I heard about it on NPR.

This scares me almost as much as the doublespeak emanating from the
FBI and BATF in Waco.


 ***   Paul Eric Stoufflet
 ***   Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center
 ***   internet: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
 ***   All opinions are my own

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54391
From: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Subject: Re: Die Koresh Die!

In article <1r04h8$q5a@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> tim@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) writes:
>	I was hoping that --however the situation was resolved-- the
>property would remain intact, so the gov't could sell it to help pay for the
>hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses incurred having to babysit
>Krazy Koresh & his flock of sheep.
>

In some South American countries, after political undesirables disappeared,
the family would get a notice of death and a bill for the disposal
of the body.  You apparently think that would be a good idea.

The Federal Government initiated this action against Koresh and his
followers, surrounded them for 51 days, engaged in psychological
warfare, used heavy military equipment against US citizens on
US soil; and now that the compound caught fire while they were
pumping in CS gas after knocking holes in the building; disavows
all responsibility.  Big Brother is NOT always right.


 ***   Paul Eric Stoufflet
 ***   Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center
 ***   internet: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
 ***   All opinions are my own

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54394
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

In article <donbC5sL69.F7I@netcom.com>, donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

> It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from
> the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search
> warrant AND an arrest warrant.

Check again.  You may find that the arrest warrant was issued AFTER the
first firefight.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54395
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>
>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
>
>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.
>
>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.
>


	I HOPE THAT YOU ARE IN THE WAY OF THE NOBLE FEDERAL ENFORCERS and
are blown away accidently by the governments goons.

You would cheer the death to 25 childern?

This is the sort of person who served as a death camp guard.
--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54397
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <KEVIN.93Apr20085431@axon.usa>, kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn) writes:
> In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> >
> > Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
> > by cult members.
> 
> Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire
> was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away,
> we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's
> claims in this matter.

Moreover, the BATF has admitted having agents in the compound, and as
far as I have been able to ascertain, those agents were still in the
compound when the first shots were fired.  For all we know, these two
people may BE the agents, who would certainly be unlikely to stay around
and "cook" with the faithful...

Assuming the two people in question were even in the compound at all.

Maybe I sound paranoid, but I watched Janet Reno last night harping on
how much David Koresh was a big, bad child abuser, and I kept wondering 
why she -- much less BATF -- wanted us to infer that she had any 
jurisdiction over such accusations in the first place.

I'm POSITIVE that the "sealed warrant" is not for child abuse.  What was
it for?  Peobably weapons violations.  Janet Reno didn't say WORD ONE
last night about weapons violations.  Why?  Because she knows that such
a case is no longer believable?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54398
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:

> > THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!

> Is this guy serious????

> If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media
>    for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts 
>    are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe). 

>    Besides, a majority of 
>    these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
>    this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp). 

Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.

You sick bastard.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54399
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:

> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
> in Texas. 

Do YOU eat all your food cold?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54400
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Incompetent law enforcement can kill


Ever since the siege at Waco started the FBI spokesman has been
stressing how unstable and paranoid David Koresh was.  He stressed how
likely it was the the Branch Davidians would commit mass suicide.  He
was concerned with the safety of the children.
 
What did the FBI do to defuse the situation,  Did they try to reassure
Koresh?  DId the FBI offer medical assistance to the BD?  Did the FBI
offer them a supply of water when the BD pump stoped working?  Did the
permit Koresh to communicate with anyone outside the compound?
 
What the FBI did was harass the Branch Davidians as much as possible.
They kept powerful lights shining on the compound, shut off their
electrical power, put their pump out of action, assaulted their ears
with loud noise, cut off their communication with the outside and kept
limiting their permitter.  The stated goal was to put pressure on
David Koresh.
 
Was the FBI attempting to get Koresh to surrender or were they hoping
to get Koresh so mad that he and some of his followers would attack
the the tanks.
 
It appears that the tactics employed by the FBI did drive Koresh over
the edge.  The blame for the deaths should be shared by both the
federal experts whose tactics drove Koresh over the edge and the fools
at the ATF who planed the raid.
 
Stupidity and incompetence of the BATF and the FBI leadership have
resulted in the needless death of 90 innocent people.
 
If every thing had gone as planned 90 people would be alive today.
Instead the ATF screwed up and caused the death of 90+.  Incompetent
law enforcement can kill you!
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54401
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <mvpC5rp8n.3ts@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <16BB5124A0.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David
 Veal) writes:
>>       Be cute if Koresh hit the trail.
>>
>>       Maybe he was bodily assumed into heaven.  Wouldn't that just
>>make AG Reno's day?
>
>*snort*  I sorta doubt it...
>
>However... No bodies?  By the time this message gets out
>they'll doubtless have found bunches, but wouldn't it be
>interesting if they had a tunnel and  are long gone?


If they hadn't killed the ATF people in the original raid, I think I would 
laugh my ass off.  (Actually, to be honest, I still might.)

Ryan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54402
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
[ ... ]
>It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>was not a proper militia weapon. Therefore, US vs. Miller supports
>limited government regulation of firearms.

Then it also supports basing such regulations on ignorance.

Miller had disappeared, and nobody bothered to present _his_
side to the Supreme Court -- in particular, that sawed-off
shotguns were used in the World War I trenches, and in other
tight spots ever since guns had been invented.  Would _you_
turn one down if you had to "clean" an alley in E. St. Louis?
--------
Vegetarians kill, too

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54404
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:

> The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
> transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
> more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
> do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
> must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

The BATF is there to collect taxes, not to protect your sorry ass or mine.

> With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
> more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
> the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. 

All flame-bait, of course.  If you really want to be flame bait, send me
your address and I'll tell the BATF about those automatic weapons you
have stockpiled.  You'll be warm in no time.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54405
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Will CS burn or explode

The FBI released large amounts of CS tear gas into the compound in
Waco.  CS tear gas is a fine power.  Is CS inflammable.  Grain dust
suspended in air can form an explosive mixture, will CS suspended in air
form an explosive mix? Could large quantities of CS have fueled the
rapid spread of fire in the compound?
 
Please note I am directing all followups to talk.politics.guns

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54406
From: cntrspy@netcom.com (Executive Protection Assoc)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

///////   And we thought the unfortunate people in the Branch Dividians were
          Brainwashed ??  They don't hold a candle to this guy......


D:d
:wq


B
///////////////////////////////////
Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote:
: What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
: had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
: compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
: 
: The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
: transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
: more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
: do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
: must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.
: 
: With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
: more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
: the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
: at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
: of ours.
: 
: With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
: mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
: women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
: to death 51 days later.
: 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54407
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

In the interests of completeness, I thought readers of these 
newsgroups would want to see FBI Director William Sessions'
statement, as released by the FBI press office.

 FBI Director's Statement On Waco Standoff
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Press Office,
          202-324-3691

   WASHINGTON, April 19 -- The following is a statement by 
FBI Director William S. Sessions regarding the Branch Davidian 
incident in Waco, Texas:

   "I had hoped to be making a very different statement this evening.
After very careful planning and extensive preparation we all thought
that today's efforts by the FBI to bring the Branch Davidians out of
their compound would result in the peaceful resolution of the
stand-off or at least meaningful negotiation.
   "Instead, we are faced with devastation and death.  However, I
have no question that our plan was correct and was conducted with
extreme professionalism and care.  I applaud the restraint shown by
agents in the face of life-threatening gunfire, and I thank them for
risking their lives to try to end this peacefully.  I have only the
greatest admiration for the courage and professionalism of all
involved."
 -30-

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54408
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
>but here goes:
>
>Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
>
>                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
>
>CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
>the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
>lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
>gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
>ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
>the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
>napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.

Actually if 'a few minutes' translates into 6 hours, you have it
right.  BUT you (and I guess your single-source news agency CNN)
failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it in plain
view.

>THIS IS MURDER!

Well, small-scale Jim Jones type suicide with fire instead of kool-aid.

>
>ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!

Sorry, guy, you got it wrong.  ATF was pumping tear gas into the compound.
The Branch Davidians (going along with their apocolyptic faith) set their
own compound on fire killing all but 9 or so.  No children survived.

>THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!

Self-slaughter, anyway.  I pity the children who were to young to be able
to make a conscious choice.

>I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
>it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
>still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
>alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.

You are wrong.  Thank goodness.  I would suggest, however, that you take
a deep breath, and wait 30 minutes or so before posting.  Also make sure
your facts are correct before making your allegations(sp.).

>I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!

You repeated wrong.  There were 9.

>God help us all.

God help the Branch Davidians.

>PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!

NO DON'T!!!!  THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH OF THIS CRAP BEING CROSSPOSTED ALL OVER
CREATION AS IT IS!!!!!!

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54410
From: random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope)
Subject: Riddle me something else.

> On the other hand, I wonder if,
> with a face full of "massive amounts of CS," *I* would be able to escape
> a burning tinder-box like that ranch house assuming my best efforts.

What ever happened to the 'Adobe Fortress' I kept hearing about? I
thought this was a 'Cult Stronghold'! If the kgbatf knew it was a
tinderbox, why didn't they just have all the talking heads line up
and start huffin' and puffin?

	Random
	

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54411
From: chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>Does a "not harmful" gassing mean that you can, with a little willpower,
>stay inside indefinitely without suffering any serious health problems?
>
>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam?
>
>What IS the difference, anyway?

CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that
your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but
you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies.

Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
chuck@eng.umd.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54414
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Die Koresh Die!

The explanations of Federal law enforcement officials about what
happened in Waco is just another example of the survivors writing the
history books to put themselves in the best of a bad light.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54415
From: glover@tafs2.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: The Cold War: Who REALLY Won?

If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented 
and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >> 
(and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism << 
absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite 
(which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?

Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply!

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------

UNMUTUAL

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54416
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.195636.17742@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>>Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
>>>really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
>>>a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
>>
>>Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
>>come out with their hands up several weeks ago.

No answer.

>You didn't answer the question.  The FBI took people out of
>camera range.  It is thus possible that they were engaging in
>questionable activities.

I do not feel like the cameras were out of range.  Cameras watched the first 
confrontation.  Cameras watched the banners.  Cmaeras watched the final 
confrontation with tanks.  Cameras watched the fire.  When weren't cameras 
able to watch?  When would cameras be unable to watch people coming out with 
their hands up?

>As to your question, please tell me what you think would have happened
>had the ATF goon squad knocked and asked politely several weeks
>ago (as opposed to playing Rambo with a t.v. crew in tow).

Well, that is what BATF should have done.  Either, Koresh would have gone 
peaceably as he has done in the past, or perhaps it was already too close 
to the apocalypse in his own mind.  It is hard to predict the actions of 
a leader who would not release the children when most rational people would.

Now will you answer my question up top?

>
>Drew
>--
>betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
>*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
>*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
>*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
>    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54417
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Statement to everyone on t.p.g

In article <1993Apr19.201300.27080@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>Clue - Kratz' position isn't a defense against inaccuracy.
>
>I oppose gun control because it doesn't work.  If it did, I'd support
>it.  In fact, I supported gun control before I did my homework.
>
>There's no demand for pro-gun people who don't know what they're
>talking about.  In fact, they'd be much better off if they didn't say
>anything.
>
And why is this Freeman?  Even if a pro-gun person doesn't know what they are
talking about there is always the possibility that they will learn a thing or
two.  I am and will continue to post even if people get angry with what I have
to say.  I have several good sources of material now that I know where to look
so calm down.

>There's lots of information flowing on tpg for those interested in
>learning.  One can participate in those discussions without ranting
>inaccurately.  Failure to do so has consequences.
>
Ah, Freeman seems to forget from my statement that I am learning.  I have also
asked several of the not-so-hostile folks on this group for sources of
information to read.  Do you think, Freeman, that maybe this means I am
interested in learning?  I think it does because as you said people who don't
know anything won't be good for the pro-gun cause.

>Another good habit to get into is to go read-only for a while, to take
>the time to figure out how things work.
>
Another good habit to get into is to realize that not everyone is you Freeman
and accept mistakes.  Sure, maybe it could have been some type of
misinformation being slung by some anti-gun nut but it wasn't.  I made my
statement to inform everyone of this and everyone who replied said don't worry
about it but also to learn as much as you can.  They accepted my mistake and
gave me sources of information and told me to read as much as possible.  I have
read several posts of yours and have found them informative.  Why don't you
give me the same chance?

>-andy

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54418
From: lsacks@angelo.amd.com (Larry Sacks)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>You are loosing.

[stuff deleted]

>Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...

Really?  How do you avoid situations which encourage criminals?  I'd
really like to know.  Would you, say, prohibit female college
students from riding their bicycles near the university during the
daytime?  

Sounds a bit drastic, doesn't it?  Especially when the university is
locatd in a nice residential area.  A friend of mine was attacked and
nearly raped in just this situation.  The police didn't feel she was
in a situation which 'encouraged criminals'.

What do you think?  Should we just tell her, that it was her fault
for daring to ride a bicycle in the middle of the day?  That she
didn't avoid a situation that encouraged criminals?  If that's the
case, then we'd all better put bars on our doors and windows and
pray for a police state to keep us all safe.  Crime happens in all
situations - there are no defined areas that criminals avoid.  

Larry Sacks
Advanced Micro Devices
lsacks@angelo.amd.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54419
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>>
>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
>>> in Texas.
>>
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
 
Brent, the Feds turned off the BD's electricity a couple of weeks ago... 
 
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the radio, TV, or newspapers, 
though. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54420
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

  [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the 
   "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on 
   the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.]
>
>> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
>> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
>> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
>> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
>> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
>> to the way Jim Jones has been described.
>
>Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance?
>Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15.

I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form.
The comments above and below were meant to address who might be unstable 
enough to keep children in a building with tear gas or start a fire.

>> FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background 
>> checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their 
>> decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill 
>> Koresh's own prophecy?
>
>And nevertheless, they hit all their marks and read all the scripted lines.  
>Well, it sure beats the hell out of me.  Maybe Thoreau had a clue when he
>said, "It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so
>ingenious."

I agree that the BATF handled the affair badly.  

>> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>> >:by cult members.
>> >
>> >Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far,
>> >no one else has been able to talk to them.
>> 
>> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details, 
>> will you believe them?
>
>Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else
>who doesn't know them personally.

Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?

At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors.
Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no 
good if you believe in eternal darkness.

>-- 
>
>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...
>


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54421
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <lt8keoINN31v@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>In article <C5sIAJ.Ks7@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?
>
>It would have been inconsistent behavior for them to have done so.
>
>Some people believe that there is more to life than the physical requirements.
>
>These folks believed that the generally-held standards of the surrounding
>community (heck, most of the world) were morally wrong, and letting the
>children be abandoned to this (godless/unbelieving) culture would be condeming
>them to eternal loss and separation from God.
>
>By their standards, letting the children go would be abandoning them to a fate
>literally worse than death.
>
>The FBI (and BATF and media) people working on the issue, I suspect,
>just couldn't get their heads into a similar-enough (to say nothing of
>identical) mode of thinking to realize what they were doing.
>
>Physically, there was no reason why the BD's shouldn't have given up and come
>out a long time ago.
>
>From the point of view of the BD's, they were up against the wall and had nowhere
>to go at all.
>
>They apparently really did love their kids too much to abandon them to a godless
>bunch of outsiders...although the end result was horribly twisted.
>
>I didn't say the BD's were right, I just said that that's the way they perceived
>it.
>
>Koresh was a nutcase, and a bunch of other people paid for that.
>
>And the FBI and BATF miscalculated and misunderstood what was going on from the
>word go.

Very likely possible.  Reminds me of the movie "The Rapture".

>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------
>| Some things are too important not to give away      |
>| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
>|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54422
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

It's truly unfortunate that we don't have the Japanese tradition of
Hari-Kari for public officials to salvage some tatters of honor after
they commit offenses against humanity like were perpetrated in Waco,
Texas today.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54423
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) writes:
> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
> >
> >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use 
> >> on a warm day  in Texas. 
> >
> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?

> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

oh, i see. electricity is a natural right & our wonderful government
would -never- cut off the power to the people they were besieging.
are you really this dumb, or just acting like it for the sake of
argument?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "True love is better than anything, except cough drops."            `,`
`,`                     - The Princess Bride (book), by William Goldman `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54424
From: chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:

: failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it in
: plain view.

  Brent, I'm still waiting to see if there are any evidence of how the fire
got started, so I'm not going to tell you who did it...  As far as you keep
talking about the Davidians pouring kerosene all over, stop and *think*
for a second if it is possible the stove or lamp was knocked over and
started a fire, and the Davidians were pouring water on it (wrong solution
but I doubt I can do much better in their states of mind...) to try to
put it out?   

  By the way, just how far where you standing from the Davidians when you
saw them setting the place on fire?   Oh, in case you are new in town,
microwave ovens doesn't work very well when there's no electricty. :-0

  Get some *facts* before you post next time!

--F. Chiu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54425
From: strait@cheetah.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

> >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
> >> in Texas. 
> >
> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
> 

Microwaves don't work very well with no electricity Mr Engineer.

> -- 
> <><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> <>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
> <><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

-- 
| Jeff Strait                       | strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu        |
| University of Illinois            | PHONE: (217) 333-6444            |
| "If you ladies leave this island, if you survive basic recruit       |
| training, you will be a weapon, a minister of death praying for war" |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54426
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
>>next?  The Mormons or Jews?
>
>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)
>...

Let's see if I have this straight.  A law is created that says "you can not
have a automatic weapon" and therefore it's ok for the government to use
any level of force to enforce that law.  Doesn't matter if the entire 
population of the planet is destroyed as long as that law is obeyed.

Do I read you correctly?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54427
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
> >> in Texas. 

> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?

> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

And they work especially well when the Feds have cut off your utilities.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54428
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent  
Irvine) writes:
> In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.  
Tavares) writes:
> >In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael  
Frederick Rhein) writes:
> >
> >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm  
day  
> >> in Texas. 
> >
> >Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

Brent shows his ignorance once again.  Power had been cut for weeks.  And he's  
never lived in a rural area if he thinks electric stoves have favor there.   
They stop working when the power fails, and power restoration come MUCH slower  
in the country, than the city.  LP gas stoves and ovens are very much prefered.  
> 
> -- 
> <><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> <>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
> <><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54429
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu  
(Andrew Betz) writes:
> >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
> >>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
> >>
> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
> >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
> >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
> 
> Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
> come out with their hands up several weeks ago.
> 
It didn't happen.

> >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
> >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
> >>scenarios.
> >
> >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
> >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
> >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.
> 
> More than someone who would not release children from the compound.
> 
Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper.

> I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
> I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
> 1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.
> 

Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show you  
to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed. You should at least view the whole  
documentary before you claim it as a source.


> I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
> bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
> responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.
> 

Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?  
I saw one place.

> >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
> >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
> >>ludicrous.
> >
> >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
> >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
> >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
> >

Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all, it  
is the root cause of all the other suspicion.

> >Drew 
> >--
> >betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
> >*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
> >*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
> >*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
> >    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
> 
> 
> -- 
> 

Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54430
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting

In article <1qk3jm$9sh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.221646.2332@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
[ ... ]
>> 	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
>> 	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
>> 	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
>> 	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
>> 	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
>> 	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
>> 	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
>> 	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
>> 	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 
>
>Sometimes this works.  Sometimes it just lands your good neighbors 
>on the dance card for the next wave of drive-bys.  Someone here once
>told a story about LA gangs moving into Phoenix.  I've misplaced the

Here'a a copy, cdt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,ou.politics
>Path: dg-rtp!psinntp!uunet!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!mvp
>From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
>Subject: The difference an armed civilian population makes
>Message-ID: <y52n_tc.mvp@netcom.com>
>Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 23:42:42 GMT
>Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
>References: <swood.716099748@vela>
>Lines: 84
>
>Along the lines of "The Armed Citizen", here's a story that
>some of you may find amusing.  It's a story about Arizona
>house-hunting, from Leslie Fish, musician and author...
>
>----
>     ... One of the reasons I'm planning to move to Arizona is that --
>despite its lousy economy, 4-way race problems, simmering religious
>problems and hopelessly bad government -- Arizona has one of the lowest
>violent- crime rates in the country. Is it just coincidence that
>Arizona is also one of the few remaining no-gun- control states in the
>country?
>
>    Well, consider this funny story. Last time I was in Phoenix,
>staying with Liz Burnham, I did some checking on the local real-estate
>market (that's when I discovered that, with my income -- as provable by
>my tax returns -- I can qualify for every low-income housing loan in
>the book, with the exception of VA), and I came across an astonishing
>ad in the local market-paper. It offered a three-bedroom house in the
>Phoenix area for -- are you ready for this -- all of $10,000. No money
>down. $100 per month total payments. Christ on a Harley-Davidson! I
>called up the real-estate office making this offer, made it clear that
>I was only checking the local market, and asked about that house. Were
>the walls, roof and foundation structurally sound? Yes. Were the
>plumbing and electrical systems functional and up to code? Yes. Did the
>air-conditioning system (an absolute necessity in Phoenix) work?  Yes,
>again.  Okay, so what was wrong with the house?  Well, it needed lots
>of plastering, painting, yard work, and some patching of the roof --
>and yes, low-interest repair loans were available.  Okay, sez I. If
>that's all that's wrong with it, just why are you selling a 3-bedroom
>house for all of $10,000? Well, squirms the agent, it's in kind of a
>bad neighborhood. How bad? sez I, remembering some of the neighborhoods
>I've seen in Chicago and Oakland.  Worst in the city, the agent sighs,
>and then he told me this amazing story.
>
>    Every few years, it seems, the big vice-gangs in Los Angeles notice
>that there's no gang presence in Phoenix -- which is just a quick
>5-hour drive from LA -- and get the idea of setting up a subsidiary
>there. Well, a couple years ago, the colonizing force came to this
>neighborhood -- it being poor and Spanish, they figured they could move
>right in and take over -- bought this house and started operations.
>Unfortunately for them, the neighbors not only didn't like this -- they
>didn't care for whores trotting up and down their streets all night,
>pimps soliciting their kids, dope- deals on the corners in broad
>daylight, and so on -- they weren't afraid to do something about it.
>The neighbors called the cops (for some reason, the Phoenix police are
>remarkably honest, capable, polite and prompt), and the cops promptly
>came and swept up all the whores, pimps and pushers off the street and
>away to jail. The remaining gang members decided to retaliate in the
>fashion they usually use in LA; they got the complainant's name and
>address off the court records, and did a drive-by shooting at his
>house.  Well, this wasn't Los Angeles. The moment the neighbors heard
>the first gunshots fired, they all ran out their front doors with their
>own guns -- rifles, shotguns, pistols, everything -- and shot back.
>
>    The car didn't make it to the end of the block. It coasted to a
>stop, riddled with more holes than the famous Bonnie and Clyde getaway
>car (which I've seen; it's on display in a casino in a casino in Las
>Vegas).  The gas tank and fuel lines had been ruptured, so the car
>caught fire. The neighbors waited a good 15 minutes -- making sure
>nobody got out of that car -- before they called the fire department to
>come put out the fire and tow the wreck away. By that time, the asphalt
>under the car had melted and caught fire too, which subsequently left a
>large and nasty pot-hole in the street. The city is slow about
>repairing small streets, so the hole stayed there providing a traffic
>hazard for several months. All this was two years ago, the agent
>concluded, and there's been no trouble since, but the house and the
>neighborhood still have a bad reputation -- and that's why the house
>was so cheap.
>
>    Hearing this story, I nearly laughed my ass off. I told the agent
>that if I had the money at the moment, I'd by-god buy the house; this
>was _nothing_ compared to bad neighborhoods I'd seen here in
>California, where drive-by shootings go unchecked by the well-armed
>cops, let alone by the unarmed neighbors. If that's the absolute worst
>you'll find in Phoenix, then that's the city for me.
>
>    That's the difference that an armed civilian population makes.
>Think about it.
>
>
>-- 
>Mike Van Pelt                                When guns are outlawed,
>mvp@netcom.com                               only Carl Rowan will have guns.
>mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54431
From: strait@cheetah.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r24bv$dif@apple.com>, earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace) writes:

> >The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
> >propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
> >concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)
> >...

It is silly to make this statement.  Fifteen minutes after the fire
started, the "official word" out of FBI  headquaters in DC was
that the DV's committed suicide.  It would seem logical that the
lantern story has more credibility.  You can't even to pretend to
know for sure what happened... although Clinton is doing just that.

-- 
| Jeff Strait                       | strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu        |
| University of Illinois            | PHONE: (217) 333-6444            |
| Impeach Klinton                                                      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54432
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

>What does this <censored> from NORWAY think he's doing telling us
>how to run the place?  I wanna know... somebody please 'splain.
>
>Guess how NORWAY survived the Third Reich?  Give you a hint,
>it wasn't by passive resistance the way the Danes did it....

I believe it had something to do with a politician whose name isn't
exactly the most complimentary word nowadays...one Vidkun Quisling.
We all know what a quisling is, right?  I'm sure everyone can come up
with a few examples right about now :->.
	-Steve

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54434
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)

In article <1993Apr15.165952.25970@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1qibs0$flk@vela.acs.oakland.edu> awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley) writes:
[ ... ]
>>Actually, there was only one confirmed sniper to >die< in Detroit,
>>according to Sauter & Hines, _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion & It's
>
>What sources did Sauter and Hines use?  In Congressional hearings
>later, the newspaper folk admitted that their reports were completely
>wrong.  (Some of their excuses are understandable, while others amount
>to gross negligence.  Then there's their "we lied".)  As far as I
>know, they never did the followup.

This, BTW, is normal behavior for newsie's.  The followup isn't "news" ...
--------
"I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle Association
and extend to your organization every good wish for continued success."
                -- President John F. Kennedy, March 20, 1961

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54435
From: jdw@unislc.slc.unisys.com (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Reasonable (for criminals?) Civie Arms Limits

> In article <1993Apr19.223925.2342@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>A poster claims he 'always asks [anti-gunners] what they think would
>be reasonable personal firepower restrictions'. OK then ...
>
>Caliber : Not greater than 32
>Muzzle  : Not greater than 300 ft/lbs with any combo of bullet wt/vel
>Action  : Single shot rifles and single action revolvers 
>          Revolvers bearing no more than six rounds and incorporating
>          an 'anti-fanning' mechanism to discourage Roy Rogers wannabes.
>Bullets : Any non-explosive variety, HPs just fine.
>
>Now - these specs leave the 32 H&R magnum as about the most powerful
>allowable civie cartridge for handgun or rifle use. It would be
>reasonably effective against home intruders, muggers, rabid wolves
>and other such nasties, even with the firearm-type limitations. At the
>same time, this caliber/power limit would reduce the ultimate lethality
>of hits.

I suspect that you think that this is less lethal than the typical
"assault weapon".  You are wrong.  Compared to what most criminals use, a
9mm with military ammo (FMJs), or a military rifle (use is extremely
rare), .223 or 7.62mm with military ammo (FMJs), the .32 H&R magnum with
"civie" bullets is more lethal.  Most of the arms which criminals (and
the military) use are among the least lethal arms in existance.

What if we just punish the criminal and leave the law abiding citizen
alone?  It hasn't been tried in recient times, but it might work.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54436
From: barker@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (James Barker)
Subject: NRA address?

Could someone email me a USNail address for the NRA? I'd like to write them
a letter encouraging them to see to it VERY EMPHATICALLY that the 2nd
amendment is restored to the form that the founding fathers intended.

People like Howard Metzenbaum seem very intent on diluting the 2nd amendment
to the point where it is no effort for the governmentski to do what they
did in Waco.

After all, from what I know of the Federalist papers, it is this kind of
tyranny the 2nd amendment was supposed to be designed to protect against.

Honestly! M-60 tanks against the civilian population! Attack helicopters!

We need the right to keep and bear anti-tank weapons. Actually, if they
intend to mass armour against the (weakly-armed, at that) civilian population,
we need the right to field tactical nukes. Government tyranny! Who would
have ever thought it would happen here!

I wonder who'se house they'll run tanks through next, because the gov.
SUSPECTS child abuse. Maybe yours! Maybe mine!
And what is an Illegal Weapon (which they have yet to show us), if the
2nd amendment is designed to do what I believe it is, and the gov. uses
tanks against you? Government self-serving? Naaaah. Not here.

Time was when the U.S. used armour/attack helicopters against small countries.
Now, we're down to using them against to what amounts to a busload and a
half of civilians.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did not stop them, because I was
not a Jew: Then they came for the catholics, but I did not stop them
because I was not a catholic! Then they came for the lutherans, but
there was now no one left to stop them!" Rev. Martin Niemoller.
(probably didn't get it verbatim, but you get the idea).

If the NRA reads this, then never mind about the address.
God save us!

--James S. Barker
  Portland State University
  barker@cs.pdx.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54437
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5t38G.IL@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> 
>   [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the 
>    "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on 
>    the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.]

Was THAT your argument.  Well, you didn't make it very well.  You started 
from the questionable premise that the fire was necessarily an act of
insanity, rather than an act of negligence or an accident.  Recall, one
survivor claims that the fire started when a tank knocked over a kerosene 
lamp.  Kind of makes arguments regarding relative sanity somewhat moot, no?

> >> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
> >> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
> >> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
> >> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
> >> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
> >> to the way Jim Jones has been described.
> >
> >Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance?
> >Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15.
> 
> I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form.

"Nice evasive maneuver, Mr. Chekov, but they're still on our tail."

Let me ask it more plainly.  Which of the above complaints about David 
Koresh's religious or sexual proclivities justified an armed raid by the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?

> >> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
> >> >:by cult members.

> >> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details, 
> >> will you believe them?

> >Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else
> >who doesn't know them personally.

> Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?

It's not entirely far-fetched.  Nobody outside the compound would know 
EVERYBODY inside the compound.  Don't forget, the BATF admits having 
agents inside the compound, in any case.

> At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors.
> Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no 
> good if you believe in eternal darkness.

I'm simply being the devil's advocate.  There's reasonable doubt by the
boatload standing in the way of anybody totally swallowing the official 
government story on Waco.
-- 

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...

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54438
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
:mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
:
:According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
:began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
:had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
:These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
:his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
:to the way Jim Jones has been described.

I don't know how accurate the documentary was; however, Koresh was never
convicted of any crimes against children, nor was the BATF after him for
child abuse.  Their purview (in this case) is strictly in firearms violations,
so this information is irrelevant to the discussion.

:FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background 
:checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their 
:decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill 
:Koresh's own prophecy?

Those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain *something*, but whether
their answers even remotely resembles the truth we may never know.  And who
is left alive to care whether the prophecy is fulfilled?  It only holds
meaning for the nine who survived.

:>Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far,
:>no one else has been able to talk to them.
:
:So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same 
:details, will you believe them?

*IF* they confirm the story, I probably will.  Definitely not until then, 
however.


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54439
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

From article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> You are loosing.
> 
> There is no question about it. 
> 
> Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
> how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA. 

Only irrational fools such as yourself are set against RKBA.  There are
*plenty* of people who support it.

> This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
> RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.

The government will be overthrown *long* before that happens.  A *huge* 
millitia composed of all available men and women who care about their
country will defeat the forces of the evil Klintonistas.  The people
*will* prevail!

Oh, so you think armed citizens alone can't overthrow the government?
Consider this:  do you think *all* law enforcement officials and members
of the Armed Forces will turn against the people that they are entrusted
to serve?  Not hardly.  You can count on a lot of people in the Army,
Marines, Air Force, Navy, National Guard, police officers, and so on
joining in the cause to defend the liberties and freedoms of American
citizens.  COUNT ON IT!  THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DISARM
EVERYONE WITHOUT STARTING A CIVIL WAR!

> You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
> cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
> can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it. 
> 
> The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
> you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
> 
> Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect

Wrong again.  People will just hide their guns so these "officers"
(more like jack-booted stormtroopers) will not be able to find them.

> them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
> Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
> immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'. 

They will unless they are idiots.  They will realize that if they don't
then they will be *next* including you.  Believe me if what you describe
happens they will be coming for *more* than guns.  Disarming citizens
would require that everyone's cherished freedoms and liberties be
suspended temporarily.  More likely, they'd never be restored unless the
*people* do something about it.

> Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
> are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
> be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54440
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !

From article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
> 'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
> there are actually *few* cases where this is so. 

It certainly is provable.  Around a million Americans every year defend
themselves with firearms.  In many of these cases the defender doesn't even
have to fire a shot!  The mere presence of a gun is oftentimes all the
deterrent that is needed.

I don't like violence anymore than anyone else does.  But, taking away the
right of Americans to keep and bear arms is not the solution to the violent
crime problem in this country.  If honest, law-abiding citizens are unable
to get firearms then they will be preyed on even more by criminals who will
be able to acquire guns through illegal channels.  Expect to start seeing
the crime syndicates who smuggle drugs into this country start smuggling
guns.  Believe me this will happen.  There is *plenty* of economic
incentive for gangsters to illegaly import guns into this country if guns
should be banned by the Klintonistas.

> The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
> opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
> would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
> take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.

Statistics, por favor?

> Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery. 
> In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
> No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
> than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault. 

See my previous post.  That ought to set you straight.

> The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.

People have the right to keep and bear arms no matter what the
Constitution says.  That means that even if the 2nd Amendment is
repealed the *people* (that's all American citizens FYI) will *still*
have the right to keep and bear arms.


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54442
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5spov.LrE@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
Arras) writes:
> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
> >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
> >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear  
gassed.
> >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
> >> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
> >> 
> >
> >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  
> 
> Unworthy of comment.

But apparently true.  My opinion, only, of course.

> 
> >Humans died  
> >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
> >actions  
> >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  
> 
> Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
> That is undeniable truth.  

No, it is not.  It is possible the FBI planned for this to happen, and the  
gunfire heard was the FBI keeping the folks inside.  I'm not proposing this as  
the way it went down, but just to point out that it's not "undeniable" that if  
they walked out yesterday, they would be alive today.

> My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
> the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
> to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion 
> to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
> and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.
> 

My heart "bleeds" for no one.  You are the "bleeding heart".  And I'm sure  
beyond any possible doubt that you do not feel for those people as I do.  You  
can not say the heartless things you have said if you did.

> >You seem to say  
> >they got what they deserved.
> 
> I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
> more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
> wanted and put into motion themselves.

"they got what they wanted".  What kind of creature are you that you can  
believe this?
> 
> I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
> by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair 
> from the start.
> 

We agree on this.  Now lets have your God, the FBI, investigated, too.

> >Jim
> >--
> >jmd@handheld.com
>  
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-
> >"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't  
rethought  
> >that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
> >"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was  
landed  
> >in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
> >WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777
> 
> 
> -- 
> 

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54443
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:

>>Ron Miller wrote:
>>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>>"no, it's total amnesty".
> (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)

> I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is 
>no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing. 
> 
>  
>	Myron Petro
>	NRA, USPSA
>        DVC y'all
>	**************************************************************************
>	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
>	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
>	 Second Amendment.  

An interesting idea consider:   
   At any locality where a buy-back program is being instituted, get a list
of guns they received and compare serial numbers with a list of stolen guns
and sue the people responsible for the program if those guns were destroyed.
Criminal charges can also be made.( Receiving stolen property, destruction of
private property etc.)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54444
Subject: Is it really apples to apples?  (Lawful vs. unlawful use of guns)
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

I have been convinced of the right of AMericans to an effective 
self-defense, but something strikes me as odd among the
pro-RKBA arguments presented here.

The numbers comparing hundreds of thousands (indeed, even a
million) of instances of law abiding citizens deterring
criminal activity, seem valid to me.  Likewise the number
of gun-caused homicides each year (about 11,000/year?).  However,
it is surprising that the "Evil AntiGun Empire " (Darth Vader
breathing sound effect here) never tries to compare
"All legitimate gun defenses" vs. "All gun crimes."  Instead, 
it's always "All legitimate gun defenses,"  which includes
cases in which the criminals are shot but not killed, and
cases in which the criminal is not here, vs. just 
criminal gun homicides, which only includes case sin which
the victim died.

Why is this?  Of course, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say
that in each crime already measured (involving guns), the
consequnces are already known and it is safe to assume that
a gun-based bank robbery last week will not suddenly turn
into a gun-basd robbery+homicide.  Whereas in the legitimate
gun defenses, one may assume that all those criminals who
were deterred would have committed more crime or more
serious crimes had they not been deterred.

-Case Kim

kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54446
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: My Gun is like my Ame


Mark Wilson responding to C.D. Tavares:


MW>|So the laws exist, and the penalties are as you say, but nobody is ever
MW>|prosecuted under these laws.  They are "traded away" for easy pleas.

MW>Having such gun laws on the books is still better than nothing.
MW>What would the DA have traded away in order to get the guilty plea if the
MW>gun law had not been in effect.

Our liberty?

Right...don't even think about enforcing the law and imposing the prescribed
penalty....let's hose the citizens instead.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Madness takes its toll - please have exact change
                            
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54447
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93105.215548U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz  
<U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
> >
> >>I have been at a shooting range where
> >>gang members were "practicing" shooting.
> >
> >How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
> >or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
> >
> "We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on
> the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.  There
> are many, many bad things going on in that area.  Also, I have several  
friends
> that live very close to that area who have had problems with some of these
> folks.  By the way, where did I say that they were minorities?  

That was what I got from your phrasing, too.  Well, then, were they (the ones  
you saw) black?  You don't deny seem to deny it, either.

> Do you think
> that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned
> it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.  I
> don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship  
by
> taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.

That is the recommended way to practice with a CCW, too.  Aim alone is no good  
for defense, if you can't get the gun rapidly.

>  If
> you would have been there Andy it would've been obvious to you too.  

What, outside of prejudice, would have made it obvious?

> Of course
> it might not have been.  Who knows.  All I do know is that I was there, I  
live
> here and I know that they were gang bangers.  When you live here long enough  
it
> becomes pretty easy to spot them via gang colors, gang signs, etc.  

Yes, prejudice is more subtle in the north, isn't it?

> One last
> thing.  My sister is a social worker.  She makes it her point to find these
> things out (gang signs, colors, etc) because it is in her best interest to do
> so.  She is nice enough to let me know these things so I can watch out for
> myself as I live right on the border of the west side of the city. Enough  
said.
> 

More than enough.  I understand you completely.

> Jason

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54448
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Luser!

Awesley wrote:
  That was the entire point to *you*.  What exactly did I claim?
     --------------------------------------------------
    "I've heard eye-witness descriptions of tanks using their main guns
  to respond to sniper fire.  Quite effectively."
     --------------------------------------------------
  
    I wasn't wrong . . . I've heard those descriptions.  If you're
  paying attention, I've mentioned that I saw the tanks with my own
  eyes, but the main gun firing was an account I heard.  That helps
  people judge whether or not to kick in the, to use your words,
  "bullshit filters".  Stating that I *claimed* this is a falsehood.
  
Later in the same post:
     Another part of my memories was that while most damaged building
  were burnt, some were in rubble.  Based on what I remember, I was and
  am inclined to believe an old sarge or two.

Fine, *now* you are stating that you believe their claims (or that you are
"inclined" to.  See below for a stronger statement of your beliefs).  Those
claims are still ludicrous, however.

Previously Awesley had written:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

Prompting me to write:
  To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
  grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
  perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
  it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

To which Awesley replied:
  John, again, strawman techniques.  Do you feel you're losing it so you
  have to stretch what I said and knock that down?  What I read said
  nothing about what they fired.  And so I put nothing in there.  If you
  need some help, let me know and I'l take your side of this for a
  while.  You're not scoring here, you're boring here.

But why did you mention grenade launchers at all?  Because it supports the
notion that the tanks shelled buildings.  And it supports that notion
because it conjures images of troops launching fragmentary grenades.  But
that too is ludicrous.

I wrote:
  If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
  screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
  it. 

Awesley relied:
     Glad to know you're such an expert.  Nice to hear some an
  authority.  I especially appreciate your basis of knowledge -- if it
  had happened, you would have know it.  Since you are such an
  authority, you probably know that people did scream about an alleged
  massive cover-up in the number of people killed in the Detroit riot.
  Some claimed 100+ dead, others said 300.  The offical number is 43 but
  the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says it was "several".  I've also
  heard some things about that but I won't dare repeat them.  You'd
  assert that I claimed they were truth.

Yes, if it happened I would have heard about it.  Everybody would have. 
Army tanks don't fire their cannons in American cities in the 1960's
without it becoming common knowledge, without minority leaders seizing on
it and condemning it over and over again, without civil libertarians saying
"this has gone far enough."  So, yes, my never hearing of it was the basis
for my disbelieving the claim.  Now I have more reasons to disbelieve it. 
Not one poster has written to say, yes, I lived in Detroit at that time and
everybody knew that the tanks had fired shells.  This is the UseNet.  If it
had happened, somebody here would remember it.  Furthermore, your own
research failed to come up with any support for the claim.  The claim is
extraordinary and it has no supporting evidence, extraordinary or not. 
Unless you count the brags of a couple of guardsmen shooting the shit.  I
do not.

I wrote:
  Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 

Awesley wrote:
     Taking the tour after the riots, it was pretty easy to tell the 
  difference between Army and Guard troops.  Or so I recall from 26 
  years ago.  And I seem to recall it was the Army running the tanks.
  So it would have been an Army cover-up.

Quibble.  Fine, it was an Army cover-up.  Six years in the Reserves has
taught me the difference also.  But do you think that in two and half
decades not one guilt-ridden participant has come forward and said "yes, I
shelled Americans," or "I gave the orders to fire the cannons," or "I
helped cover it up"?

I wrote:
  If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I
prefer
  to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
  those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.

Awesley replied:
    Given the level in destruction in Detroit, I'm quite willing to believe
  that they did fire their guns.

Good.  Then we can drop the junk about you not claiming that they did. 
Your belief fails a basic reality check: why isn't it known?

Awesley concludes:
     Now then, we've bored the shit out of anyone whose bothered to read
  this far and all you've managed to say is that you don't believe the
  account I cited.

Actually, now we have established that I don't believe what you believe, as
well as why I don't believe it.  And if it's boring, then I yield the last
word to you, if you want it.  You may say anything you like with
impunity--I am dropping the subject.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54449
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Apology (was: Luser!)

I was shocked to see that the subject of my last rely to awesley was
"Luser!"  That was certainly not my intention.  I meant to leave the
subject line unchanged.  I believe that the NNTP server I use at columbia
must have put in that subject line in protest over problems with my header.
 That was rather rude of them, but beggars can't be choosers, I suppose.

In any case, I didn't do it and I apologize to awesley for the apparent
insult.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54450
From: rubinoff+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
>Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
>he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his
>chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
>Duke.

I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US";
the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still,
it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.

  Robert




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54451
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Is it really apples to apples?  (Lawful vs. unlawful use of guns)


In article <1993Apr16.092618.22936@husc3.harvard.edu>,
kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:
|> I have been convinced of the right of AMericans to an effective 
|> self-defense, but something strikes me as odd among the
|> pro-RKBA arguments presented here.
|> 
|> The numbers comparing hundreds of thousands (indeed, even a
|> million) of instances of law abiding citizens deterring
|> criminal activity, seem valid to me.  Likewise the number
|> of gun-caused homicides each year (about 11,000/year?).  However,
|> it is surprising that the "Evil AntiGun Empire " (Darth Vader
|> breathing sound effect here) never tries to compare
|> "All legitimate gun defenses" vs. "All gun crimes."  Instead, 
|> it's always "All legitimate gun defenses,"  which includes
|> cases in which the criminals are shot but not killed, and
|> cases in which the criminal is not here, vs. just 
|> criminal gun homicides, which only includes case sin which
|> the victim died.
|> 
|> Why is this?  Of course, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say
|> that in each crime already measured (involving guns), the
|> consequnces are already known and it is safe to assume that
|> a gun-based bank robbery last week will not suddenly turn
|> into a gun-basd robbery+homicide.  Whereas in the legitimate
|> gun defenses, one may assume that all those criminals who
|> were deterred would have committed more crime or more
|> serious crimes had they not been deterred.

I think its an attempt to show lives_saved v lives_lost; all other
 gun related crimes don't result in lives_lost.  On the other hand,
 its impossible to know how many of the successful self defenses 
 prevented lives from being lost.  In other words, the lives_lost
 is pretty clear [its the homicide and non negligent manslaughter
 number], while the lives saved is some percentage of the successful 
 self defenses.  Clearly that percentage doesn't have to be real 
 high to show that lives_saved > lives_lost.

As a semi-related point, check out Kleck's "Point Blank".  I believe
 it goes into some related areas; it also is well written and informative. 

|> 
|> -Case Kim
|> 
|> kim39@husc.harvard.edu
|> 

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54452
From: crrob@sony1.sdrc.com (Rob Davis)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!


  fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary @ University of Colorado, Boulder):

>I don't know about animal attacks, but there are 23,500 murders
>each year and under 500 die in the manner you suggest. If only
>2.1% of the murders were killings by "wacko"s, you would be
>wrong. Worse, there are also 102,500 rapes and 1,055,000 aggravated
>assaults each year. These numbers make violent attacks, and
>preventing them, thousands of times more significant than the
>accidents you are worried about.
 
 These stats are invalid; we're talking BACKCOUNTRY. These stats for
 rapes/assaults/deaths do not represent the backcountry singularly; the
 great majority represent urban incidents. You should have pointed this out.

  -Rob

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54453
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
-> > This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
-> > to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined 
-> > structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.
-> 
-> Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!

Perhaps you should, reread Federal 29 which deals exclusively with the
"well regulated malitia."  Here is what is says about its character:

	 To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes
	 of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through
	 military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
	 acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
	 character of a well-regulated militia, 

It also talks about the "well regulated militia" having a nationally
uniform in structure and disipline.  

I will note you did quote the end of this particular paragraph which states:

    	Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
	respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
	and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
	will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
	a year.

But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it 
requires a continually standing committee of organizers.  

Since a well regulate militia is nationally uniform in structure and
disipline, and meet once or twice a year to train, how can you claim
a "well regulated militia" is not well organized.  But I will concide 
a "well organized militia" is not necessarily a "well regulated militia." 

Several people have stated that the "well organized militia" is
what is defined under 10 USC 311, which states

	The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied 
	males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in 
	section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, 
	or who have made a declaration of intention to become, 
	citizens of the United States and of female citizents of 
	the United States who are commissioned officers of the 
	National Guard.

This deos define the militia, but were is the adjective "well regulated."
10 USC 311 does not define a "well regualed militia" in any way, shape, 
or form.  It only defines who can become part of a well regulated militia
The Federalist Papers CLEARLY define the "well regualed militia" as a
proper SUBSET of the militia.  In the same paragraph quoted above, it
talk above "disciplining all the militia of the United States" so they
fit the "character of a well-regulated militia."  This is what the
paragraph states about the associated costs:

	It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor 
	of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the 
	present numbers of the people, would not fall far short 
	of the whole expense of the civil  establishments of all 
	the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the 
	mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent,
	would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not 
	succeed, because it would not long be endured.


Another quote provide by Charles Scripter is:
James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General Welfare" clause): 
	"Nothing is more natural nor common than first
	to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
	recital of particulars."

So the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
not be infringed" must either qualify or explain the phrase "a well 
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."  
The definition of "explain" as stated in "The American Hertitage
Dictionary of the Enlish Language" The New College Edition, 1982 is:
	1) To make plain or comprehensible; remove obscruity from;
	   elucidate: "It was the economists who undertook to explain 
	   this puzzle"
	2) To define; explicate; expound: He explained his plan.
	3) To offer reasons for or a cause of; an answer for' justify:
	   explain an error
The second phrase clearly does not "explain" the first, therefore
the second phrase must "qualify" the first.  The definition given
for "qualify" is:
	1) To describe by enumerating the characteristics or qualities
	   of; characterize.
	2) To make competent or suitable for office, position, or 
	   task.
	3) To give legal power to; make legally capable.
	4) To modify, limit, or restrict, as giving exceptions.
	5) To make less harsh or severe; moderate
	6) Grammar: To modify the meaning of (a word or phrase)
Since "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" does not describe, modify or make less harsh anything and
it has nothing to do with grammar or some sort of position or task.
By process of elimination it must fall into definition #3.  And since
#3 deals with legal power, the same thing the Constitution does, it
must be the correct definition in this case.  Therefore, "the right 
of the people to keep and bear Arms" gives legal power to the "well 
regualated militia" and this legal power "shall not be infringed".  

I thank you very much Mr Scripter, you have provided me with more 
evidence that the Second Amendment only concerns itseft with the 
people's right to form well regulate militia, and says very little 
about the right of an untrained person to "keep and bear" a .50 caliber
machine gun.  And since I, totally untrained in the use of any firearm
(something I personly have meant to correct by going to a NRA gun
safety course and joining a gun club), cannot legally buy such a machine
gun, I conclude the courts and democraticly elected congress agree with
me.

-> So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
-> our Liberties and Rights.

I mean "to destory our Liberties and Rights."  Is that why a participate
in the discussion of exactly what "our Libertues and Rights" are?  I 
force my version of "our Liberties and Rights" by begining statements
of what "our Liberties and Rights" with "All that the Second Amendment 
clearly states to me."   Using expressions, such as "states to me," 
clearly mean I intend to force my views on others?  I don't think so.

So in effort not to force my views and not "to destory our Liberties and
Rights,"  I state that nothing I have written, or will write, in
the matter of "Liberties and Rights" is the final word.  For I am only
one person among many and the final word on "Liberties and Rights" cleary
and irrevocably belongs to the many.
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54454
From: ernie@ferris (Ernest Smith)
Subject: Re: Handgun Restrictions

>To: bbs.billand@tsoft.net
>Subject: Re: Handgun Restrictions
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>In-Reply-To: <ow522B2w165w@tsoft.net>
>Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
>Cc: 
>Bcc: 
>
In article <ow522B2w165w@tsoft.net> you write:
>I would like to know what restrictions there are on purchasing handguns 
>(ie waiting periods, background check etc..) in the states of Nevada and 
>Oregon. Thanks.
>                                                -Bill
>
>--
>Bill Anderson (bbs.billand@tsoft.net)


In Oregon your must get a background check (ie fingerprints, full slap), 15
day waiting period. That is unless you have a CCW then all requirments
have been meet.

		Ernie Smith
		ernie@oregon.cray.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54455
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: Armed Citizen - April '93

In article <1993Apr13.162304.16721@lds.loral.com>, kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr5.164728.10847@dazixco.ingr.com> crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com writes:
|> >
|> >THE ARMED CITIZEN
|> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|> >Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
|> >crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
|> >Armed Citizen.  
|> 
|> Perhaps so, but note that of the accounts cited, there was only
|> one in which no shot was fired. Of the other twelve, five
|> described cases in which the assailant was wounded by a shot,
|> and six described cases in which the assailant was killed by a
|> shot.

And, had not these citizens accepted the moral responsibility to
protect their own lives, there could well have been at least
13 innocent victims lying dead and several criminals still out 
walking the streets perpetrating their crimes on others.



-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54456
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1qicep$obf@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>> In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> >As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already
>> >ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v.
>> >Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what 
>> >the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back
>> >as the Dred Scott case, in 1857.
>> 
>> It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>> of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>> was not a proper militia weapon. 
>
>No, they noted that no one had CLAIMED that it was a proper militia
>weapon (despite having been used in at least two wars).  This was true,
>since neither Miller nor his lawyer appeared before the Court.

Did they or did they not sustain Miller's conviction? I don't have the
text of the case handy. 

Yes, shotguns had been used in WWI, the Spanish-American War, and the
US Civil War. That was not in question. The possession of a sawed-off
shotgun was, i.e., a weapon altered to improve concealibility.

>> Therefore, US vs. Miller supports limited government regulation of 
>> firearms.
>
>Don't go arguing down this road unless you are willing to abide by 
>the consequences that you find at the end of it -- mainly, that the
>law-abiding common man has a right to own any weapon that has a militia 
>purpose, from handguns to sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons.
>That, in fact, is what this decision says.

You are free to produce evidence that I'm not willing to abide with
all the implications of this. 

Just because I don't whole-heartedly endorse the NRA position does not
mean that I oppose the RKBA. This attitude is what makes the NRA
unpopular.

-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54457
From: fjk6478@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Fred)
Subject: Re: Luser!

>
>Actually, now we have established that I don't believe what you believe, as
>well as why I don't believe it.  And if it's boring, then I yield the last
>word to you, if you want it.  You may say anything you like with
>impunity--I am dropping the subject.
>
>--John L. Scott



How very kind of you!




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54458
From: bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks


>In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:

>|> 
>|> Does anybody reading this group have an actual, honest-to-God
>|> experience with violent crime in the backcountry to tell about?
>|> 

It was around 1969 in the Shenandoah Valley near Woodstock, Virginia.  Me,
my wife, a friend, his wife, and his 2 kids were hiking in a totally
desolate mountain area.  All of a sudden, large rocks began raining down
on us.  Looking up, we saw at least 3 punks gleefully letting loose rocks
from what was an obvious stash.  They were a couple hundred feet above us.
Meanwhile, the women and kids were screaming and running for cover and the
punks were shrieking with laughter.  Me and my friend yelled for them to
knock it off.  They responded that we should "Get f***ed!".  Me and my
friend drew our pistols and fired a couple of times into the trees above
their heads.  They ran.  With no more 3-5 pound rocks coming at our heads,
we proceeded on our journey.

Sorry, but me and my friend saw no need to let it evolve to a more
"violent" level than we were already experiencing.  I guess we should
have tried harder to understand and cope with the anger that society
had instilled in them and was driving them to do such things.  Guess
that's a cross I'll have to bear.

Brad

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54460
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Gun Talk -- Legislative Update for States

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>>IOWA:  All firearm related bills are dead.  Senate File 303
>>dealing with off-duty police officers carrying concealed remains
>>viable.

>	The *POWER* of the word processor and a stamp at work.
>The fact that around here the state rep generally lives no more than
>nine miles from any constituent doesn't hurt, either.

>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
><     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
><                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Does anyone know the particulars on the Senate File 303?
Does this bill allow or deny off-duty police from carrying concealed?

From what information that I have, Iowa has a discretionary permit policy
on CCW.  If S 303 allows police(off-duty) to carry concealed then I would
be inclined to oppose it.  I don't believe off-duty police officers should
have any more rights than civilians.  If law or policy prevents law-abiding
citizens from being armed for self defense then why should off-duty police
officer be treated any differently.  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54462
From: clay@rsd.dl.nec.com (Clay Finley)
Subject: Re: Carrying Arms

|> In article <1993Apr5.220457.6800@spdc.ti.com> dwhite@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Dan White) writes:
|> 
|> >However, haven't we already lost our right to bear arms?
|> 
|> >	It seems that in most states, like Texas, a citizen may own a
|> >gun and carry while at his home or business.  But a citizen is severely
|> >restricted from bearing outside these areas.  Here in Texas you cannot
|> >carry in your car except when "traveling" which is usually defined as
|> >"traveling across a county line."  How did this come about?  Are there
|> >any court rulings on the legality of restricting the carrying of a
|> >weapon outside the home?  
|> 

In Texas, it is legal to carry handguns while "traveling", and also to and from
sporting activities.           ^^^^^^^^

Chapter 46 of the Texas State Penal Code does NOT restrict long guns.
Therefore, it is legal to carry and transport long guns any place in Texas.

Regards,
Clay


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54463
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
:An 'edu'er not towing the "party" line, thank you!
:
:Jim

You're welcome!  ;)  Actually, I'm probably something of an outcast, because
I've committed the ultimate college-student heresy:  I'm not a liberal.
(This is NOT liberal-bashing.)


Mike
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54464
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
>>to defend the burning of the children.
>
>    Actually all the liberals I've seen have deplored the burning of 
>children. I would far preferred that the Davidians had not set the 
>fire that burned themselves and their children to death, but I don't 
>believe that the responsibility for the fire (or the almost complete 
>absense of attempts to escape the blaze) can be placed at the door of 
>the Federal authorities.
>
So far, there is NO credible evidence that the BD's set the fires
themselves. We only have the ATF/FBI's sayso. Law enforcements type
would *never* lie to cover their ass, right?

>>Probably drooled all over themselves while watching the TV coverage.
>
>    Not so. My wife got me a convenient plastic "drip pan" for Christmas...
>
>>Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
>
>    Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis.

No, not love, just share a surprising similarity of beliefs and
method.

>>Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
>>a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
>
>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...

Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
themselves to death.


>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54466
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
while watching the TV coverage.

Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.

Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54467
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

As a minor point of interest, earlier news reports claim to have
been quoting the Governor of Texas when Her Holiness referred to
the Dividians as _Mormons_ and called for their expulsion
from TX. Any Texans have details?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54468
From: blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:
>From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
>Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1
>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:06:42 GMT
>In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>>shoot-to-kill directives.
>
>You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.
>
>
>-- 
>                            REMEMBER WACO!
>     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
>[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Well, it seems we don't learn the lessons of history do we?

I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.

Apparently not.

Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.

---
Rawlin Blake    blake@nevada.edu

No .sig is a good .sig

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54469
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes:


>> Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>> Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

>oh, i see. electricity is a natural right & our wonderful government
>would -never- cut off the power to the people they were besieging.
>are you really this dumb, or just acting like it for the sake of
>argument?

>jason

No, they didn't have electrical power, but no, I don't find the idea of
Davidians calmly cooking lunch with gas masks on as the FBI knocks the
buildings down very credible,either.

It's not like this whole discussion is relevant.  It started when some-
one made the wholly unsubstantiated allegation that the wood stove ig-
nited NAPALM the FBI shot into the buildings.

I'm not a groveling apoligist for the feds, far from it.  But wild ac-
cusations like this are ridiculous and obfuscate legitimate criticism of
their conduct in this whole affair.

Tom Gift
tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54470
From: dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

NUT CASE PANICS!!!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF
THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE
MERCY ON HIM!!!!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54471
From: diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

 
>A few comments on the ATF's botched handling of this case:
 
>Dan S.

  And another one:

Hasn't enyone heard of a leader's recon?  This is when the leader of the
assult goes and looks at the objective to see if anything has changed that
would affect the mission.  Even the Freshman cadets here in ROTCland
know about them.  Mostly because they know it as the part where they 
lie on the cold ground for an hour or so, but they've heard about it.
Maybe the ATF should have hired out to the local ROTC guys!


-- 
Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu

These opinions are only mine on alternate Tuesdays.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54472
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Impeach Clinton, Reno


Fact:  Both Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have admitted responsibility,
       even grief, over the deaths in Waco.

Fact:  Regardless of who started the fire, there are more than enough
       things on tape to make a civil rights case against these two.
       Cruel and unusual punishment (dying tortured rabbits on tape?)
       come to mind.  

Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of
       law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty
       of life in prison.

Fact:  Impeachment is allowable for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
       Anything that's a federal felony should qualify.

Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to 
             impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
wearer of asbestos underoos

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54473
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
:mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
:
:> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
:> in Texas. 
:
:Do YOU eat all your food cold?

Thank you for pointing out the obvious to people who so clearly missed it.
I can't stand it when people's first reaction is to defend the aggressor.

Mr. Tavares, you have a unique and thoughtful way of getting to the heart
of the matter, and I thank you for putting it to good use.

Mike Ruff


-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54474
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
:glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes:
:>Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys,
:>it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming
:>houses and violating civil rights under color of law. 
:>
:>Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution?
:
:Its also about crazy fatigue clad survivalist types blasting the 
:snot out of people who accidentally stray onto his land in the
:name of 'self defense.'

Well, the count is now at least 86 dead by government action.  How many
have been killed in the last year in the manner you described?  What, no
facts?  Oh, how silly of me; I forgot, you don't like guns, so you don't
need no stinkin' facts.


:Don't get too self-righteous, Mr. gun-toter.

Don't get too smug, Mr. gun-hater.


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54475
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <93110.11265034AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> As a minor point of interest, earlier news reports claim to have
> been quoting the Governor of Texas when Her Holiness referred to
> the Dividians as _Mormons_ and called for their expulsion
> from TX. Any Texans have details?

The Davidians are a 60-year-old splinter from the Seventh Day Adventists,
if that's the information you were looking for.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54476
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tBwr.5xI@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift) writes:

> No, they didn't have electrical power, but no, I don't find the idea of
> Davidians calmly cooking lunch with gas masks on as the FBI knocks the
> buildings down very credible,either.

I don't know how quickly YOU can get a woodstove to heat up from a cold
start, but mine takes about three hours.

> It's not like this whole discussion is relevant.  It started when some-
> one made the wholly unsubstantiated allegation that the wood stove ig-
> nited NAPALM the FBI shot into the buildings.

Mox nix.  The BD's were prepared to provide their own heat and light,
and were doing so for weeks while the power was out.  That means the
compound contained containers of flammable liquids or gases (that could
be busted by a tank intrusion), plus ignition sources, which no one can 
tell for sure were all off at the time.

> I'm not a groveling apoligist for the feds, far from it.  But wild ac-
> cusations like this are ridiculous and obfuscate legitimate criticism of
> their conduct in this whole affair.

On the contrary.  We are proposing alternate scenarios.  The people who
are coming to wild conclusions are the feds, who are absolutely positive
how the fire started, even though none of them were in a position to 
see it, either (and the stories they "hear" from their prisoners changes
hourly).
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54477
From: syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu (Steven B Syck)
Subject: WI and IL firearms law Questions



A couple of questions for you firearms law experts out there:  

Question #1

According to the NRA/ILA state firearms lawbook, in Wisconsin it is
'unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go armed* with a 
"concealed and dangerous weapon."  There is no statutory provision for
obtaining a lixense or permit to carry a concealed weapon.'

*  Jury instructions indicate that 'to go armed' one must have a firearm
on one's person or within his immediate control and available for use.



Does this mean that open carry is allowed?  If so, just how 'open' does it
have to be?  Would an in the pants holster be considered concealing?  What
if one had their jacket on and it partially covered the weapon?  Also,
is there any way to be allowed to carry concealed, or is it just not allowed,
period? 

Question #2

As I understand it, in Evanston, IL, they have a ordinance banning handguns.
Is there any way to get around this provision?  What would the penalty if
you were found out be?  What if you used said handgun in a defensive shooting
in your apartment there?  How would the city law apply to your impending 
trial for the shooting?
Also, what is IL state law concerning short barreled weapons?  Short barreled
shotgun is what I would be interested in if a handgun were not available, 
either that or a shortened 9mm carbine (ie Colt, Marlin).  
One more thing, what is the chance of getting a CCW permit in IL without being
rich or famous or related to the mayor?

Please send replies via E-Mail, as things seem to be piling up around t.p.g
a little faster than I can handle.  Thanks again 
-------   Steve Syck        syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu        --------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54478
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
:cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
:>mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
:>>
:>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm 
:>> day in Texas. 
:>
:>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
:
:Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
:Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

Hey, Einstein, ever tried to use an electric stove or microwave WITHOUT
ELECTRICITY?  It's been shut off for weeks now, courtesy of your local FBI
assault squad.

Now, are you going to put your foot in your mouth or shall I get a crowbar
and assist you?


Mike Ruff
-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54479
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
:jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:> Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
:> them. Resistance is useless. 
:
:Don't tell me -- you're the "Borg Warner," right?

HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Hee, hee.  <chuckle>

This was absolutely fabulous.  I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.
Wonderful!  Mr. Tavares, my hat is off to you again!


Mike Ruff

-- 
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
   liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
   safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
   nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54480
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5t2IC.DC@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

> >>Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
> >>come out with their hands up several weeks ago.

> Now will you answer my question up top?

A suggestion: cameras panning over planted automatic weapons, followed by
a show trial and medals all around for the valiant forces of Lawn Order?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54481
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr20.124518.886@batman.bmd.trw.com> auerbach@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Women stand up for your right to be just as stupid as men.

Our new Attorney General seems determined to do so. In the past
few days she has said:

	She hopes the King beating will not reduce public confidince
	in law enforcement.

	The tactics of using tear gas and driving tanks through
	walls in Waco were intended to further a "peacefull solution"
	to the crisis.

	Those same tactics were intended to prevent a mass suicide,
	but she never expected the sect to react by killing themselves.

It's comforting to know, at least, that she wasn't Clinton's first
choice...

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54482
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

In article <1r1chu$h22@pandora.sdsu.edu> chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:

>    Initial assault on the "compound" ( more like a wooden farm house if
>  it burned to the ground like it did ) for WHAT?  Regardless of who
>  started/caused the fire, NONE of this would have happened if the
>  ATF can HONESTLY justify their initial assault and handled it 
>  properly!  

I just got through listening to the 10 o'clock news on Channel 4 here in
Dallas. They trotted out a list of justifications produced by the ATF after
"months of investigation" for their raid. 

I couldn't believe the junk on this list! For example, the BDs were accused
of stockpiling a bunch of "9mm and .223 ammunition that can be used in M15
and M16 assault rifles". Imagine that--they had ammunition!  They also had
aluminum dust! (Yeah, it's a component of thermite, but so far I haven't
heard that it's illegal to take a grinder to the aluminum lawn
furniture...) The only thing on the list that could conceivably have been
illegal was an M-79 grenade launcher. (Anybody know about this?)

Months of investigation! For this 80+ people died!

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54483
From: yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <93110.11320334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
> to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
> while watching the TV coverage.
> 
> Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
> 
> Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
> a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
> 
> 
> 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54486
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?

And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.

One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54487
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

First, I would like to say how much I appreciate having so literate and
erudite an individual as Mr. Rutledge with whom to discuss this topic.
Frankly, most anti-RKBA posters refuse even to approach the topic of
the original understanding of the Bill of Rights as detailed in the
writings of the era. This  is most refreshing.

Second, I must apologize for leaving the discussion for several days.
My brigade's quarterly drill was this weekend and I needed to attend
to several matters pertaining to the State Militia.

Some people seem to feel that the concept of the Militia is an anachro-
nism that is out of place in the 20th century. I'm not sure the Swiss
would agree and I think perhaps a discussion of how the Militia, both
organized and unorganized, fits into the defense plans of my State,
Mississippi. Please do not assume that this describes something peculiar
to one southern state. For instance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has a well organized Militia which, members report, maintains stocks
of both riot guns and machine guns. The laws of other States will vary
but are probably similar.

Title 35  of Mississippi Code defines our Militia as "all able-bodied
citizens of the state between the ages of seventeen (17) and sixty-
two (62) years...". The Militia is divided into 3 classes: The National
Guard, the Mississippi State Guard and the unorganized Militia.  The
National Guard is a strange sort of fish from a Constitutional perspective.
It tries to be both State Militia and Federal Reserve. The discussion
of this "para-constitutional" arrangement is quite interesting in itself
but somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it that, at this
date, the National Guard has ceased to have any Constitutional standing
as anything but a Federal reserve force.

Mississippi, and most other States, maintains a purely State organized
Militia. In Mississippi this is called The State Guard. In other 
States it may be called something else. The State Guard exists as
a cadre or training corps made up of mostly experienced officers and
senior NCOs who serve as volunteers without compensation. We drill
on a monthly basis at the company and battalion level, brigade once
a quarter and have an annual drill of the whole organization. Our
State-authorized cadre strength is 694. This is a skeleton of an
organization without any flesh. The muscle and sinew when needed will
come from the unorganized Militia.

In time of invasion, insurrection or calamity the Governor can order
the activation of the State Guard. When this takes place a call will
first be made  for volunteers to fill the organization out to either
its contingency strength of 2194 or full strength of 4910. In the
event that a sufficient number of people fail to volunteer, the law
provides detailed instructions for the conducting of a draft of the
unorganized Militia. The size of the State Guard is not specified by
law, but rather by executive order. At one time, the organized Militia
of Mississippi consisted of 68 regiments. Needless to say, the State
does not have armories brimming with weapons with which to equip such
a force. The historical precedent for arming such a force is by use
of mostly the private arms of the Militiamen. 

It is my hope that demonstrates that State Militias are far from being
the long dead anachronisms that some may wish to claim.

>No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
>organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
>meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
>state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
>to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
>by Hamilton. 

Regarding Hamilton: If you take Hamilton's opinion as being the sole
representative of the opinions of the Founding Fathers, you will have
chosen a highly skewed sample set. Hamilton was on the extreme Federalist
end of the political spectrum. Others, such as Coxe and Henry, can
be chosen to represent the other end. Many contemporaries felt that
the idea of having a standing Army of any sort or even a select Militia
or "train bands" were contrary to the egalitarian nature of the govern-
ment they were striving to perfect. The compromise reached was to
provide for a small Army, which had to be refinanced every two years,
and iron-clad protection for the Militia, which was to remain ever,
"terrible and irresistible".

These protections included: State control, not Federal; limitation
of Federal utilization of the Militia (i.e. execute Laws, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions), and the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms to prevent what the British had tried to do at Lexington.
These limitations eventually proved so onerous to the Federal Govern-
ment that they were skirted by the creation of the National Guard.

The National Guard was created for one very simple reason: the 
Constitutional Militia was had proved too unreliable for fighting
wars of imperial expansion. (e.g. Spanish-American War). The
Constitution provided that the Militia could only be employed by
the Federal government in very limited purposes. As far back as the
War of 1812, Militia units had refused to leave United States
territory to attack the enemy. Further, there was no Constitutional
authorization for any conscription of anyone into the Federal
Military and Militiamen were particularly protected. In all wars until
WW-I every American who left the country under arms was a volunteer.
When the National Guard acts of 1903-1916 required that each new
member also enlist as a reservest in the Army, existing soldiers were
"grandfathered". At least one of these "grandfathered" individuals
refused to go to France in 1918 and his refusal was upheld by the
Federal Courts.

Mr. Rutledge has stated that the Second Amendment applies only to
members of a "well organized" militia. However, the pre-Constitutional
history of the American Militia shows relatively few periods when
The Militia came close to meeting either Messrs. Rutledge or Hamilton's
definition of "well organized". In the period of peace between the
French & Indian War and The Revolution many companies simply stopped
drilling and had to be reconstituted just prior to The Revolution.
Perhaps Mr. Rutledge would care to argue that those of my ancestors
who answered the Lexington alarm had forfeited their rights because
their units didn't drill for a few years in the 1760s. I would not
be so bold.

Again, I wish to repeat. The National Guard, for all its merits, is
not the Militia described by the Constitution  nor by Mr. Hamilton
nor by Mr. Henry nor by Mr. Coxe. The fact that the Federal Government
and many States are delinquent in their attentions to and organizing
of their Constitutional Militias  diminishes neither their
responsibilities nor the rights of the Militia as detailed in the
Constitution.
 
Misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Militia is but one
error that has crept into modern readings of the Constitution. The
Constitution prohibits States from keeping "Troops or Ships of War
in time of Peace". I have heard some insist this prevents States from
maintaining a Militia, but this comes about because people today do not
understand the meanings of the words in their 18th century usage.
Today we call any large vessel a "ship" but in the 18th century the word
described a particular kind of vessel.  A "ship" is a large vessel with
three or more masts each carrying square rigged sails. A "brig" has two
masts. In the contemporary usage the States were prohibited only from keeping
the largest warships of the day, those capable of global operations. Today's
equivalent might be a prohibition on the States' keeping nuclear missiles.
"Troops" at this time meant a full-time professional military organization.
Any study of contemporaneous writings will bear this out. 

In at least one respect, I am in agreement with Mr. Rutledge; being
personally involved in the maintenance and advancement of The Militia
as a viable means of defense for a modern society, I am frequently
both bemused and saddened when friends and associates wax poetic on
their place in the unorganized Militia and become strangely silent or
scarce when invited to attend a  drill of their State's Militia.
-- 
Donald R. Newcomb              * University of Southern Mississippi
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu      * This is the way we tax and spend, tax 
dnewcomb@falcon.st.usm.edu     * and spend. We're Democrats in office.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54488
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>That the gas was "not harmful", as the sensitive, caring Janet Reno described 
>it?

Is it? As far as I know, tear gas, especially in large concentrations,
is very dangerous (even toxic) for small children. This makes the
FBI's supposedconcern for the safety of the children seem rather 
hypocritical.

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54489
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r21g2INNeah@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu  
>(Andrew Betz) writes:
>> >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>> >>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>> >>
>> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
>> >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
>> >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
>> 
>> Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
>> come out with their hands up several weeks ago.
>> 
>It didn't happen.

And who is responsible for it not happening?
Certainly not the children.  Koresh was calling the shots.  He was 
talking with his lawyer and the FBI.  Since others were released safely, 
there is no sane reason for keeping the children inside the compound.

>> >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>> >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>> >>scenarios.
>> >
>> >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
>> >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
>> >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.
>> 
>> More than someone who would not release children from the compound.
>> 
>Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper.

Not at all.  Are you a Koresh worshiper?

>> I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
>> I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
>> 1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.
>
>Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show you  
>to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed. 

Thanks for my laugh of the day!  Definitely a very silly supposition.

>You should at least view the whole  
>documentary before you claim it as a source.

I would if I could.  The news show that showed the lengthy excerpts also 
had interviews with the filmmaker who made the documentary who basically 
confirmed what was shown in the excerpts from the time he spent at the 
compound in 1992.

>> I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
>> bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
>> responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.
>
>Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?  
>I saw one place.

I believe that this was reported by local radio reporters on site.
A fire started in a three story tower at the same time as the two 
story window shown on the tv coverage.

>> >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>> >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>> >>ludicrous.
>> >
>> >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
>> >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
>> >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
>
>Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all, it  
>is the root cause of all the other suspicion.

I thought about mentioning how Reagan and the military treated the press 
in Grenada and how that set the precedent, but decided it wasn't worthy 
of discussion.  If the news reporter got shot, you can bet his family 
would sue the government for letting him into the danger area.

The root cause of suspicion in my mind is why 100 people wouldn't flee 
a building that had numerous exits during the 30 minutes time it took 
to burn down.  Or why didn't they flee hours earlier when the tear gas was 
first introduced?  I can find no rational explanation for their behavior.

-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54490
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: The Cold War: Who REALLY Won?

In article <1993Apr20.220335.9235@linus.mitre.org> glover@tafs2.mitre.org  
(Graham K. Glover) writes:
> If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented 
> and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >> 
> (and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism << 
> absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite 
> (which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?

Of course not.  The USA's only hope is for Yelsen (how ever you spell it) to  
fail the referendum, and have the hard-liners take over again.

> 
> Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply!
> 
> ----------------
> Graham K. Glover
> ----------------
> 
> UNMUTUAL

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54491
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1r1lp1INN752@mojo.eng.umd.edu> chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV) writes:
>>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam?

>CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that
>your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but
>you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies.

I think the is BZ gas, not CS or CN. BZ gas exposure results in projectile
vomiting, loss of essentially all muscle control, inability to concentrate
or think rationally and fatal reactions in a significant fraction of
the population. For that reason its use is limited to military
applications.

                                                          Frank Crary
                                                          CU Boulder
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54495
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r21vqINNeb8@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <C5spov.LrE@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>writes:
>> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
>Arras) writes:
>> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
>> >writes:
>> >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
>> >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
>> >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear  
>gassed.
>> >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
>> >> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  
>> 
>> Unworthy of comment.
>
>But apparently true.  My opinion, only, of course.

So, your opinion is truth.  I see...  :-)

>> >Humans died  
>> >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
>> >actions  
>> >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  
>> 
>> Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
>> That is undeniable truth.  
>
>No, it is not.  It is possible the FBI planned for this to happen, and the  
>gunfire heard was the FBI keeping the folks inside.  I'm not proposing this as  
>the way it went down, but just to point out that it's not "undeniable" that if  
>they walked out yesterday, they would be alive today.

You can believe that if you wish.  It is undeniable, however, that people 
have left the compound unharmed and alive earier in the standoff.

And since their leader was preaching that they would have an apocalypse, you 
can not say undeniably that there wouldn't have been a mass suicide if the 
FBI had simply stayed outside and waited another 51 days.

>> My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
>> the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
>> to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion 
>> to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
>> and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.
>
>My heart "bleeds" for no one.  You are the "bleeding heart".  And I'm sure  
>beyond any possible doubt that you do not feel for those people as I do.  You  
>can not say the heartless things you have said if you did.

I am the heartless bleeding heart?  You are not making sense.
You seem to have no concern that someone would keep children inside this 
compound when they had 51 days to let them out.  That sounds pretty heartless 
to me.

I just heard on the news that some of the survivors regret they hadn't 
stayed in the inferno to prove their loyalty to Koresh.  This makes me 
sad and sick.

>> >You seem to say  
>> >they got what they deserved.
>> 
>> I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
>> more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
>> wanted and put into motion themselves.
>
>"they got what they wanted".  What kind of creature are you that you can  
>believe this?

Have you ever heard of Jonestown?
The sad thing is the people inside the compound were the authority 
worshipers and their only authority was Koresh/Howell.   If these 
people were able to think for themselves, there would likely be a lot 
more survivors today.  Koresh preached a fiery apocalypse as early as 
last year.

>> I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
>> by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair 
>> from the start.
>
>We agree on this.  Now lets have your God, the FBI, investigated, too.

By all means, the FBI should be investigated, too.  
BTW, I thought the second ammendment was God.  :-)

>> >Jim
>> >--
>> >jmd@handheld.com
>>  


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54496
From: fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
>there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
>been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
>rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

Consider this: The BDs had more than one lamp; The tanks made more than
one hole in the building. Did anyone else notice on the video that it
appeared that wherever there was smoke coming out of the building, there
was a tank nearby?

The fact that it appears that fires started in several places does not
rule out anything.

Also, where are these several witnesses? The way I heard it (from the FBI
spokesman on CNN) the "witnesses" were all people driving the tanks.

>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have
done their job well.

Dwayne Jacques Fontenot

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54498
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution. 

This is REALLY STUPID nitpicking.  Capitalization rules in the late 18th
century were quite different from today, and what was posted matches current
capitalization rules.

We also don't make 's' look like 'f' and other such things done in the late
seventeen hundreds.

In the original Constitution, "militia", "arms", etc. were capitalized simply
because they were nouns.  This is also done currently in German.  There is
no special significance to these words simply because they are capitalized.
The capitalization denotes no special emphasis.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

	ARIES (Mar 21 - Apr 19)
You are the pioneer type and hold most people in contempt.  You are
quick tempered, impatient, and scornful of advice.  You are not very
nice.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54499
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>hands up while national tv cameras watch.

	Would *you* have come out if you knew the only national TV
cameras were well over a mile away, and yet the agents with the guns
were only a few yards away?  They had contact with a lawyer, so I
am inclined to believe they had an idea of what their situation
actually was.  This also leads to the conspiracy theory that the
lawyer had the BATF pinned on rights violations if the BD's
acted as witnesses, hence the arson.  I doubt that one too, but
it is still quite clear that leaving a safe place to surrender is
a rather stupid thing to do until that place is no longer safe.

>Do you disbelieve everything the FBI says?

	As a matter of course, given how they've allowed no other
views to be heard.  I'll reserve judgement until the trial, but so
far as the FBI is concerned their statements carry the same amount
of weight as photons at rest.

>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>ludicrous.

	Ludicrous, yes.  Possible, yes.  Plausible?  Get the jury.

>If the fire were set by accident or by people outside the compound, I would 
>have expected far more cult members to flee the compound.  Or at least come 
>out shooting.

	That's what gets me too.  It is likely the cult members were
holed up in an enforced place inside the building.  With a decent arson
attempt I suspect many of them could have been trapped.  In addition,
the introduction of CS gas for several hours would have rendered many
of them immobile if not unconscious when their masks quit.  All the props
are there, but proving what scene was played is difficult.  The only
certainty is that the FBI and BATF have few witnesses against them.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54500
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun cont
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

In article <C5JGz5.34J@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>I'd like to point out that I was in error - "Terminator" began posting only 
>six months before he purchased his first firearm, according to private email
>from him.
>I can't produce an archived posting of his earlier than January 1992,
>and he purchased his first firearm in March 1992.
>I guess it only seemed like years.
>Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.

I first read and consulted rec.guns in the summer of 1991.  I
just purchased my first firearm in early March of this year.

 NOt for lack of desire for a firearm, you understand.  I could 
have purchased a rifle or shotgun but didn't want one.
-Case Kim



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54501
Subject: Re: Cop kills teenager
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
>	SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED IN REVENGE TRIPLE HOMICIDE
>
>PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer afraid he would be fired for
>allegedly assaulting a teen-ager walked into an auto body shop wher the youth
>worked, said "You're going to die" and fatally shot him and two others, police
>said.
>A fourth youth was wounded.  A fifth escaped injury by hiding under a car.
>Suspended police officer Robert Sabetta, 23, of Cranston, was arrested at
>gunpoint over three hours after the shooting at Wilson's Auto Enterprises in
>Foster, a rural town of about 4,000 people in northwest Rhode Island.
>						Doug Holland
>
	I think I have updated info on this.  My understandingis that
former officer Cranston approached a teenager who was being questioned
by another officer.   Officer Cranston struck Teenager A in the head
with a heavy police flashlight, causing a significant, though not
life-threatening.  THere is no evidence that Teenager A was
doing anything threatening at the time.  Teenager A was released
on bail/recognizance and filed a formal complaint against Officer
Cranston.  The Police Chief suspended Cranston pending an 
investigation into the use of excessive force.  
	The above is pretty clear... but what seems to have 
happened is this.  The Chief requested Cranston's gun, but Cranston
refused to turn it over until the Chief went the Cranston's home
 to get it.  Sources said Cranston had always wanted to be
a cop and was very afraid of loosing his job because of the complaint
against him.
	A few days afterward, Cranston allegedly walked into 
Wilson's Garage, where Teenager A and friends were known to
hang out and work on cars as a hobby.  Cranston fatally shot
Teenager A as well as TEenagers B and C.  Teenager D was shot once
in the shoulder/chest.  Teenager E was working under the car
and was not noticed by Officer Cranston.  Teenager D went to a home
and summoned police, who went to Wilson's Garage and found the 
3 corpses and one unscathed survivor.

	A few days after his arrest, Officer Cranston attemped
to commit suicide in his cell.
-Case Kim




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54502
From: mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen)
Subject: Re: We knew it would happen

In talk.politics.guns, jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman) writes:

	Well Josh I agree with you to some respect...less your spelling
	errors.  The Gov'mnt always must win! even if they kill every
	man women and child....by GOD they must win at all costs......

	This happens over and over and over in this country.  Lets make
	excuses, get the worthless press to cover up everything, let the
	officials take the heat for top management stupidity etc...etc...

> I am sick with greif for the entire well being of this nation and the 
> constitution in claims to protect.
	> 
> Later,
> Josh   

> 
>later Morty
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54503
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back

Re: More on Gun Buybacks

The Denver buy back, trading guns for Denver Nuggets tickets was pretty much
a bust. Very few guns were turned in. The news tried to hype it but 
when the best they could do was ".... including a loaded .38..." well,
you get the picture.

A side note- the news also reported that the guns would be checked for
whether or not they were stolen. STOLEN GUNS WILL BE RETURNED TO THEIR
OWNERS!!!!! (They say)

(Does this have anything to do with the rally on the Capital steps yesterday
 in support of the RKBA????)

Even the rally made the 5 pm news on 3 channels :-)


Ron Miller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54504
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Subject: Re: Waco, they did it.    ( MASADA )

Re: Flaming wreckage

I wrote my congressmen strongly worded letters demanding they dissolve the
BATF.

Perhaps anger and grief can help spur a letter writing campaign?

Ron Miller

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54505
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r27ld$bp2@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <C5t38G.IL@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>> In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>> 
>>   [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the 
>>    "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on 
>>    the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.]
>
>Was THAT your argument.  Well, you didn't make it very well.  You started 
>from the questionable premise that the fire was necessarily an act of
>insanity, rather than an act of negligence or an accident.  Recall, one
>survivor claims that the fire started when a tank knocked over a kerosene 
>lamp.  Kind of makes arguments regarding relative sanity somewhat moot, no?

And another survivor claims he heard someone shouting "The fire's started!".
Odd terminology.  That's what one says when you know a fire is planned, not 
when one occurs by accident.  We will have to wait and see what the evidence 
shows, assuming one is willing to believe any evidence offered by the 
"distrustful ones".

>> >> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
>> >> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
>> >> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
>> >> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
>> >> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
>> >> to the way Jim Jones has been described.
>> >
>> >Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance?
>> >Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15.
>> 
>> I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form.
>> The comments above and below were meant to address who might be unstable 
>> enough to keep children in a building with tear gas or start a fire.
>
>"Nice evasive maneuver, Mr. Chekov, but they're still on our tail."
>
>Let me ask it more plainly.  Which of the above complaints about David 
>Koresh's religious or sexual proclivities justified an armed raid by the 
>Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?

Neither.  Again I was merely addressing the sanity level of the players.  
I agree that the BATF handled the affair badly from day one.  BTW, I heard 
on the news today that the affadavit behind the no-knock warrant was unsealed 
today.  Grenade launcher was the only thing on the list that I found 
unusual.

>> >> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>> >> >:by cult members.
>
>> >> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details, 
>> >> will you believe them?
>
>> >Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else
>> >who doesn't know them personally.
>
>> Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?
>
>It's not entirely far-fetched.  Nobody outside the compound would know 
>EVERYBODY inside the compound.  Don't forget, the BATF admits having 
>agents inside the compound, in any case.

Ambitious news reporters could use the documentary filmed by an Australian 
in 1992 on the compound grounds to help identify survivors.  I, for one, 
will check their stories for consistency with what I learned in a long 
news story about that documentary.

>> At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors.
>> Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no 
>> good if you believe in eternal darkness.
>
>I'm simply being the devil's advocate.  There's reasonable doubt by the
>boatload standing in the way of anybody totally swallowing the official 
>government story on Waco.

Certainly there is some room for doubt.  I certainly reserve the right 
to change my opinions when new evidence warrants such a change.  If I 
were conspiratorially minded, however, I would never be able to change 
my mind, because any evidence I disliked would have to be a lie 
fabricated by the "distrustful ones".


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54506
From: mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r1j1l$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
> 
> Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.
> 
> You sick bastard.
> -- 
> 
> 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...
> 

Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said 
that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  However it was the Branch
Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior" 
(yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that 
what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their
lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and
for many of the rest of the U.S.  I am however sad to hear of the death of any 
child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              |
| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    |
| Kent State University	| 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|      Look here for future advice.quotes.sayings.jibberish.philosohy        |
|                                                                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54508
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

Here is a press release from the White House.

 President Clinton's Remarks On Waco With Q/A
 To: National Desk
 Contact: White House Office of the Press Secretary, 202-456-2100

   WASHINGTON, April 20 -- Following are remarks by President 
Clinton in a question and answer session with the press:

1:36 P.M. EDT

     THE PRESIDENT:  On February the 28th, four federal
agents were killed in the line of duty trying to enforce the law
against the Branch Davidian compound, which had illegally stockpiled
weaponry and ammunition, and placed innocent children at risk.
Because the BATF operation had failed to meet its objective, a 51-day
standoff ensued.

     The Federal Bureau of Investigation then made every
reasonable effort to bring this perilous situation to an end without
bloodshed and further loss of life.  The Bureau's efforts were
ultimately unavailing because the individual with whom they were
dealing, David Koresh, was dangerous, irrational, and probably
insane.

     He engaged in numerous activities which violated both
federal law and common standards of decency.  He was, moreover,
responsible for the deaths and injuries which occurred during the
action against the compound in February.  Given his inclination
towards violence and in an effort to protect his young hostages, no
provocative actions were taken for more than seven weeks by federal
agents against the compound.

     This weekend I was briefed by Attorney General Reno on
an operation prepared by the FBI, designed to increase pressure on
Koresh and persuade those in the compound to surrender peacefully.
The plan included a decision to withhold the use of ammunition, even
in the face of fire, and instead to use tear gas that would not cause
permanent harm to health, but would, it was hoped, force the people
in the compound to come outside and to surrender.

     I was informed of the plan to end the siege.  I
discussed it with Attorney General Reno.  I asked the questions I
thought it was appropriate for me to ask.  I then told her to do what
she thought was right, and I take full responsibility for the
implementation of the decision.

     Yesterday's action ended in a horrible human tragedy.
Mr. Koresh's response to the demands for his surrender by federal
agents was to destroy himself and murder the children who were his
captives, as well as all the other people who were there who did not
survive.  He killed those he controlled, and he bears ultimate
responsibility for the carnage that ensued.

     Now we must review the past with an eye towards the
future.  I have directed the United Stated Departments of Justice and
Treasury to undertake a vigorous and thorough investigation to
uncover what happened and why, and whether anything could have been
dne differently.  I have told the departments to involve independent
professional law enforcement officials in the investigation.  I
expect to receive analysis and answers in whatever time is required
to complete the review.  Finally, I have directed the departments to
cooperate fully with all congressional inquiries so that we can
continue to be fully accountable to the American people.

     I want to express my appreciation to the Attorney
General, to the Justice Department, and to the federal agents on the
front lines who did the best job they could under deeply difficult
circumstances.

     Again, I want to say as I did yesterday, I am very sorry
for the loss of life which occurred at the beginning and at the end
of this tragedy in Waco.  I hope very much that others who will be
tempted to join cults and to become involved with people like David
Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over
the last seven weeks.  And I hope very much that the difficult
situations which federal agents confronted there and which they will
be doubtless required to confront in other contexts in the future
will be somewhat better handled and better understood because of what
has been learned now.

     Q  Mr. President, can you, first of all, tell us why,
after 51 days, you decided --

     Q  Mr. President, can you describe for us what it is
that Janet Reno outlined to you in your 15-minute phone conversation
with --

     THE PRESIDENT:  I can't hear you both.  If one will go
first and then the other.

     Q  Sorry.  Can you describe what Janet Reno --

     Q  Mr. President --

     THE PRESIDENT:  I'll answer both your questions, but I
can't do it at once.

     Q  Can you describe what she told you on Sunday about
the nature of the operation and how much detail you knew about it?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  I was told by the Attorney General
that the FBI strongly felt that the time had come to take another
step in trying to dislodge the people in the compound.  And she
described generally what the operation would be -- that they wanted
to go in and use tear gas which had been tested not to cause
permanent damage to adults or to children, but which would make it
very difficult for people to stay inside the building.  And it was
hoped that the tear gas would permit them to come outside.

     I was further told that under no circumstances would our
people fire any shots at them even if fired upon.  They were going to
shoot the tear gas from armored vehicles which would protect them and
there would be no exchange of fire.  In fact, as you know, an awful
lot of shots were fired by the cult members at the federal officials.
There were no shots coming back from the government side.

     I asked a number of questions.  The first question I
asked is, why now?  We have waited seven weeks; why now?  The reasons
I was given were the following:

     Number one, that there was a limit to how long the
federal authorities could maintain with their limited resources the
quality and intensity of coverage by experts there.  They might be
needed in other parts of the country.

     Number two, that the people who had reviewed this had
never seen a case quite like this one before, and they were convinced
that no progress had been made recently and no progress was going to
be made through the normal means of getting Koresh and the other cult
members to come out.

     Number three, that the danger of their doing something
to themselves or to others was likely to increase, not decrease, with
the passage of time.

     And number four, that they had reason to believe that
the children who were still inside the compound were being abused
significantly, as well as being forced to live in unsanitary and
unsafe conditions.

     So for those reasons, they wanted to move at that time.
The second question I asked the Attorney General is whether they had
given consideration to all of the things that could go wrong and
evaluated them against what might happen that was good.  She said
that the FBI personnel on the scene and those working with them were
convinced that the chances of bad things happening would only
increase with the passage of time.

     The third question I asked was, has the military been
consulted?  As soon as the initial tragedy came to light in Waco,
that's the first thing I asked to be done, because it was obvious
that this was not a typical law enforcement situation.  Military
people were then brought in, helped to analyze the situation and some
of the problems that were presented by it.   And so I asked if the
military had been consulted.  The Attorney General said that they
had, and that they were in basic agreement that there was only one
minor tactical difference of opinion between the FBI and the military
-- something that both sides thought was not of overwhelming
significance.

     Having asked those questions and gotten those answers, I
said that if she thought it was the right thing to do, that she
should proceed and that I would support it.  And I stand by that
today.

     Q  Mr. President --

     THE PRESIDENT:  Wait.  Go ahead.

     Q  Can you address the widespread perception --
reported widely, television, radio and newspapers -- that you were
trying somehow to distance yourself from this disaster?

     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I'm bewildered by it.  The only
reason I made no public statement yesterday -- let me say -- the only
reason I made no public statement yesterday is that I had nothing to
add to what was being said and I literally did not know until rather
late in the day whether anybody was still alive other than those who
had been actually seen and taken to the hospital or taken into
custody.  It was purely and simply a question of waiting for events
to unfold.

     There was -- I have -- I can't account for why people
speculated one way or the other, but I talked to the Attorney General
on the day before the action took place.  I talked to her yesterday.
I called her again late last night after she appeared on the Larry
King Show, and I talked to her again this morning.  A President -- it
is not possible for a President to distance himself from things that
happen when the federal government is in control.

     I will say this, however.  I was, frankly, surprised
would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the
Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics
murdered themselves.  (Applause.)

     I regret what happened, but it is not possible in this
life to control the behavior of others in every circumstance.  These
people killed four federal officials in the line of duty.  They were
heavily armed.  They fired on federal officials yesterday repeatedly,
and they were never fired back on.  We did everything we could to
avoid the loss of life.  They made the decision to immolate
themselves.  And I regret it terribly, and I feel awful about the
children.

     But in the end, the last comment I had from Janet Reno,
is when -- and I talked to her on Sunday -- I said, now, I want you
to tell me once more why you believe -- not why they believe -- why
you believe we should move now rather than wait some more.  And she
said, it's because of the children.  They have evidence that those
children are still being abused and that they're in increasingly
unsafe conditions, and that they don't think it will get any easier
with time -- with the passage of time.  I have to take their word for
that.  So that is where I think things stand.

     Q  Can we assume then that you don't think this was
mishandled in view of the outcome, that you didn't run out of
patience?  And if you had it to do over again, would you really
decide that way?

     THE PRESIDENT:  No -- well, I think what you can assume
is just exactly what I announced today.  This is a -- the FBI has
done a lot of things right for this country over a long period of
time.  This is the same FBI that found the people that bombed the
World Trade Center in lickety-split, record time.  We want an inquiry
to analyze the steps along the way.  Is there something else we
should have known?  Is there some other question they should have
asked?  Is there some other question I should have asked?  Can I say
for sure that no one -- that we could have done nothing else to make
the outcome come different?  I don't know that.  That's why I want
the inquiry and that's why I would like to make sure that we have
some independent law enforcement people, not political people, but
totally non-political, outside experts who can bring to bear the best
evidence we have.

     There is, unfortunately, a rise in this sort of
fanaticism all across the world.  And we may have to confront it
again.  And I want to know whether there is anything we can do,
particularly when there are children involved.  But I do think it is
important to recognize that the wrong-doers in this case were the
people who killed others and then killed themselves.

     Q  Mr. President, were there any other options
presented to you for resolving this situation at any point from
February 28th until yesterday?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, yes, I got regular reports all
along the way.  There were lots of other options pursued.  If you go
back -- you all covered it very well.  The FBI -- you did a very good
job of it.  I mean, the FBI and the other authorities there pursued
any number of other options all along the way, and a lot of them
early on seemed to be working.  Some of the children got out, some of
the other people left.  There was a -- at one point, there seemed to
be some lines of communication opening up between Koresh and the
authorities.  And then he would say things and not do them and things
just began to spin downward.

     Whether there were other -- in terms of what happened
yesterday, the conversation I had with the Attorney General did not
involve other options except whether we should take more time with
the present strategy we were pursuing -- because they said they
wanted to do this, because they thought this was the best way to get
people out of the compound quickly before they could kill themselves.
That's what they thought.

     Q  Did the government know that the children did not
have gas masks?

     Q     congressional hearings once the situation -- are
you in agreement with that?

     THE PRESIDENT:  That's up to the Congress.  They can do
whatever they want.  But I think it's very important that the
Treasury and Justice Departments launch this investigation and bring
in some outside experts.  And as I said in my statement, if any
congressional committees want to look into it, we will fully
cooperate.  There is nothing to hide here.  This was probably the
most well-covered operation of its kind in the history of the
country.

   (more, more)
 -30-

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54509
From: ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 2

Here is a press release from the White House.

 President Clinton's Remarks On Waco With Q/A
 To: National Desk
 Contact: White House Office of the Press Secretary, 202-456-2100

   WASHINGTON, April 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following are
remarks by President Clinton in a question and answer session
with the press (Part 2 of 2):

     Go ahead, Sarah.

     Q  There are two questions I want to ask you.  The
first is, I think that they knew very well that the children did not
have gas masks while the adults did, so the children had no chance
because this gas was very -- she said it was not lethal, but it was
very dangerous to the children and they could not have survived
without gas masks.  And on February 28th -- let's go back -- didn't
those people have a right to practice their religion?

     THE PRESIDENT:  They were not just practicing their
religion, they were -- the Treasury Department believed that they had
violated federal laws, any number of them.

     Q  What federal laws --

     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me go back and answer -- I can't
answer the question about the gas masks, except to tell you that the
whole purpose of using the tear gas was that it had been tested; they
were convinced that it wouldn't kill either a child or an adult but
it would force anybody that breathed it to run outside.  And one of
the things that I've heard -- I don't want to get into the details of
this because I don't know -- but one of the things that they were
speculating about today was that the wind was blowing so fast that
the windows might have been opened and some of the gas might have
escaped and that may be why it didn't have the desired effect.

     They also knew, Sarah, that there was an underground
compound -- a bus buried underground where the children could be
sent.  And they were -- I think they were hoping very much that if
the children were not released immediately outside that the humane
thing would be done and that the children would be sent someplace
where they could be protected.

     In terms of the gas masks themselves, I learned
yesterday -- I did not ask this fact question before -- that the gas
was supposed to stay active in the compound longer than the gas masks
themselves were to work.  So that it was thought that even if they
all had gas masks, that eventually the gas would force them out in a
nonviolent, nonshooting circumstance.

     MS. MYERS:  Last question.

     Q  Mr. President, why are you still saying that --

     Q  Could you tell us whether or not you ever asked
Janet Reno about the possibility of a mass suicide?  And when you
learned about the actual fire and explosion what went through your
mind during those horrendous moments?

     THE PRESIDENT:  What I asked Janet Reno is if they had
considered all the worse things that could happen.  And she said --
and, of course, the whole issue of suicide had been raised in the
public -- he had -- that had been debated anyway.  And she said that
the people who were most knowledgeable  about these kinds of issues
concluded that there was no greater risk of that now than there would
be tomorrow or the next day or the day after that or at anytime in
the future.  That was the judgment they made.  Whether they were
right or wrong, of course, we will never know.

     What happened when I saw the fire, when I saw the
building burning?  I was sick.  I felt terrible.  And my immediate
concern was whether the children had gotten out and whether they were
escaping or whether they were inside, trying to burn themselves up.
That's the first thing I wanted to know.

     Thank you.

     Q  Mr. President, why are you still saying it was a
Janet Reno decision?  Isn't it, in the end, your decision?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what I'm saying is that I didn't
have a four- or five-hour, detailed briefing from the FBI.  I didn't
go over every strategic part of it.  It is a decision for which I
take responsibility.  I'm the President of the United States and I
signed off on the general decision and giving her the authority to
make the last call.  When I talked to her on Sunday, some time had
elapsed.  She might have made a decision to change her mind.  I said,
if you decide to go forward with this tomorrow, I will support you.
And I do support her.

     She is not ultimately responsible to the American
people; I am.  But I think she has conducted her duties in an
appropriate fashion and she has dealt with this situation I think as
well as she could have.

     Thank you.  (Applause.)

 -30-

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54510
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>We have NO evidence that BATF & FBI would not have started shooting
>when and if people had started coming out of the burning building.

Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people
leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the
press first?

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54511
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)

In article <C5n0vy.EJ6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
<In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
<-> In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
<-> > But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
<-> > group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
<-> > every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
<-> > be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it 
<-> > requires a continually standing committee of organizers.  
<-> 
<-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
<-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
<-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from 
<-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
<-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.
<
<No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
<and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
<an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the 
<people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
<that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
<cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional 
<interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
<of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
<of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
<how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.

Wrong.  Neglecting that the government and media have bullshitted the
people almost nonstop on this issue, Constitutional limitations are
there to prevent a 'tyrrany of the majority'.  For example, a majority
could vote that given ethnics have no rights, are not people, etc.
and it would fly using the logic above.

When government feels the Constitution is not right for the times,
there is a procedure called an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  THis
is deliberately difficult, and cumbersome, to prevent abuse of those
who decide to ignore the people, or impose unjust policies of a
majority on a minority.   A lynch mob is a majority, remember, outvoting
the hangee.

What the government is doing are VIOLATIONS, end-runs around the
limitations on the government, probably because they know that the
people would be very hard to convince that a good intention is behind
tampering with the Bill of Rights.  Government propeganda on guns has
been very strong and persistant, but not THAT strong.  And it just
shows how gullible the people have become to "I am from the government
and am here to help you sort of line".  We have been lied to, fed
half truths, rigged stats, while the government knows their control
laws have no effect on crime.  They want a government monopoly on
force, pure and simple.  Do you REALLY want the government to be able
to override Constitutional limitations by a simple vote of a bunch
of elitists (congresscritters)?  I sure don't.  The Founding Fathers
sure as hell didn't, either.

<> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
<-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
<-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a 
<-> number of times.  
<
<No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
<organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
<meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
<state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
<to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
<by Hamilton. 

You better read the Senate Subcommitte on the Constitution regarding the
Second Amendment, and a linguist's analisys of the Second itself.
IN the meanwhile, show us some stuff to back up your assertions.
And yes, I have the above mentioned documents (and more) online.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54512
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1r27vo$425@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>:mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>:
>:According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off 
>:began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh 
>:had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.  
>:These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of 
>:his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar 
>:to the way Jim Jones has been described.
>
>I don't know how accurate the documentary was; 

The documentary interviewed Koresh and current and ex-members.  
The documentary disucussed Koresh's "Christ" status inside the cult, 
cult brain-washing techniques, and unusual sex practices (the leader 
gets any he wants, and tells others when they can or can't).  I will let 
others decide if using religious authority to have sex with a minor is 
technically child abuse or not.

>however, Koresh was never
>convicted of any crimes against children, nor was the BATF after him for
>child abuse.  
>Their purview (in this case) is strictly in firearms violations,

All true.

>so this information is irrelevant to the discussion.

Well, if a fire was deliberately set by members of the cult, then the 
history and background of the cult is very relevant.  The history 
and backgournd of the Jones cult was very important in understanding 
what happened at Jonestown.

Not taking into account the history and background of Koresh's cult may 
also help explain why the FBI and BATF so badly predicted the reponses 
they would get from inside the compund nearly every step of the way in 
this badly handled affair.

>:FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background 
>:checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their 
>:decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill 
>:Koresh's own prophecy?
>
>Those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain *something*, but whether
>their answers even remotely resembles the truth we may never know.  And who
>is left alive to care whether the prophecy is fulfilled?  It only holds
>meaning for the nine who survived.

It is likely that there will be at least two investigations (JD and congress) 
at this point.

>:>Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far,
>:>no one else has been able to talk to them.
>:
>:So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same 
>:details, will you believe them?
>
>*IF* they confirm the story, I probably will.  Definitely not until then, 
>however.

Interesting and conflicting details are starting to come out.  I have 
reverted back to wait mode to find out whether the fire was intentional 
or accidental and how it started and why it spread so fast.

>
>Mike Ruff
>-- 


-- 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54513
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno

On 21 Apr 93 02:59:52 GMT, Glenn R. Stone (gs26@prism.gatech.EDU) wrote:

> Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of
>        law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty
>        of life in prison.

Title 18, 241 and/or 242 seem to apply.  241 is conspiracy (two or
more persons) against rights of citizens.  242 is deprivation of
rights under color of law.  Both call for up to life in prison if
death occurs.  Reno, Bentsen, and Clinton are probably all principals
to the crime (as they are responsible for authorized actions on the
part of their subordinates). 

> Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to 
>              impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.

You forgot one detail, they should be turned over to the Texas
authorities for trial, as the crime was committed there (Article 4,
section 2). 

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54514
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: We knew it would happen

God forgive me for being an American who pays taxes to a government
that commits atrocities like the Waco Massacre of 1993.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54515
From: diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich)
Subject: BATF Acronym

  Haven't seen this one on here yet, so here it goes:

B. arely
A. dequate,
T. otally
F. ***ed!

  I don't know about adequate, but it fits the acronym.  =)

-- 
Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu

These opinions are only mine on alternate Tuesdays.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54516
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
>mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
>neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
>gas on his/her property.  

	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining
these weapons, and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of
modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.  I'll give
you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, biological in
nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate
the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So,
where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that
a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54517
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 03:52:11 GMT, Peter Cash (cash@convex.com) wrote:

> I just got through listening to the 10 o'clock news on Channel 4 here in
> Dallas. They trotted out a list of justifications produced by the ATF after
> "months of investigation" for their raid. 

CNN just claimed he bought 104 "semi-automatic assault rifles".  And
they say Koresh wasn't god-like...  He managed to buy or build a
collection of fully-automatic semi-automatic rifles...  Quite a feat,
I would say.  ;-)

They're still making charges of "sexual abuse" and such, or course.
Nobody seems to have noticed that the Treasury department has nothing
to do with sex crimes.  Or maybe the feds have recently instituted a
TAX on sex crimes...  Yeah, that's why the BATF was there, looking for
unregistered *guns* ("this is my weapon, this is my gun, this is for
fighting, this is for...").

> I couldn't believe the junk on this list! For example, the BDs were accused
> of stockpiling a bunch of "9mm and .223 ammunition that can be used in M15
> and M16 assault rifles". Imagine that--they had ammunition!

I also heard that they're claiming to be cautious because of Koresh's
"heated ammunition stockpile".  I seem to recall that smokeless powder
tends to decompose at even moderate temperatures.  I would be rather
surprised, after a fire of that nature, if *any* of his "stockpile" is
unexploded, or unburned.

> They also had
> aluminum dust! (Yeah, it's a component of thermite, but so far I haven't
> heard that it's illegal to take a grinder to the aluminum lawn
> furniture...)

I seem to recall that aluminum powder is a common component of
fireworks...  The folks on rec.pyro could probably tell you.

> The only thing on the list that could conceivably have been
> illegal was an M-79 grenade launcher. (Anybody know about this?)

I think *anything* is legal if you have the proper license.  If he had
a "curios and relics" permit, I believe he could legally own
handgrenades to go with his launcher.

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54518
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Subject: Re: The Cold War: Who REALLY Won?

>If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented 
>and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >> 
>(and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism << 
>absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite 
>(which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?
>
>Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply!
>
>----------------
>Graham K. Glover
>----------------

The Cold War has not ended.  The only thing that has happened is that 
the two sides have exchanged roles.

The USA has a higher imprisonment rate (400 per 100,000 population)
than any country in Europe by a factor of 10 or so.  In California,
it is over 600 per 100,000 population.  The prison population in
California is now over 100,000, a quadrupling since 1980.  Most of
these inmates were convicted under the drug prohibition laws.  Police
now confiscate property, without trial, under a "good faith probable
cause" standard, in the name of depriving the horrible ghastly drug
dealers of their ill-gotten gains.  Conduct an opinion poll, and a
majority will answer "yes" if you ask them whether civil liberties and
due process should be diluted in order to Send Our Young People The
Message That We Are Serious About Winning The War On Drugs.  I don't
know whether anyone has measured such a figure among gun owners, but
I would expect the same result.  They certainly seem to vote that way.

According to Jack Herer's book _The Emperor Wears No Clothes_, over
TWELVE MILLION YEARS of prison time have been served under the
marijuana prohibition laws, by people who were minding their own
business and causing no harm to others (and less harm to themselves
than users of tobacco, with 400,000 confirmed kills/year).  Under
the "War on Drugs" campaign of "zero tolerance" due process protections
have eroded, and mandatory sentences of ten years without parole have
proliferated.  By and large, gun owners have voted for the politicians
who favor such measures.  And now, all the precedents--not only
legal, but political:  "My fellow Americans, we must send our young
people the message that we are serious about winning the War On
Murder"--are going to be applied to the oncoming wave of gun
prohibition laws.  Gun owners are about to get a taste of the medicine
they voted for believing it would be used only on those with different
tastes in recreational drugs.

What goes around comes around.


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54519
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr19.203606.27625@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>In article <93108.172544U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>>The point that I forgot to bring up here (and this has nothing to do with    g
>bein
>>a gang member or not) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in   s
>thi
>>area (or in the state of illinois for that matter).
>
>Right - it nas nothing to do with whther or not the person
>is/was a gang member, but that's what Kratz inferred....
>
>Wrong - there are people who can legally carry concealed in IL and
>there are circumstances under which MANY people can carry concealed.
>
>Is accuracy really too much to expect?
>
>-andy
>--
No it's not.  If you would have read my other post I was accurate.  Here's what
I said:

[material from another post]------------------------->  The other point that I
would like to make because I know it's true (looked this one up in the Illinois
                  this is for you Andy-----> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
statutes before) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois.
^^^^^^^^ <------ Also for you Andy.

And then I went on to say:
There is no such thing as a CCW for us ordinary folk here.
[end of quoted material]

Of course I forgot to mention who "us ordinary folk" are so just for Andy I'm
going to go to the library tomorrow and photocopy the part of the Illinois
statutes with this information and post it.  Ordinary citizens CAN NOT get a
license to carry a concealed weapon.  There are very few people who can.  I
even asked my lawyer friend about this and he told me that only certain people
can get licenses for concealed carry.  He couldn't remember which people but he
knew for sure that regular citizens couldn't get that type of license.  He told
me to go check at the library for the statutes which I did.  I'll post that
info tomorrow night.  Until then.......

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54520
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (was: Re: Who's next?...)

mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:

>st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>:Just because someting was good once, does not mean it will be forever.

>Yes, gone are the days when you can leave your house unlocked at night.
>Well, it couldn't last forever.

	For the record, it wasn't until I came to college (excluding
the times I went to Omaha or Council Bluffs for something) that I
ever removed the keys from the ignition of my car!  Come to think of
it, it was only after I moved to Ames, Ia (pop 45K) that I ever took
to locking my doors at night.

	I've discovered that $50K/year isn't worth living in fear
all day.  I might just move back to the farm.

	This weekend is Veishea.  You know, when ISU students riot
for no apparent reason.  This year, we've the Farm Aid concert
to add to the festivities.  Anybody bet me there's another riot?
Remember, Iowa law has three guys talking loud defined as a riot.
Stay tuned for an on-the-scene report this weekend.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54521
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1qvff6INN9p4@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
Arras) says:
>
>In article <93109.172450U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz
>[...]
>
>> It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up
>> the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on
>the
>> gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part.
>>
>> Jason
>
>
>I guess that just means "Everyone else" was mistaken?
>
>Jim
>
>jmd@handheld.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
Actually not Jim.  I just said that everyone else seemed to have skimmed by
that part and not mentioned it.  You can get whatever meaning you want from it.

Jason




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54522
From: mwj@se17.wg2.waii.com (Mike Johnson)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 2

Did anyone else notice how the question of what federal
laws were violated was brushed aside? I'd like to know
what laws were violated, and on what evidence the orignial
BATF warrants were based.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54523
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:

>What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

	SeAL Team six should have handled it?  Delta Force?  The
BATF had more than enough equipment and men.  They did not have
good intel, but they did have poor planning.  They fucked up.  Even
in just the most basic military sense, they fucked up.  Excuses do
not justify body counts.

>The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
>transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
>more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
>do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
>must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

	And your excuses fall upon deaf ears when the same BATF
has shown shitty leadership despite more people, better weapons,
and exclusive use of armor against their targets.  BATF is nothing
more than a private army of the government.  Do the agents swear an
oath, as I did, to uphold the Constitution?  You know, that document
that stipulates the highest law of the land?  If they do, they should
be up for charges in a court of law.  Remember, the law?  That's
the whole reason for any of this.

>With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
>more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
>the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
>at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
>of ours.

	Yeah, I've been related to many of them.  This is flame-bait,
right?  I'm not paying your price.  Mind if I sight in my guns on
your body?  Think of it as the price you have to pay that we may all
live without fear of my making a stray shot.  It's fine and dandy to
revel in the other guy being the target and your supposed safety.  In
the military, we called this "chicken shit."  Leadership from the rear.
The War on Drugs, despite being a catchy term for nothing more than
a continuation of policy since before this century, seems to have
gotten you convinced that my rights aren't worth your good vibes.
Mind if I cut your net access, as well as access to any and all forms
of expression?  See, you make me nervous, what with you being able
to influence so many.  I'm sure you can see how this is the price we
have to pay for freedom and liberty in this country, as well as
a fair and unbiased judiciary.

>With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
>mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
>women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
>to death 51 days later.

	Mind if we include you in the body count?  I'm sure we could
all file it under "civic improvement" and your life wouldn't have
been sacrificed in vain.  If you like, you can will your estate to
defecit reduction, too.  Now, when you learn how the law protects, or
doesn't protect, everybody equally and how our collective boot may
one day be on your collective throat, perhaps at that time you will
mature enough to realize just what you're talking about and how
serious this is.

	Next time, include a smiley.  While I hesitate to think that
you could have meant this seriously, it deserved a small flame anyway.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54524
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption


Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.

David
-- 
David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of
                         our information, errors and omissions excepted.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54525
From: dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1r1eu1$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>> In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> >In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>
>> >> The massive destructive power of many modern weapons, makes the
>> >> cost of an accidental or crimial usage of these weapons to great.
>> >> The weapons of mass destruction need to be in the control of
>> >> the government only.  Individual access would result in the
>> >> needless deaths of millions.  This makes the right of the people
>> >> to keep and bear many modern weapons non-existant.

>> >Thanks for stating where you're coming from.  Needless to say, I
>> >disagree on every count.

>> You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
>> mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
>> neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
>> gas on his/her property.  

>> If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of
>> the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?

>I don't sign any blank checks.

Of course.  The term must be rigidly defined in any bill.

>When Doug Foxvog says "weapons of mass destruction," he means CBW and
>nukes.  When Sarah Brady says "weapons of mass destruction" she means
>Street Sweeper shotguns and semi-automatic SKS rifles.  

I doubt she uses this term for that.  You are using a quote allegedly
from her, can you back it up?

>When John
>Lawrence Rutledge says "weapons of mass destruction," and then immediately
>follows it with:

>>> The US has thousands of people killed each year by handguns,
>>> this number can easily be reduced by putting reasonable restrictions
>>> on them.

>...what does Rutledge mean by the term?

I read the article as presenting first an argument about weapons of mass
destruction (as commonly understood) and then switching to other topics.
The first point evidently was to show that not all weapons should be
allowed, and then the later analysis was, given this understanding, to
consider another class.

>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...



-- 
doug foxvog
douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54526
From: dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>>You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
>>mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
>>neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
>>gas on his/her property.  

>	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining
>these weapons, 

This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.

>and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of
>modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.  

I would hope so.  Let's define a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon
whose majority of energy comes from fission and/or fusion of atomic
nuclei.  Let's define a biological weapon as live organisms or viruses 
in such state, quantity, and with such a vector that they could cause 
death or serious disease [further defined] to a significant number of
people if released in a city, similarly populated area, resevoir, or
cropland.  


Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
research purposes on such chemicals.

I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
definitions.

>I'll give
>you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
>road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, 

Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.

>biological in
>nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate
>the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So,
>where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that
>a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?

It is not defined as a weapon of mass destruction.  Many things are
banned for other reasons.

>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >


-- 
doug foxvog
douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54527
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Will CS burn or explode

rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:

>The FBI released large amounts of CS tear gas into the compound in
>Waco.  CS tear gas is a fine power.  Is CS inflammable.  Grain dust
>suspended in air can form an explosive mixture, will CS suspended in air
>form an explosive mix? Could large quantities of CS have fueled the
>rapid spread of fire in the compound?

	No chance.  If that CS ignited at all, it would have been
quite similar to a grain bin explosion.  Explosion, I note.  The
entire compound would have been leveled, not merely burned.  As
there was no explosion, there was no CS ignition causing the fire.

	Note: at five miles a decent grain elevator explosion will
knock you on your butt and your ears will ring for days.  I speak
from experience here.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54528
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

johnston@cyberia.win.net (Robert Johnston) writes:
>>
>>How 'bout we embed the `card` in the forhead of everyones skull ? 
>>Can't lose it without being already dead (ergo, no need for treatment).
>>
>Close, at birth we implant a smart chip just behind the ear under the skin but
>above the skull.  We incase it in a hypo-allergenic high carbon content
>glass.  This chip would be reprogrammed as we age with the pertinent
>medical, correctional, taxational data.  Behave yourself or we'll 
>input it into your permenant record.

     You forgot the part about encasing it in a small shaped charge so that
if anyone tries to tamper with it, it explodes and kills you.

     Oh, and the shaped charge can be set off by remote control...but only
if you get out of line. Properly patriotic citizens have nothing to fear.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
     This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
     "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
      or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
      assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
      -- The Constitution of the United States of America

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54529
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


How we survived ww2:
We mailed postings about things we didn't know any thing about
to ONLY the wrong places.

I'm NOT trying to censor this or any newsgroup, I'm just trying to
give some hints about OTHER newsgroups.
Doesn't this belong to alt.conspiracy ??

NOTE!!!
My posting was in reply to those about FBI torching the plasce after
filling it with napalm, and arrested people dissapering.

>We all know what a quisling is, right?
Obviously we don't.....
Vidkun Quisling is known to be a traitor in Norway, not a 'censor'.
If I have betrayed my country (Norway) bescause I implied that som of 
you jumped to conclusions/sound a little paranoid then I think there
is a LOT of quislings in Norway.......


About Waco
It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this.
The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house
in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)

It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54530
From: kevin@axon.cs.byu.edu (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: American Horror File -- call for help


Today's atrocity in Waco has finally impelled me to start working on
something I've been thinking about for some time.  Over the last few
years I have heard of one case after another of government running
completely amok.  Unfortunately, most people are oblivious of the
government's crimes and still think of it as their protector.  So I
intend to put together what I call the "American Horror File": a
compilation of cases where the American government has run roughshod
over the rights of its citizens over the last few years, focusing
especially on deaths and injuries resulting from no-knock warrants,
and financial ruin to innocents resulting from civil forfeiture laws,
but including any other cases for which I can find decent
documentation.  I hope to make people blood-boiling, artery-bursting,
red-hot enraged at their government.

The end result will probably be a book in electronic form (ASCII text
and postscript files) detailing the government's crimes of recent
years.  This book will be distributed at cost, and I will encourage
people to post copies to BBS's, send copies on disk to friends, and
print out copies and give them to neighbors.

This is a call for your help.  Any information that you can send me on
how government is running amok will be greatly appreciated.  I would prefer
information that is well-documented, with sources given, about specific
instances of governmental abuses.  I also welcome anyone who wants to
join me in collecting and researching information for this project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn       | Is your religion BATF-approved?
vanhorn@bert.cs.byu.edu |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54531
Subject: news says BATF indictment/warrant unsealed...
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)

Something about how Koresh had threatened to cause local 
problems with all these wepaons he had and was alleged to
have.  

Someone else will post more details soon, I'm sure.

Other News:
Sniper injures 9 outside MCA buildling in L.A.  Man arrested--suspect
was disgruntled employee of Universal Studios, which
is a division of M.C.A.


QUESTION:
What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald
denny trial?

-Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54532
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: BATF's Prime Directive

Bully, Them; Bludgeon Them, Bury Them.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54533
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Janet Reno and "Responsibility"

I see no difference between Janet Reno's claim of responsibility for
the Waco Massacre and the IRA's claims of responsibility for various
acts of terrorism against British citizens.


-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54534
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card



I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
in 1991 that was caused by guns.....
This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!
(Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the
figures but they're still *pretty* high right??)
I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......


*I* should not suffer because of others....
We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

Do you have an insurance??
Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...

Do you buy anything??
YOU are paying for those who return goods, steal or even those who gets a bonus...

Do you live with other people??
Then you 'can't' do ererything you'd want (burping/farting playing music LOUD)

-What the hell is he trying to say ??
When you live in a society (USA are stilll counted as one...) you
have to saccrifice.
The question is HOW MUCH.


One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
other people.

It seems like you all realize that you have a problem in America, the only
problem is
that you won't take the car away from the drunk driver, you hope to cure him
first.

Hope life comfirms to the standard of Winnie the Poh.



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54535
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <1993Apr19.162137.1306@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) says:
>
>In article <C5KsE0.5px.1@cs.cmu.edu>, tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr16.022926.27270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>                       U
>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.ED
>(Frank Crary) writes:
>>>In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>>>>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know,
>do
>>>>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it
>>>>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?
>>>
>>>This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
>>>coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
>>>national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
>>>must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
>>>you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills.
>>>In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them,
>>>you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
>>>so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
>>>24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
>>>your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
>>>wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
>>>the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.
>>>
>> Which works fine until you end up in the hospital because you were hit on
>the
>> head and your wallet, with your insurance card, is stolen.  This happened to
>> me, and it took six months to sort the mess out.  These sorts of plans sound
>> nice at first, but in the end they just create a lot of paperwork and
>> bureaucracy to deal with all the checking and filing they involve.
>>
>>                               Tom the non hacker
>
>Whoa!  Have a care what you say, Tom.  The _obvious_ answer to that problem
>is to tatoo your National I.D. Number on you -- say, your forearm -- so you
>can never leave home without it.  Hell, it worked once before...
>
>And that brings us back to my original, sarcasm-laden post:  where's the
>outcry from the liberal sector over the National ID Card?  My God, if some
>conservative had proposed this -- plus Clinton's "National Police" proposal
>-- the liberals would be shrieking "Sieg Heil!" and "Police State"!
>
>You self-styled liberals ought to be ashamed of yourselves.  Hypocrites!

I don't know what you watch, but I saw a spokesman for the ACLU voice
opposition to this idea on NBC the very first night.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54537
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
shoot-to-kill directives.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54538
From: stevek@cellar.org (Steve Kraisler)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:

> Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> 
> : failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it i
> : plain view.
> 
>   Brent, I'm still waiting to see if there are any evidence of how the fire
> got started, so I'm not going to tell you who did it...  As far as you keep
> talking about the Davidians pouring kerosene all over, stop and *think*
> for a second if it is possible the stove or lamp was knocked over and
> started a fire, and the Davidians were pouring water on it (wrong solution
> but I doubt I can do much better in their states of mind...) to try to
> put it out?   
> 
>   By the way, just how far where you standing from the Davidians when you
> saw them setting the place on fire?   Oh, in case you are new in town,
> microwave ovens doesn't work very well when there's no electricty. :-0
> 
>   Get some *facts* before you post next time!
> 
> --F. Chiu

First the FBI said they saw two members of the cult start the fire-and the 
FBI never lies.  Second, the first started in opposite ends of the compound 
at the same time and thirdly, the fire spread too quickly for it not to be 
help without an accelerate.


------
stevek@cellar.org (Steve Kraisler)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54539
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
>   The problem with the FBI as a monolithic entity doing it is that it requires
> *everybody* involved to keep their mouths shut.  While they tended to behave 
> like total idiots, that does not make them homocidal maniacs, either.  And if
> it was one nutcase agent, then it serves no purpose to blame the whole agency.

A great deal of documentation exists on exactly that phenomenon. Especially
regarding Vietnam and the Mai Lai (sp?) massacre

Not that I'm suggesting that they started it on purpose but even if they
now know that they accidentally started (or contributed to it) you can
be sure the initial reaction is to lie. Remember the Iranian airliner
which the US navy mistook for a fighter and shot down?
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54540
From: mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell)
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Revisited

In article <1993Apr21.151601.14962@gozer.mv.com>, klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
> The U.S. Government's campaign of persecution and genocide against the
> Branch Davidians was a resounding success.
> 
> Heil Clinton!  Heil Reno!  The Gestapo is alive and well and living in
> Washington, D.C.

Are you for real?

People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's
jesus deserve all they get

Anyway, he killed a few feds

He's not the goddam hero here

He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!

> 
> -- 
> Kevin, who agrees that David Koresh was probably a first-rate nutcase
>        but who firmly believes that the Bill of Rights guaranteed his
>        his right to be a religious fanatic and that the government is
>        guilty of violating his civil rights and of 1st degree murder.
> 
>        OK, which small, under-represented-in-congress religious group
>        are we going to persecute next and are we going to torch their
>        church with a rolled up copy of the Constitution?
> 
>        I think I'm going to be sick now. . .
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% John Bell %%%  Dundee FC:                                                %%% 
%% D.I.T.    %%%  League Champions:61/62        runners up: 06/07 48/49     %%%
%% Dundee    %%%  League Cup wins :51/52 52/53  runners up: 67/68 80/81     %%%
%% Scotland  %%%  Scottish Cup win:1910         runners up: 1925,1953,1964  %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54541
From: <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cost/Benefit Analysis (was FBI Director's Statement...)

Has anyone noticed or commented on the fact that so many of those who
were willing, nay demanding, that we wait forever for Mr Hussein and
Iraq, that we use tremendously costly "sanctions", to avoid a loss
of life, are now at the fore front of those clammoring that we should
have smashed those "religious radicals" and we were wasting money allowing
this stand off to go on  ?  How the worm turns when the sect changes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54542
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: CNN report: FBI/ATF killing ALL Americans


CNN just reported the ATF and the FBI have begun killing everyone in the
United States. A press release stated this action was required because
bugs had revealed that many people were doing something illegal in their
homes, and statistical data indicated that those who weren't might someday
do something illegal. An ATF spokesperson, just before he shot himself, stated
that "this would clean up things once and for all".

If the citizens can be gathered into groups of more than 100, the FBI has
indicated they will "burn them, just like we did those kooks in Waco". 
It hasn't been decided how the new proposed "energy tax" will enter into
this, an IRS representative stated "We're looking at the tax code to determine
if taxes really end at death. With this many dead Americans, we don't want
to overlook anything". An ATF agent ran into the room, and shot her.

Stay tuned....rich

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54543
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

In article <C5uCHu.FFn@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
>gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
>They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
>some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
>media-event brought to you by HCI.
>
>Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>tacky, but hey, whatever works.
>-- 
>Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Here are a few ideas:

1) a free library card so they can look up the FBI
   Uniform Crime Report which shows how good HCI is
   at lying through their teeth,

2) a free RTD Transit Pass which will allow anti-gunners
   to tour South Central Los Angeles and convince
   people living there that they don't need guns to protect
   themselves because the police will do it for them 
   (don't lose the pass, you'll need it to get out),

3) a free bus ride to Vermont, which has almost no gun
   control and, curiously enough, almost no crime either,

4) a free calculator, since anti-gunners have heretofore
   been unable to figure out what a small percentage of
   the guns owned in America are used to commit violent crime.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher    NRA                  |  My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu      |  No one else's.
--------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54544
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r2dqq$5of@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>:cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>:>mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>:>>
>:Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>:Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
>
>Hey, Einstein, ever tried to use an electric stove or microwave WITHOUT
>ELECTRICITY?  It's been shut off for weeks now, courtesy of your local FBI
>assault squad.

Calm down.  It is not as if I tweaked the fount of the flame wars
or anything (guns, anything to do with them).

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54545
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re:  Blast them next time

oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) babbles:

What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

	If they'd gone to the door and knocked on it to serve the
	warrant, like the Sheriff had done 3 other times, they
	wouldn't have needed to HAVE an initial assault.  But then,
	Herr Klinton and Attorney Gen'l Reno wouldn't have been
	able to have told such heroic stories about how they
	"protected" the rest of us from a group of people who
	kept to themselves, miles out in the prairie.

The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

	The BATF needs to be disbanded.  This out of control group
	of Rambo wannabees is a danger to the Republic.

With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country.

	Well, I figure you're going to get flamed pretty badly by
	everybody else for this incredibly stupid statement, so I'll
	just let it pass for now.

	Case Western reserve, huh?  Do the Feds know about that big 
	stockpile of automatic weapons and crack you have in  your
	house?  Are you the same Daniel Oldham that lives on Orchard
	Drive?  Just so they get the address right, that is...

Look
at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
of ours.

	Well, it used to be a great country.  Now I'm not so sure.  
	I knew a few of those good people who died in wars;  I was
	in Viet Nam.  I can assure you, none of us fought to protect
	the right of the government to attack its own citizens with
	military force without provocation.  (Hint: serving a search warrant
	is NOT sufficient provocation to stage a military style assault
	on a religious group.  At Least not here in the US.  Maybe in
	Iraq, or Syria...)

With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
to death 51 days later.

	This is a joke, right?  Or are they really letting fools like
	you into CWRU now?  Too bad. Used to be a good school.  How'd you
	get in anyway, did your old man buy a new wing for the library?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54546
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: "43 to 1" all over again.

In article <1993Apr21.175441.22582@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>[Followups to talk.politics.guns only.]
>
>In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares
>writes:
>>In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John
>>Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>>
>So, a person who keeps a gun at home is 43 times more likely to die,
>at home, from a gunshot than he or she is likely to kill an intruder.
>
>Sounds like apples 'n' oranges to me.
>
>In any case, has anybody tried to make the obvious counter-study?
>
>What are the numbers for someone who does not keep a gun at home?
>That is, what is the ratio of dying-at-home-from-a-gunshot to
>killing-an-intruder, for people who do NOT keep guns in their homes?
>
>So, what are is the ratio of unarmed people shot to death in their
>homes v.s. unarmed people who kill intruders?  Is it worse than 6 to 1?
>
>Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't know this specific ratio, but I do have an earlier post that says
a gun is 33 times more likely to defend someone (including the times where
the gun isn't fired, just scares the perpetrator away) than it is to kill
someone. (including self defense)  The post is kind of long, but I'll be
glad to dig it up and email it to anyone who asks.

Doug Holland

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Doug Holland                | Anyone who tries to take away my freedom  |
|  holland@cs.colostate.edu    | of speech will have to pry it from my     |
|  PGP key available by E-mail | cold, dead lips!!                         |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54549
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

In article <C5uCHu.FFn@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
>gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
>They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
>some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
>media-event brought to you by HCI.
>
>Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>tacky, but hey, whatever works.

      Ack, what a public relations nightmare just begging happen.

      "Gun Lobby pays vigilanties."

      "NRA to shell out dough to gunfighters."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54550
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:

>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

   >Some< of?

>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

  Yes, I think so and it has been reported as such.  Seems like a cowboy
movie-style attack was needed for some reason....

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

  The answer is probably YES. But consider; what was the WORST thing that
could have happened if they waited?  Hint: whatever it was it could not have
been any worse that what DID happen.  

>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

  But that statement of taking full responsibility is totally meaningless.
What are the consequences for being fully responsible for this disaster?
A note in your personnell file??  Slick already called these people a bunch
of crazy people and dismissed the idea she should resign.  Doesn't take 
ANY balls at all to take the responsibility.  Hell, at that rate >I< will
take full responsibility for it.  No skin off my nose....
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54551
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

The Dividians didn't have that option after the FBI cut off their
electricity.

-- 
 Flag burners don't bother me as much as seeing the American flag on
tanks assaulting the church of Americans who had never bothered anyone.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54552
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Revisited

In <1993Apr21.175443.5338@dct.ac.uk> mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell) dribbles
in his nappies and manages to splutter:

	You know, John, if you had kept the follow-up to line here on talk
politics guns, we might have taken you a bit more seriously.  It would have
at least implied that you had some backbone, perhaps a modicum of willingness
to present your views and support them.  I guess we all know better now.

>People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's
>jesus deserve all they get

	Really?  That's interesting, as I was always of the opinion that
people dumb enough to keep a monarchy around and support them with tax
funds when said monarchy is merely a figurehead deserve all that
they get.  Dunkirk, for example.  What?  That has nothing to do with it?
Then enjoy your helping of foot.

>Anyway, he killed a few feds

	And they killed a few people of their own, including one child
at last report.  So what?  Being a federal agent is not license to kill.
Then there's CNN indicating that the ATF/FBI actually *DID* start the
fires which would mean feds killed just under 100 people.  If you're
so hot to assign blame, make sure you don't overlook the obvious.

>He's not the goddam hero here

	Montgomery isn't much of a hero here, either.  Amazing how
different things look on the other side of the pond, isn't it?  Not
that what you think makes much of a difference in the USA, though, and
for good reason.  When you can vote I'll take your rhetoric a bit more
seriously.  Right now, you're merely a waste of trans-atlantic bandwidth.

>He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!

	Proof positive that ignorance really is bliss.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54553
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93110.165704U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.203606.27625@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>Wrong - there are people who can legally carry concealed in IL and
>>there are circumstances under which MANY people can carry concealed.
>>
>>Is accuracy really too much to expect?
>
>As I said before no it isn't.  In another post I referred to the Illinois
>statutes and how I looked up the law for concealed carry.   I will type in the
>complete law and post later  but I would like to prove that I was correct using
>accurate information so I will put sections down here now.

Good - now let's look at those sections.  They'll prove my point.

>     (a)  A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he
>knowingly:
>
>(4)  Carries or possesses in any vehicle or CONCEALED on or about his person
>     except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business
>     any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm;

Note that this doesn't affect all concealed carry.  (Look after the
word "except".)  It always helps to read the law before commenting on
it.

Would a prudent storekeeper carry concealed?  How about someone at
home?  Note that both are legal, and a lot of "common" people qualify
for one or the other.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54554
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....
>This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!
>(Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the
>figures but they're still *pretty* high right??)
>I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......

And you'd be wrong about that too.

Note that Texas isn't unique in this "more with-gun deaths than
with-car deaths", but some of the other states where it happens have
extremely strict gun laws.  Oops - so much for the "meaning".

It isn't clear that the comparision means anything anyway as car
accidents are unintentional while gun deaths aren't, but if we're
going to make it, let's at least be honest.

>*I* should not suffer because of others....
>We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
>we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

Give it up for what?  Gun control doesn't have any benefits, so
it fails by this standard.

>Do you have an insurance??
>Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...

Note that insurance gives me something in return - gun control doesn't.

>-What the hell is he trying to say ??
>When you live in a society (USA are stilll counted as one...) you
>have to saccrifice.
>The question is HOW MUCH.

That's half the question - the rest is "and what do you get for your
sacrifice".  If the answer to the second question is "nothing", as it
is for gun control, then we don't have to ask the first question
because getting nothing means that no sacrifice is justified.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54555
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!


In a previous article, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) says:

>If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are
>true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for
>the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the
>US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no
>exceptions. 
>
>Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive
>in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?

I leave the anti-semitism to anti-gun types like Holly Silva.  I have in
fact been calling for the disbanding of the BATF for quite some time.
It is an outlaw agency run by incompetants who only have contempt for
the laws which they supposedly enforce.

>Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather
>than stupidity?
>
I attribute the acts of the FBI to stupidity.  I attribute the acts of
the BATF to malice.  So did Senator Dennis DeConcini when he held
hearings about their misconduct.


-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54557
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter's address?

In article <1993Apr22.143329.4296@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>> Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him
>> for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation
>> into the Waco mess.
>> 
>> Ken
> 
> 	You are talking about the man who as a federal attorney did so
> much to frustrate the proper investigation of the JFK assassination by
> the House sub-committee on assassinations.  Fox and hen house???
> 
Please note that my above comment was not intended as a flame of Ken's
call for Congressional leadership to conduct a proper investigation.
It was merely to call attention to the hazard of having Specter involved.
If anyone took it that way, I apologize.

 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54558
From: mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <4615@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>Michael Frederick Rhein (mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU) wrote:
># In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>#                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
># in Texas.
>
>Not that I agree with the original theory or anything, buuuuut:
>Since their utilities were turned off they might be using wood stoves
>to cook their meals.
>
>Rob.
>--
>Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
To Rob and all others that have been debating about the wood stove.
   The original post claimed that the ATF/FBI was pumping napalm into the 
building with the hopes that the wood stove inside would ignite it.  I responed
with why would the wood stove be lit in the first place?  It wouldn't be lit 
for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims 
that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.  CS gas was being pumped
into the building and I presume that everyone was wearing gas masks (either
bought or some type of makeshift type) and this had been going on for 6 hours.
I don't know if you have ever been around CS, but I have.  Being exposed to CS
gas was part of my Army training, so I know that without a mask it VERY 
uncomfortable and makes your eyes water, nose run, and makes you sick in 
the stomach.  And with the mask it is very difficult to drink water much less 
eat.  So my question now is "why were they cooking food?"
   I will buy that a lantern could have been knocked over and caused the fire.
But that stove was not being used for cooking (unless they were even more
crazy than the ATF/FBI claim).

Michael



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54559
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers

In <53930421052235/0005111312NA3EM@mcimail.com> 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt) writes:

>I want to get involved in the fight to save our gun rights.  But first, I need
>to get a little more educated.  I've been reading all the magzines and books I
>can get my hands on, and sifting through hundreds of messages here in the 
>Internet.
[...]
>Can anyone tell me how/where to obtain this info?  Surely there has to be a
>way to obtain copies of anti-gun legislation from those *&%$#@'s in Washington.

The House Document Room can be reached at +1 202 225 3456.  You need to 
have the number of the document you want (e.g. HR1036) and they'll be happy
to send it to you.  Tell them if it's going to be a big stack, because the
surly sounding guy who answers is scrawling in a really awful hand on the
back of the envelope that will come and will run out of room quickly if
you don't tell him.

The Senate document room is too important to deal with the likes of you
and I, and will answer requests from off the hill only by mail.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54560
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: request advice on waist-bags/fanny paks

In <9304200955.aa09758@angel.qdeck.com> burge@qdeck.com (Bill Burge) writes:

>(I've heard that the color strip on the Bianchi was put there to identify
>the Bianchi fanny pack to law enforcement.  They suposedly recieved a flyer
>indicating the color combinations for easy sighting.  This has led to 
>lackluster sales for the Bianchi.)

Well, that was an easy decision.  No more Bianchi anything for me.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54561
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, representing the Students for 
Increased Beverage Access (SIBA), writes:


>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?


Well, I only saw it start in one place.  A tank punched a hole in a wall,
and as it withdrew flames came out and spread quickly in the direction that
a 30+ mph wind was blowing.  I saw a diagram in USA Today yesterday, and
fires started at 2 of the 3 holes that the tanks made.  A terrible, negligent
accident.


>And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
>to get out of the compound?


Maybe they couldn't.  I've often marvelled at how people could get burned alive
in the upstairs of a 2 story house on fire, but it happens all the time.
What if they were in sealed rooms, trying to avoid the gas, and didn't know
about the fire until it surrounded them?  Remember the Israelis hiding in
sealed rooms during Desert Storm to avoid gas-bearing Scuds?

Cripes, Mark, are you REALLY a college student?  Maybe you ought to stop
worrying about increased beverage access and start clearing your head.
Ever heard of questioning authority? 

>And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.


OK, I'll buy that.  You _do_ seem totally clueless...


>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
>a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
contrary. 

Wellllll....  They weren't murderous.  They'd never harmed or even threatened 
anybody until they were attacked by a paramilitary force using military weapons
and hardware.  And as far as "evidence", what are you talking about?  
Everything the Feds have said they've retracted practically as soon as they get
questioned in detail about it.  Maybe you and your Increased Beverage
Access buddies, sitting around the bar slurring stuff like "they shoulda
killed 'em all 51 days ago" don't feel that way, but then you're probably
one of those people still saying about Klinton "Give the guy a chance, we don't
even know what he's gonna do! (Burp)


>Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
>the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
>prefer to believe the cultists?

>(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

No problem, you don't have any questions that scare any of us.  Most of our
minds are apparently more developed than yours.  

The answer is:  *YES!*  In a f*cking heartbeat!  

Thought Experiment:  Would you be mindlessly down on your knees with your mouth 
open, blissfully sucking up anything the Feds said if Bush were the president?
What, no comeback?  (OK, go ahead, say it.  "Read my lips, no new taxes" %^P   )


>>But then
>>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
>>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.

>Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?

Not in such a great degree.  Bush broke one promise, maybe two (taxes/guns)
and we held him accountable for it.  Of course, it took him the better part of
4 years to do it;  Slick's only been in office 101 days and he's broken lots
of them.  Anddd...  I imagine he'll also be held accountable for that.

(I can just see the campaign buttons now:   "ABC - Anybody But Clinton")

>So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
>people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
>one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
>to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

Hmmm.... Apparently you just got here.  Nobody's claiming that it was anything
but a stupid mistake by a bunch of incompetent public employees who normally
don't get this kind of scrutiny when the mess up.  And as far as how they picked
the Davidians, who knows?  Maybe they figured that nobody'd care about such
a politically incorrect group as a bunch of fundies out on the Texas prairie.
Maybe they figured they'd just go in there and run roughshod over the BDs
during their religious services (which was the reason the Feds gave for the
timing of the raid) rather than running into resistance.  Maybe they KNEW
that the BDs weren't ANYWHERE NEAR as violent as the Feds' spin doctors are
trying to tell the public.  Maybe they were AFRAID to try this kind of thing
on the Crips and Bloods.  Maybe it was because the ATF's budget is up for
approval and they seem to favor doing something dramatic whenever that is
the case.  Of course, their reasoning doesn't matter, only what they did,
and this time, people are just paying more attention to it.


>And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? 

Not if you mean that stupid "don't stop thinking about tomorrow"...

>How is he on diabolical laughter? 

All I've ever heard is Hillary's diabolical giggle.  Waffle Man seems to have
lost his sense of humor...

>Does he look good in a cape? 

Don't know, never seen him in one.  He probably looks fat and puffy faced,
just like in a suit.  I saw him in the Rose Garden the other day, and I
couldn't get over how much he is starting to look like Teddy Kennedy.


>These things MUST be investigated. You first.


Don't worry, these things WILL be investigated.  Now go back to your beer,
you dimwit....



  ************************************************************************
*  I've heard a lot of people compare Bill Clinton to Jimmy Carter, and   *
*  I'd like to go on record as saying that I don't think that it's fair.  *
*  Jimmy Carter was a veteran, and he had personal character.  And even   *
*  though I can't agree with Carter's policies, I always believed that    *
*  he was telling the truth, as best he understood it.  I can't say       *
*  that for the Fat Cat...                                                *
  ************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54562
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)



>In article <1993Apr15.152834.16638@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.
com


>>Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
>>revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver.
>>Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
>>autoloaders give you, that is.

On a DA revolver, you get another try on a misfire.  On a pistol where
the trigger does not cock the hammer, like a Jennings, or an Astra M400,
or a Glock, a misfire requires the slide be cycled to get the gun  to
function.

Rather than a high capacity revolver, think of a Glock as an Astra M400 
with no manual safety and a heavier trigger pull.

Jim Del Vecchio

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54563
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Latest on Texas HB 1776 (CCW)


I called the Texas bill tracking people (800/253-9693) again today 
regarding HB 1776 -- Concealed Carry.  Well, it was supposed to come
up for a vote this past Wednesday, but the bill got sent back to
the Public Safety Committee.  The PSC gave it a favorable rating
AGAIN, and the bill must now be scheduled for debate by
the Calendars Committee AGAIN.
             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54564
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.162447.26289@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
> In article <1qicep$obf@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:

re: is "John Q. Public with a gun" protected?

> >> It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
> >> of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
> >> was not a proper militia weapon. 

> >No, they noted that no one had CLAIMED that it was a proper militia
> >weapon (despite having been used in at least two wars).  This was true,
> >since neither Miller nor his lawyer appeared before the Court.

> Did they or did they not sustain Miller's conviction? I don't have the
> text of the case handy. 

Miller was convicted of owning a sawed-off shotgun and not paying the
NFA '34 tax.  Snatches of the court's decision:

The Second Amendment was intended to "assure the continuation and render 
possible the effectiveness of such a force [the militia]... It must be 
interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The militia includes "all males physically capable of acting in concert 
for the common defense."

However, regarding sawed-off shotguns, "certainly it is not within 
judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military 
equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

"Judicial notice" is the term of art here -- it meant that no such
evidence had been formally presented.  This is different from claiming
that they had ruled that it wasn't.

> Yes, shotguns had been used in WWI, the Spanish-American War, and the
> US Civil War. That was not in question. The possession of a sawed-off
> shotgun was, i.e., a weapon altered to improve concealibility.

I'm not talking about plain shotguns in war -- I'm talking about short-
barrelled ("sawed-off") shotguns in war.

Compare Revolutionary War blunderbusses; luparas in the Spanish-American 
War; and trench-cleaners in WW I.  They were also put to good use by
US soldiers in WW II, not to mention being invaluable to "tunnel rats" 
in Vietnam, but, of course, "Miller" took place in 1939.

> >> Therefore, US vs. Miller supports limited government regulation of 
> >> firearms.
> >
> >Don't go arguing down this road unless you are willing to abide by 
> >the consequences that you find at the end of it -- mainly, that the
> >law-abiding common man has a right to own any weapon that has a militia 
> >purpose, from handguns to sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons.
> >That, in fact, is what this decision says.
> 
> You are free to produce evidence that I'm not willing to abide with
> all the implications of this. 

Here is my quandary:  you seem to be arguing that certain types of 
guns fall outside the scope of the Second.  This isn't a useful argument 
unless you believe that some significant gun or class of gun belongs
in that class.  

I think we both agree that zip guns probably aren't protected.  Maybe 
we also both agree that all the weapons that random state governments 
have been banning or trying to ban because they have "no sporting purpose" 
and "no provate citizen would ever need these guns" DO fall under the 
protection of the Second.  

So, given that damn near any gun of any practical utility is or has at 
some time been used by the military, even if only for marksmanship 
training purposes, I need to understand why you are intent on pressing 
this point, arguing that that SOMETHING is not protected by the Second.

> Just because I don't whole-heartedly endorse the NRA position does not
> mean that I oppose the RKBA. This attitude is what makes the NRA
> unpopular.

Often, what makes someone unpopular is what other people say about him.
How much did any of us fear or abhor the Branch Davidians six months ago?
How many of us feared or abhorred Saddam Hussein five years ago?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54565
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

In article <C5L2BC.C2x.1@cs.cmu.edu> rubinoff+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
>In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
>>Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
>>he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  

That's a revisionist account of what happened.  Gritz was well-aware
of Duke's presence on the ticket.  Given that Gritz is not at all shy
about associating and promoting other white supremacists (such as the
Christian Identity movement or Willis Carto), whatever reasons Gritz
had to leave the ticket had nothing to do with Duke's presence.

>>So Gritz gave up his
>>chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
>>Duke.
>
>I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US";
>the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still,
>it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.

I believe Chip Berlet has a Populist Party newsletter from the time with
a photo of Gritz happily shaking hands with Duke.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54566
From: rboudrie@wpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A. Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
>jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
>
>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.
>
>> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last 
>> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
>> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
>> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:
>
>> 	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security 
>                         ^^^^^^^ Militia
>
>> 	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear 
>                  ^^^^^ State
>
>> 	arms, shall not be infringed.
>        ^^^^ Arms
>
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution. 
>
>> This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
>> to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined 
>> structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.
>
>Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!
>
>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of
>    being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
>    every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to
>    which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
>    are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
>    ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
>    of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military
>    establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
>    carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
>    are afraid to trust the people with arms."
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right
>    of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed.  A
>    well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
>    country..."
>
>    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of
>    the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
>    respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
>    will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
>    a year."
>
>    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing
>    armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the
>    government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
>    formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large
>    body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****
>    own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
>    ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>But *surely* Hamilton and Madison didn't mean the PEOPLE when they
>said "people", right?  That's why the Amendment refers to "the Right
>of the Militia"?...  ;-)
>
>> Your average 
>> 17-45 year old male does not fall into the definition.
>
>You're right, the Militia consists of ALL able bodied males (and
>probably females under current interpretation). 
>
>> Therefore most
>> members of The Militia, the one the every gun advocate refers to, are
>> not members of a well organized militia and therefore are not directly
>
>The Amendment does nor refer to "well organized", it says "well
>regulated".  I have some targets you may examine if you wish to check
>how _well regulated_ I am. 
>
>> mentioned in the amendment.
>
>> If this amendment wanted to allow every member of The Militia to keep
>> and bear arms, why did it specificly mention a "well organized militia" 
>> in the SAME SENTENCE as the right to keep and bear arms?
>
>Correct.  That's why the Right is reserved to the People.  And that
>was to insure the People could form a "well regulated Militia", not a
>"well organized militia".
>
>> It could be
>> argued that the first part of the sentence is separate from the last 
>> part.  If so, why was it include in the same atomic unit of written
>
>What do Atomic Units have to do with this argument?  Any moron can set
>h_bar = C = 1...
>
>> instead of a separate sentence?
>
>Oh, I see what your question is; Why don't you read the federalist
>Papers?! 
>
>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
>    Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
>    to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
>    recital of particulars."
>
>But what does Madison know about the grammatical style of the 2nd?  He
>only wrote it.
>
>> The amendment also implies that the right to arms has to due with 
>> the security of a free state.  The Federalist Paper's mention of a
>> well regulated militia gives many examples of how this militia protects
>> the security of a free state.  All these examples are actions of a
>> very organized force, not some John Q. Public with a gun.
>
>That's obviously because you've never actually *read* the Federalist
>Papers. 
>
>> All that the Second Amendment clearly states to me is that the people's
>> right to form well regulated militias shall not be infringed.  That is 
>> people have the right to join a well organized militia.  This well
>> organized militia will, of course, provide training in how to use arms
>> and in basic military tactics.  These training members of the militia
>> can keep and bear the arms.
>
>Can't read, huh?  Show me where the document says "well organized
>militia". 
>
>> Lastly, reading through the Federalist Paper's on well organized 
>> militia it is very clear that many of the reasons for these militias.
>> One reason stated is the protection from a standing army.  These days
>> the standing army could easily defeat a group consisting of every 
>> 17-45 year old male and female not in the armied forces.
>
>That is *exactly* why EVERY PERSON should be allowed to own *any*
>weapon currently in use in the armed forces.
>
>> Another
>> reason stated for well organized militias is to reduced the need
>> for a standing army.  Well, the US Armied Forces have been a standing
>> army for more than half the history of the US.
>
>But the major reason is to protect against that very same army.
>
>> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
>> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
>> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
>> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
>> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.
>
>    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
>    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
>    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
>    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
>    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
>
>    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
>    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
>    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
>    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
>    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
>    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
>    to raise an army upon their ruins."
>
>So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
>our Liberties and Rights.
>
>--
>Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
>Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
>drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
>powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
>become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
>separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.
>
>> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last
>> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
>> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
>> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:
>
>>       A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
>                         ^^^^^^^ Militia
>
>>       of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
>                  ^^^^^ State
>
>>       arms, shall not be infringed.
>        ^^^^ Arms
>
>You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
>the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
>Constitution.

There are several ways in which one can choose to intrepret any 
constitutational issue :

   (a) Original intent
   (b) Subjectively intrepreted accordiong to political whims of the day.

If we use original intent as the basis for intrepreting the constitution, 
it is clear that the founding fathers intended that the individual citizen 
be allowed to bear arms similar to those used by soldiers of the day.

For references, I cite :

  - Federalist papers
  
  - "The Embarassing Second Ammendment", Yale Law Review, 
    Prof. Stanford Levinson [sorry, I don't have the date handy]

       Prof Levinson sought to prove that the 2nd ammendment did not
       convey an individual right, but concluded that it did, hence the 
       "embarassing" in his title.
 
  - Report of the Subcomittee on the Consititution, United States Sendate,
    97th Congress, Second Session February 1982.

  - U.S. vs. Verguido Urguidez (Supreme court case in recent years).  
    Although this case did not pertain to firearms, Justice Rhenquist
    notes that the term "the people" is a term of art conveying individual
    rights, and specifically cited several used, 2nd ammentment included,
    in his opinion.

  - Title 10, U.S. Code.  This states that all males between the ages of
    18 & 45 not part of the organized militia, and all female officers of
    the national guard are part of the unorganized militia.

Feel free to cite any scholarly and historical references you have to
support your position.  I could go on a greater length with my personal
proof by assertion, however, such a technique would carry no more or
less weight that your dubious proofs by assertion.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54567
From: cwwhite@vax2.concordia.ca (Stephen White)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...

In article <C5L2BC.C2x.1@cs.cmu.edu>, rubinoff+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes...
>In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
>>Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
>>he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his
>>chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
>>Duke.

>I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US";
>the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still,
>it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.

>  Robert

Exactly, after all he was in the same party, probably just didn't want the
bad press that being directly associated with Duke would bring.  Conversely,
is his disdain for David Duke supposed to make us ideolize him?  I mean
a stand against neo-nazism ... Whoa!  Now that's progressive!  Come on.

I certainly know that I would refuse and openly denounce my Vice Presidency
if it meant putting him in control.

								--Stephen White

| 	"Live simply that others may simply live" --Mohandas K. Gandhi	       |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54569
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Need info on 43:1 and suicide for refutation

The following is quoted from the tail end of a (rather condescending)
article about Paxton Quigley, that appeared in US Snooze and World Lies,
(sorry... i think it was in the wall street journal...)
and was repeated in the Colorado (people's) Daily, a student newspaper
at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

"A study of residential gunsot deaths in King County, Wash., found that
a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder.  Studies by the 
Western Psychiatric Institute, in Pittsburgh, found that the mere presence
of a gun in the home sharply incresases the likelihood a family member
will commit suicide, even in the absence of psychiatric illness."

I have seen these numbers quoted before, and I have seen very specific
refutation of them quoted as well.  If someone will be so kind as to
email the relevant information, I will write a letter to the editor of
the Co. Daily (which might get published) and send a copy to USN&WR as
well.

Thanx...

--Dan

--
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.1

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54570
From: kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....


> From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
> Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....
> Date: 15 Apr 1993 20:57:53 -0500
> 
> I can't speak for the organizations you cited but everywhere you look in
> our society and government, one can see the relentless movement toward
> one world government.  The fact that the media demeans such charished 
> values as patriotism, nationalism and protectionism are some of the
> clues....Our porous border both people and trade are an indiciation that 
> we have already lost a great deal of sovergnty.

...and I'm sure that people who were big fans of fuedalism pissed and
moaned about the emergence of the modern nation-state. Imagine, the King
allowing serfs their freedom if they could live in the city for a year!
Times change, technology changes, viable forms of social organization
change. While concerns about preserving Western notions of civil liberties
in the face of cultures with very different values is a valid one, it's
a waste of effort to try to turn back the tide. It's much smarter to focus
on trying to make sure that the emerging forms of social organization are
acceptable than it iss to lament the passing of the old forms.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54571
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>
>So the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
>not be infringed" must either qualify or explain the phrase "a well 
>regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."  

[stuff deleted]

>Since "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>infringed" does not describe, modify or make less harsh anything and
>it has nothing to do with grammar or some sort of position or task.
>By process of elimination it must fall into definition #3.  And since
>#3 deals with legal power, the same thing the Constitution does, it
>must be the correct definition in this case.  Therefore, "the right 
>of the people to keep and bear Arms" gives legal power to the "well 
>regualated militia" and this legal power "shall not be infringed".  

Ah, clarification by obfuscation.

Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the
security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an
adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of
the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It
asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for
maintaining a milita.  The sentence doesn't restrict the right, or
state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other
than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a
right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First,
Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment.
The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the
amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right
to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of
a free state.
In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and
bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.


>So in effort not to force my views and not "to destory our Liberties and
>Rights,"  I state that nothing I have written, or will write, in
>the matter of "Liberties and Rights" is the final word.  For I am only
>one person among many and the final word on "Liberties and Rights" cleary
>and irrevocably belongs to the many.

The final word on liberties and rights should not belong "to the
many".  That is why we have a Constitution.  Otherwise, a tyrrany of
the majority can ensue from "popular" opinion, a concept which you
should be familiar with from the Federalist papers.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54572
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Slaughter

  [followups to talk.politics.guns]

rl> Russell Lawrence
kr> Karl Rominger

kr> I support the right of any citizen with out a criminal history to own and
    use firearms, regardless of race, gender, and RELIGION.

rl> Thanks for admitting that you, yourself, adhere to an illogical dogma.

  Well, folks in t.p.guns, want to show how Russell's "illogical dogma" is
  wrong?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54573
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Randy Weaver Trial - Day 2 

This was posted to the firearms-politics mailing list.
==============================================================
Hi Folks;

Wednesday marked day 2, the beginning of the trial.  Opening
statements were given by both the prosecution and the defense,
each side presenting its version of what happenned last August.

The prosecution argued that Weaver and his family moved to
Idaho in 1983 anticipating a battle with the "evil" federal
government.  The prosecution alleges that Weaver sold federal
agents "sawed off" shotguns and later failed to appear for
trial: Despite repeated "good faith" efforts to get Weaver
to surrender peacefully, Weaver refused.  The shootout erupted
when Weaver discovered agents on a surveillance mission and
began firing.  According to the prosecution, three people
were taking an "offensive action" against an FBI helicopter
when an FBI sniper killed Vicki Weaver.

The defense argued that Weaver and his family moved to northern
Idaho in 1983 to practice their religion in peace.  They wanted
simply to be left alone.  Weaver was induced by federal agents to
sell the short-barrelled shotgun (and did not, as the prosecution
alleged, want to become a "regular supplier").  The defense also
argued that the federal government sought to arrest Weaver when
he wouldn't become an informant [it is not specified explicitly,
but I assume that this is a reference to the white separatist
angle of the story.  We'll know more as things develop].  The
failure to appear in court happenned because Weaver was given
an incorrect court date and then indicted before that date.
The shootout occurred when federal agent Arthur Roderick killed
Weaver's dog that was in proximity to Weaver's son, Samuel.  Weaver
then fired in self-defense.  In the ensuing battle, federal
agent William Degan was killed (when his gun was later found,
there were 7 .223 cases nearby and the gun was on semi-automatic:
However, agents were near the body for an extended period of
time and could have played with the select-fire - this will
have to be more fully explained).  Finally, the defense claims
that Vicki Weaver was only going to "look at the body" [not recover?]
of her son when she was cut-down by an FBI sniper.

Prosecution quote: "Weaver wanted that confrontation, and he made
that confrontation." -- Asst. U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist

Defense quote: "The evidence in this case is going to show that
this is a case where Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris are charged
with crimes they didn't commit in order to cover crimes that
the government did commit."  -- Gerry Spence  [nice soundbite!]

Notes: The _Idaho Statesman_ claims that Weaver supporters
heeded a call from Spence not to repeat yesterday's protests
outside the courthouse.  However, the local NBC affiliate
again had footage on the 10:00 news with 5 supporters including
"Tim" again.  "Tim" claimed he was a skinhead, who were "ordinary,
working class people."  He also claimed he was for "white pride,
not white power."

Outside the courthouse the television crew had an impromptu interview
with Bo Gritz, who charged that the neo-nazi protestors are exactly
what the government wants to smear Randy Weaver.

In an affiliated article carried in the _Idaho Statesman_, about
a dozen lawyers were among the 70 or so people packed into the
courthouse.  These lawyers were present to watch Gerry Spence
in action, and to perhaps learn something from him.  Some
tidbits: Spence flatly told the jurors that he and his son Kent
were volunteering their time to represent Weaver because they
believed in him.  Spence, during his 90-minute opening statement,
repeatedly walked behind Weaver and placed his hands on the
defendants shoulders (Weaver broke down and cried during the
recounting of his wife's death), and Spence compared the "sawed
off" shotgun to driving 56 mph when the limit was 55 (another
good one!).

Today (Thursday, April 15th) the prosecution was scheduled to
begin presenting evidence.

Drew
=============================================================


-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54574
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Randy Weaver Trail - Day 3 

This was posted to the firearms-politics mailing list.
=============================================================
Hi Folks;

Thursday, April 15 marked Day 3 of the trial.

This day marked the first testimony of the trial.  Deputy
U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper took the stand for the prosecution.

The short version is that his testimony was consistent with
the opening statements for the prosecution.

Cooper testified that he had arrived in Spokane (Washington)
on August 17, 1992 to participate in a surveillance operation
with five other deputies near the Weaver cabin.  The team was
using night vision equipment for surveillance, and split up
into two teams of three people.  The six later met at an
observation point above the cabin.  After this, deputies
Cooper, William Degan, and Arthur Roderick began a descent to
scout further possible surveillance sites.

Cooper told the court that Roderick threw two large rocks into
a gully to see, "whether the [Weaver family] dogs would respond."
Striker, the Weaver's yellow lab, started toward them barking
loudly.  Roderick led the three in a run from the area.

They ran through some dense woods into an open area [called the
"fern field"] with the dog in pursuit.  By this time, Kevin
Harris and Samuel Weaver had joined the chase.  The surveillance
team had reached a Y in the road: Cooper decided that they should
take cover in the woods because otherwise they would be an easy
target and might be "shot in the back."

As Degan reached the Y, he spotted Randy Weaver coming down the
road from the cabin ahead.  Weaver was startled but did not fire.

At this moment, Striker reached Degan, and Cooper had to "fend
him off with his gun."  [It is unclear whether this means he
clubbed the dog or shot the dog].  Both Cooper and Degan then
took cover in the woods.  According to Cooper, Kevin Harris and
Samuel Weaver continued walking down the road, apparently not
noticing the two.  After they had passed by on the road, Degan
got up on one knee, raised his gun, and shouted, "Stop!  U.S.
Marshal!"  Harris then "...brought the weapon around at hip level
and fired.  He didn't bring the weapon up to eye level.  I saw
Bill's arm going back, and I knew he had been hit."  Cooper fired
at Harris, and Harris went down.  Cooper then brought his weapon
to bear on Samuel, but did not fire.  At this point, Cooper then
heard two shots to his right.  Samuel Weaver looked in the
direction of the shots, yelled, "You son of a bitch!" and ran
toward them.  Cooper then realized that shots were coming at him
from directly ahead, so he fired a three-round burst at the
cabin.  At this point he then saw Samuel Weaver running toward
the cabin.  When Cooper reached Degan, he placed his first two
fingers on Degan carotid artery, counted two or three beats, and
then his heart stopped.  Shortly thereafter, Roderick and the
other three marshals joined him.  They then all heard a large
burst of gunfire from the area around the cabin.

On cross-examination, David Nevin questioned the point of
throwing rocks into the gulley, asking, "You wanted to lure that
dog out so you could shoot that dog, didn't you?"  Nevin also
pointed out that in last September's testimony, Cooper had
claimed that he spotted Weaver after the dog had left him.
Cooper claimed that he had gone over the events in his head and
decided that Thursday's account was correct.  Nevin continued the
cross-examination by asking what Cooper would have done had an
armed man dressed in full camouflage jumped out of the woods at
him [no answer was available].

Friday, April 16 marks continued cross-examination of Cooper.

Notes: There was no coverage of protestors.

Drew
==============================================================

-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54575
From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <mjones.735513787@fenway> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:
>>I have already called senators, legislators and the Governor demanding
>>that the warrants be unsealed, and that all involved in this atrocity
>>(including the President, Attorney General and Governor) be suspended
>>pending an investigation.
>>Welcome to Amerika!
>Let's see...first, you want everybody up through the President suspended
>PENDING an investigation, then you refer to AMERIKA? Guess you remembered to
>take your irony supplements this morning, eh?

*sigh*

It is standard procedure to suspend law enforcement officers, or re-assign
them to administrative (non enforcement) duties, while an investigation
into possible misconduct is going on. The Administration has given no
indication that such suspensions will occur in this case. And given that
the president, attorney general and governor were all involved in the
decisions that led to the Waco Massacre, they should also suspend all
activities regarding law enforcement. Given their positions, that equates
to an enforced vacation.


-- 
                            REMEMBER WACO!
     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54576
From:  ()
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
Arras) wrote:
>  
> I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
> devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
> government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
> own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
> 
> Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
> 
> Jim

Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
Just let him be? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
the first time.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54577
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Brandon D. Ray) wrote:

> Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
> are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
> that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
> briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
> go ahead.
> 
> Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?

Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How
in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking
governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE
reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't
there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the
sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens. That sounds like a
callous way to dismiss the deaths of 90+ people, but I can't understand why
people get so bent about the accidental death/suicide (which is it? could
take months...) of some total fucking sociopath/child molester and his
crazed followers while opposing U.S. intervention in Bosnia. Just like
Billy boy said. I think some of you people have too much time on your
hands, and screwed up priorities.

Just my HO...

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54578
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
Arras) wrote:
>   
> You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal agencies  
> you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from your  
> Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious  
> persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all?
> 
> Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.
> 
> Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the dictionary  
> of "cult".
> 

I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry
son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54579
From:  ()
Subject: Re: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

Ditto. Great post.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54580
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Ammo in a fire (was Re: WACO burning)


In article <C5xBwr.5B8@world.std.com>, htf@world.std.com (Harry Carter) writes:
>sunshine@cco.caltech.edu (Tom Renner) writes:
>
>>v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>
>>>Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every
>>>where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>>>went up.
>
>>A minor technical point: unless a cartridge is contained (for example in the
>>chamber of a gun) when it goes off, very little of interest happens.....
>
>
>Quoting Hatcher's notebook:
>      The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures' Institute reported
>      a demonstration made by taking a large quantity of metallic
>      cartridges and shotgun shells and burning them in a fire of oil-
>      soaked wood.  The cartridges and shells exploded from time to
>      time, but there was no general explosion or throwing off of
>      bullets or shot to any distance.
>      Throughout the test the men conducting it remained within 20 ft.
>      of the fire without being injured in any way..... the material
>      of which the cartridge and shells are composed will usually not
>      fly more than a few feet.
>      In tests conducted by the National Rifle Association, both rifle
>      and pistol cartridges were exploded by heat under an ordinary
>      corrugated pasteboard carton, and neither fragments of the
>      cartridge cases nor bullets penetrated the cardboard.
>
>
>  Any scientists care to try this out in their kitchen?  :-)

Here goes:

More than a few years back (if you were born that year, you can legally drink),
we tried it out.  We found an 8 ft. deep cistern that we lined with some 10 ft.
2X6s.  We put a large can (one of those industrial sized pork'n beans cans)
stuffed with oily rags and scraps of wood in the bottom.  After lighting the
fire, we LOWERED a box of .38 Spc. SWCs into the can.  We heard pops, one solid
bang and several "fizzzz shussss".  After we thought the excitment was over, we
boldly climbed down to find that NONE of the bullets had left the can, several
of the shells were lieing around the bottom of the well and the boards had all
died of smoke inhalation.  And 5 or 6 of the shells still had live primers!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54581
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco


In the videos of the original BATF attack on the BD church, did anyone
happen to see BATF agents on the highest structure, where Koresh's
room was? I don't recall seeing BATF agents higher than the roof of the
lowest structures, so I made an assumption that BATF helos did the
firing down into the tower. Any other info on how the rounds came
through the roof?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54582
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:

> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.

  I am not a paranoid, nor a government toady, nor even am I the guy you were
talking to originally, but I think you are simply NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

  A bunch of people living off by themselves with a lot of guns nearby is not
that wierd in Texas.  My own family, very quiet taxpayers with extremely con-
ventional views, has something like 10 rifles and shotguns in a two-person
home.  Some of them were mine, but I don't live there anymore.  I now have
my own shotgun in my apartment.

  Texas Child Protective Services (which loves to find child abuse) found no,
I repeat NO, evidence of abuse when they first looked at the BD, and is saying
that they see none in any of the kids who were released.  There is no evidence
that Koresh was banging anyone but his wives.

  It is not against the law to stockpile (most) weapons or campbell's soup.  
Nor is there any hard evidence in the form of actual hardware (as I write this)
to prove the BD really had any *proscribed* weapons.

  I feel they were all loonies, but there is no indication that they ever 
bothered anyone.  They were gone after in the wrong ways for the wrong reasons,
and the BATF and FBI who are so busy trumpeting this child abuse angle hasn't
got a leg to stand on or any right to be involved in such abuse cases anyway. 
If there was any real danger of the BD's going out on a rampage, then that
is up to the officers of the state of Texas, who are probably getting a per-
verse bit of pleasure at getting to torque the Feds for fucking up something
in their state.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54583
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>>>
>>>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>>>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>>>themselves to death.
>>
>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>of paranoia?
>
>Are you a moron or just illiterate? The "facts" that the FBI 

Neither.  

>proclaimed on Monday suddenly weren't "facts" anymore by 
>the Tuesday press conference.

You don't have to pay attention to any one source, neither do you
have to abandon your critical thinking, but to disregard all sources
of information as 'lies' and 'distortions' and substitute your own
pet theories is more likely to get you wild untruths than by basing
your theories on the 'facts' as they are reported by the media and
the government.

> There has beed NO evidence of
>anyone setting the fire deliberately you simpleton so

Actually there was evidence of the fire being set deliberately -
both testamony by the survivors and IR tape showing the fire
being set in 3 places AND the petrochemical soot that the fire 
was giving off (indications of kerosine or gasoline feeding the
fire).  

You might not believe 1 or 2 if you are totally paranoid or very
skeptical, but my 3rd point is visible to anyone who watches the
tapes of the fire and has started a BBQ grill.

>what are YOU basing your statements on? Oh, I forgot, you're
>the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need electricity,
>never mind.

Ho ho ho.  I listen to NPR, watch CNN, NBC.  I also read the
papers.   Where do you get YOURS?

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54584
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

>>That's The BD side of the story.  The other is that D. Koresh met
>>agents at the door with a weapon.  Remember the affidavit indicates
>>that Koresh had spent $200,000 on assault weapons in the past year and
>>now we know that the 'bunker' adjacent to the house is thigh deep with
>>a million rounds of ammunition.



	* The news statement was that there was $200,000 worth of "firearms
	  and ammunition (no mention of "assault weapons")" on the premises,
	  not that Koresh had purchased them (what would his crime be if he
	  had?).  This averages to about $2000 per person, not an astronomical
	  number.

	* We don't know that there is a thigh-deep pile of a million rounds...
	  we know that the FBI SAYS there is a pile of a million rounds. 

	* This is the first I've heard that Koresh was identified as being
	  at the door with a weapon.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54585
From: kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Mark 'Mark' Sachs (MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:

: Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
: In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?

The crushed remains of a PRESSURIZED propane tank were found in the ruins
of the BD compound.  The key word is PRESSURIZED.  When that baby was 
crushed, the gas would have gone all over the place.  And when ignited, 
would look just like the pictures of the explosion we saw on the TV 
news.  Ammo doesn't go up all at once - kind of like fireworks going off.
Propane gas goes off in a big fireball.  Gee, that's kind of consistent 
with what the pictorial history shows.  Hmmmmm...

: And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
: to get out of the compound?

Remember, PRESSURIZED gas.  People all over the building.
Conflagration in less than a minute.  Huge explosion.  Gas masks being
worn by the inhabitants.  Makes a lot of sense that very few of those
on the inside would even know that the tank was damaged.  If they
thought it was just a normal fire, they would probably be trying to
put it out.  Then - BOOM - the fireball.  After that explosion and 
concussion, I doubt anybody on the inside of the building was capable
of moving.

: And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.

Good question.  Take an objective look at what happened, listen to the 
things that the FBI said ("The BD's started the fire."  "The BD's bodies
were found with gunshot wounds.") that are now being refuted by the 
evidence being recovered.  Seems that the FBI is deliberately making
statements that have no rational basis in fact, and trying to make
them sound like fact.  

: I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
: a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
: contrary. Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
: the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
: prefer to believe the cultists?

Yes, I would still believe that the FBI and the BATF were on a non-stop
string of lies and half-truths.  This is consistent with their operations
on numerous occasions.

And as for the BD's being murderous, they did not cause any problems until
they were assaulted by the BATF.  So now a thought experiment for you:  If
the BATF had never stormed that farm, would four agents and 90 BD's be
dead today?  

: (No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

: >But then
: >again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
: >his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.

: Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?

Yes.  That is how politicians are elected.  Kind of scary, isn't it.  Now
if we as a people actually held Mr. Clinton to his promises instead of
apologizing and denying that he ever made them, and actually expected
accountability by our government, I doubt that debacles like Waco would
happen as often as they do.

: So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
: people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
: one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
: to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

Acutally, no.  THe BATF has a rather checkered history of staging raids of
this sort just prior to the time when their budget comes up for review.  
Oddly enough, their budget was about to be reviewed just two weeks after
the initial raid on the BD's.  "Coincidence?  I think not!"

And as for the fire, what happened was caused by the act of knocking over
walls with an armored vehicle of destruction.  The FBI tried to convince
the world it was suicide, but all of the facts that are coming out by
the investigation of the Texas rangers and medical examiners point to 
a gas explosion and quick fire that decimated all of the occupants of the
building.  Sounds to me like a law enforcement agency that is trying to 
cover its ass.  

: And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? How is he
: on diabolical laughter? Does he look good in a cape? These things MUST be
: investigated. You first.

Oh, please.  If you want to argue, argue.  If  you merely want to demean those
who see this differently than you, then please go somewhere else.  

: Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu

Keith Marchington

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54586
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:
>In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
>Arras) wrote:
>>  
>> I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
>> devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
>> government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
>> own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
>> 
>> Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
>> 
>> Jim
>
>Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
>generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
>Just let him be? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
>the first time.
>
>joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu


This is, apparently, what passes for intelligent discourse at Trinity.
Joe "FBI cultist" Kusmierczak gets angry when its pointed out that
the FBI has told him is a LIE, the mounting evidence is that 
they've lied about almost every detail of 4/19 except that they
were there. What can you expect of cultists like him, somebody
oughtta burn him out, and if he's trapped, well, good riddance!
Right Joe?

-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54587
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr23.140355.25353@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>>>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>>>burning building?
>
>Could be a lot of reasons, James...  We won't know until the survivors are
>allowed to speak for themselves, rather than through an FBI spokesman.

Some of the survivors have been "interviewed" on TV as they were going
to or returning from court. They basically said, no way was there any
kind of suicide pact or attempt.

-- 
 Remember the Texas holocaust.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54588
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <1r6klv$64f@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>> In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>> >In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> >>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>> >
>> >Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>> >latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>> >themselves to death.
>> 
>> If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>> is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>> your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>> of paranoia?
>
>Funny, Brent, but so far we have heard two versions of the "facts:"
>
>1) What the government says.  This includes what the government says that
>   two survivors have said.
>
>2) What Koresh's lawyer (who was actually inside the compound) says,
>   including what he says that most of the survivors have said.
>
>Strange, but they seem to disagree in most important particulars.
>
>If anyone has actually seen news reports of any of the survivors
>speaking first-hand, feel free ot pitch in.  I may have missed it.
>But my money is that their story will sound a hell of a lot like
>case 2, and not at all like case 1.

Since neither side would be particularly interested in telling the truth,
you have to weigh the 'facts' given by each yourself, and weigh it with
the newsreporting if you care.

Many cult members will probably side with the attorney, and if he
is lying, change their stories to match his.  And if the Feds also
lie, the cult members who become disillusioned will change their
stories to match the Feds.  

Neither sides are interested in the truth.  The Media is more interested,
but usually either don't have the time to get it straight or tie themselves
to the ratings and deliberately distort.  

For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with
how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the
compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter.  I doubt the Feds
did that as they were more interested in arresting Vernon.  The real
unbalanced one (at least the one that lost his cool) was Vernon, so
I figured that he was more likely to do it (after all he was Jesus 
being persecuted by the authorities, and had followers to hold onto,
so made the decision.  He and his followers also probably felt that they
were rocketing to heaven by doing this stuff).  Thsi conclusion, I came
to after umpteen million hours of listening to NPR and other radio
shows (I always have the radio going when I am in my office on some
innocuous talk-show or news program as background noise).


-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54589
From: kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

 wrote:
: In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
: Arras) wrote:
: >  
: > I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
: > devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
: > government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
: > own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
: > 
: > Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
: > 
: > Jim

: Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
: generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
: Just let him be? 

Yes.  Given the history of the BD's and the fact that they were just 
peacefully minding their own business, I think this would have been
the correct course of action in the very beginning.  Everything that
followed was a direct result of the major media fuck-up that the BATF
perpetrated just over 51 days ago.

:Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
: the first time.

: joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Yep, no doubt about it.  They should have just bombed those kooks
right from the git-go.  Yeah, sure!  So much for any resemblence
to an America that abides by the Constitution.  So much for feeling
safe in your home.  So much for any of the rights enumerated in the
Bill of Rights being upheld.  Why bother?  They just get in the way
of an effective government.  That is, a government of the elite, by
the elite, for the elite.  

Joe, attitudes like yours frighten me.  You have very few facts about
what actually happened, and what information you do have came from a 
single source, the FBI/BATF.  Yet you are more than happy to pronounce
the BD's guilty-as-charged based on this one-sided testimony.  Scary!

--
Keith Marchington

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54590
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Feds Caught in Another Lie


In article <1993Apr23.120935.21848@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>Well, after 2 days of hearing that 3 of the BD bodies had
>been shot in the head (Horrors!  Another Jonestown! Crazed
>Cultists!  Child Abusers!  WHACKOS in Waco!), last night the 
>medical examiner was on TV and was pretty vehement in denying
>that ANY of them had bullet wounds...  he seemed just a tad upset 
>at the Feds for having spread that rumor.  (Aw, gee, he shouldn't 
>be so hard on them;  they're just practicing the new principle 
>of "flexible reality" that their big boss has implemented.)
>
>Before long, I think all the kneejerk government apologists
>are going to start getting pretty pissed off at how easily
>they were misled.

Two notes of interest from Texas:

The Tarrant Couonty ME (who is doing the autopsies) is well known for rendering
judgements that are contrary to the police view.  He presented evidence a few
years ago that a man who police said was pointing a gun at them actually had
his hands in the air.  This does not bode well for the boys in black.

The Texas Dept. of Public Saftey and the Texas Rangers have no great love for
the ATF.  I have heard them referred to as "those fucking cowboys".  The DPS
was totally squeezed out of the BD operation and resented being left as
"traffic cops".  ATF now has two strikes against them.

Finally (I guess that makes three notes), rumour from Waco is that four ATF
agents were stopped by four Waco police cars and a DPS trooper after one of the
flashed "an automatic weapon" at a cop.  Lots of pissed of cops.  And you
wonder why there were so few cops really cheering on the ATF.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54591
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <dusek.735489223@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>>or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>>interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>>started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>>knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.
>
>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>burning building?

In this case, it was unimportant as to who set the fire.  The Davidians
would have burned no matter what, ESPECIALLY if the BATF/FBI set the
fire as this would make the beseiged martyrs to Vernon Howell and
therefore rocket to heaven.  A few comments from the remaining
Davidians scattered throughout the country seemed to confirm this
theory (One cult member said that she wished that she had been there,
and that now she would have to wait for Vernon to Return for them.  She
actually seemed upset that she did not burn with them).

While I think that Vernon started the fire (his followers anyway), 
it is incidental to their reaction.

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54592
From: auerbach@batman.bmd.trw.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <scottj-230493091606@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>, scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
> In article <dusek.735489223@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek)
> wrote:
>> 	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>> burning building?
> 
> Okay, James, tell you what: I'll but you in a building with 90 other
> people.  I'll put you in a highly tense situation.  I'll subject you to
> sleep deprivation, remove your utilities, march tanks back in forth in
> front of you, play recordings of tortured rabbits at high volume, shine
> bright lights in your windows, threaten to attack you at any time, and cut
> you off from the outside world, all for weeks at a time.  Then, I'll begin
> to smash in the building you're in, destroying passages and stairs and
> spreading debris everywhere.  At the same time, I'll pump in massive
> quantities of nasty tear gas, for six hours.  

STOP IT!!!! ENOUGH!!! I'm out of there!  I mean, I'm a relatively sane person. 
God knows I'm weak and will forgive me.  But I'm not stupid enough to stay in
this place any longer.  I WANT OUT!!!

>You'll be holed up in a small
> area with 90 sweaty people on a hot day.  Then the building will fill with
> smoke and become a inferno.  90 people in a small room will try to leave
> with you.  And Jim, if you don't make it out, won't you agree that it must
> be because you wanted to die?
> 
> Besides, nine people *did* successfully flee the fire.

Yeah, and at least one person ran back in. SOunds like a personal choice to me.
Religious fanaticsm, and a beleive that dying in the 'defense' of your beliefs,
is probably at the core of what happened in Waco. We in the west tend to
disregard fanaticsm of the type displayed by many Moslem fundamentalist groups
who see nothing wrong with dying for their beliefs/convictions. I suspect that
this same type of fanaticsm was displayed by the BDs. BUt we'll probably never
know...

Karl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54593
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <4615@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>Michael Frederick Rhein (mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU) wrote:
># In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>#                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
># in Texas.
>
>Not that I agree with the original theory or anything, buuuuut:
>Since their utilities were turned off they might be using wood stoves
>to cook their meals.

But they also might have run out of fire-wood (maybe chopping up furnature?).

They also may not have been cooking, but eating MREs and other
delicacies stored for just such an occation...

Just a thought.

Brent "Yes I am well aware that their electricity was cut, thanks to the
HUNDREDS of E-mail messages and replies to my post" Irvine

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54596
From: lilak@peaks.enet.dec.com (Rod Lilak)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1


In article <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
|>Xref: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com misc.legal:62088 talk.politics.guns:56997 alt.activism:43746
|>Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utcsri!relay.cs.toronto.edu!neat.cs.toronto.edu!cs.toronto.edu!quoctp
|>Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.guns,alt.activism
|>From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham)
|>Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1
|>Message-ID: <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
|>Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
|>References: <1993Apr21.021301.25113@r-node.hub.org>
|>Date: 23 Apr 93 03:46:24 GMT
|>Lines: 3
|>
|>Did anyone notice that Clinton was smiling and making jokes just before
|>this press conference? Considering the number of people killed, this 
|>seems very inappropriate to me.
|>

Or, did anyone notice that when Clinton referred to the Davidians as
'religious fanatics' that a round of spontaneous applause burst forth from
the reporters ? 

To me this was not only in poor taste, but it showed the media's bias and
hostility to anyone not of the politically correct stripe.  No wonder they
have been cheerleading for the kgBATF and the FBI during this whole affair.

			Rod
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come
close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell
after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The
savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
    -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54597
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Two Questions

In article <16BB910F7.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal) writes:
>In article <16BB8C820.SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
>SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
> 
>>I'd appreciate any help anyone could give me on these two questions:
>>
>>The Brady Bill was in the news throughout 1992 but what actually happened to
>>it in Congress?  Did Bush veto it?  If so, when?
> 
>       The Brady Bill passed the House in 1992, but failed to reach a
>vote in the Senate.  As such, it never reached Bush.  (Sarah Brady's
>condemnation not-withstanding).

I have a joint House-Senate conference committe report (i.e., crime bill)
for the 102rd Congress which contains a "Brady Bill -- 7 day waiting period"
within it.  I believe it just died and never came up for a vote in either
house.

>       It'll probably pass the House again, and will probably pass the
>Senate if they can get it to a vote.  Whether of not they'll be busy
>with other things will be the question.

They got four years of Clinton's support to pass it.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54598
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 21:30:12 GMT, Pete Zakel (phz@cadence.com) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
> >You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
> >the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
> >Constitution. 

> This is REALLY STUPID nitpicking.  Capitalization rules in the late 18th
> century were quite different from today, and what was posted matches current
> capitalization rules.

pete zakel is right, we don't need to worry about capitalization
rules. after all, the punctuation gives all the necessary information
about the sentence structure. why should anyone worry about whether the
text is as close to the original as possible. (sarcasm intended). 

> In the original Constitution, "militia", "arms", etc. were capitalized simply
> because they were nouns.  This is also done currently in German.  There is
> no special significance to these words simply because they are capitalized.
> The capitalization denotes no special emphasis.

Then you didn't understand my grumble...  Again, I said to get a
CORRECT version of the Constitution.  The first indicator that
something is wrong (i.e. the copy has been modernized) is the modern
capitalization rules.  The next thing to go is the spelling, and then
I've even seen versions where the GRAMMAR was modernized (oh, but
don't worry, modernizing the grammar won't change the meaning of the
text, right?... ;-)  [p.s.  I have found about 10 *different* versions
of the Constitution on the network; And accuracy DOES matter...]

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54599
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>the people on the net.
>
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  What kind
>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>saw you and you were caught?
>

In Massachusetts, you will likely be arrested for murder, but
if you convince the cops/DA that you used lethal force because
of threat of death or serious bodily harm, then the charges
would probably be dropped.  If you run away and are later caught,
then you will have a much harder time convincing cops/judge/jury
of your innocence.  Going "on the lam" is seen as an indication
of guilt by a lot of people.

-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54600
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU> mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>
>for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims 
>that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.

This whole thread is rediculous.  Who cares if they had a stove going
or not.  Does it matter if they had a stove burning, or lanterns
burning, or candles burning, or someone smoking, etc, etc, etc.  The
premise is that the FBI was filling the house with napalm so that it
would catch fire.  This is crazy.  FBI was NOT PUMPING NAPALM into the
Davidians home.  You will have to have pretty damn strong evidence to
convince me of that.

I can believe mass suicide/murder by Koresh.  I can believe an
accident by the Davidians.  I can believe an accident by the FBI.  I
can easily believe mass stupidity on all sides but I can not believe
that the FBI lit this fire intentionally.  No way.

-- 
-- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54601
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5y1LJ.7At@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>>In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>>>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>>>>
>>>>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>>>>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>>>>themselves to death.
>>>
>>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>>of paranoia?

Then post what the press has said, not what you wished they said.
The Medical Examiner has refuted the FBI "facts" and if you don't
believe someone who has a LOT more reason to be impartial then 
what do you have to say for yourself.

>>Are you a moron or just illiterate? The "facts" that the FBI 
>
>Neither.  

I was willing to grant this for sake or argument until I read the
following.

>>proclaimed on Monday suddenly weren't "facts" anymore by 
>>the Tuesday press conference.
>
>You don't have to pay attention to any one source, neither do you
>have to abandon your critical thinking, but to disregard all sources
>of information as 'lies' and 'distortions' and substitute your own
>pet theories is more likely to get you wild untruths than by basing
>your theories on the 'facts' as they are reported by the media and
>the government.
>
The FACTS as reported by the press and impartial government
sources support ME.

>> There has beed NO evidence of
>>anyone setting the fire deliberately you simpleton so
>
>Actually there was evidence of the fire being set deliberately -
>both testamony by the survivors and IR tape showing the fire
>being set in 3 places AND the petrochemical soot that the fire 
>was giving off (indications of kerosine or gasoline feeding the
>fire).  

There is NO testimony, at the press conference, the FBI said they
had NO testimony, the SURVIVORS as reported by CNN and Newsday
wire service said that ALL the survivors gave consistent stories
refuting the FBI. They were lighting and heating with kerosine.
Are you trying to PROVE you're an idiot.

>You might not believe 1 or 2 if you are totally paranoid or very
>skeptical, but my 3rd point is visible to anyone who watches the
>tapes of the fire and has started a BBQ grill.
>


>>what are YOU basing your statements on? Oh, I forgot, you're
>>the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need electricity,
>>never mind.
>
>Ho ho ho.  I listen to NPR, watch CNN, NBC.  I also read the
>papers.   Where do you get YOURS?

Then open your eyes and ears, at least 3 of those 4 sources have
reported your full of shit.

>-- 
><><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
><><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54602
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start
violence.
 
When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back.
But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for
their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It
is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical
attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.
 
If the BD were violent they would have held the ATF agents as
hostages.  They would not have released them like they did.  If they
had kept the agents hostage they could have used them as bargening
chips for medical attention etc.
 
A big thing is being made of the BD collection of weapons but no one
has shown that they had any plans to use them.  It is also apparent
that the BD did not have any military training.  If they had, they
could have dug bunkers and trenches and increased their
fortifications.  They could have shot out the lights and speakers.  It
appears that the BD were not violent, they shot back at the attacking
ATF agents out of panic.  There were shots fired on the last day but
they were in response to the FBI attack on the compound with armor.
 
All the violence in Waco was initiated by the federal agents, not the
BD.
 
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54603
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: Waco fire

Flash over is a frequent occurrence with indoor fires.  A fire will
start small and in one location and heat the air.  The temperature in
the room builds up and then everything inflammable in the room catches
fire at once.
 
This may have occurred in the BD compound, I have heard reports that
the windows were covered which would permit a fire to start unnoticed
by those outside the compound.  When the fire got big enough, and
broke through the walls, it appeared to be started in two places but
was really one big fire.
 
Because of the large quantities of tear gas inserted into the building
it is possible that many of the women and children were in a room free
of tear gas they would try to seal the door to keep out the tear gas.
When they learned that a fire had broken out it was too late for them
to escape.  They were trapped by the flames in their safe room.
 
I find it hard to believe that the FBI was not recording the final
assault.  I think that they would have wanted to have tapes to show
their agents of the the FBI overcoming the "forces of evil", aka
the Branch Davidians.  The tapes would also allow the FBI to prove
that they were not using excessive force.
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | The only acceptable substitute
Boulder, CO                    | for brains is silence.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |       -Solomon Short-
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54604
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5y36B.8MG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>
>For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with
>how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the
>compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter.

Just from experience, seeing a couple of houses burn down, one doesn't
need any accelerant to get a lot of black soot.  There's plenty of
stuff in a house that will burn 'dirty'.  Even the asphalt shingles
would make a really sooty smoke.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54605
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <94380@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU
(COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
[...]
>Btw, if I screwed up bad enough to get someone hurt/killed, my CO, the
>PMS, probably the Brigade Commander, and possibly the Region Commander
>could all expect a good amount of heat, possibly including
>reassignment or seperationfrom service.  Certainly the PMS would not
>be promotable, and would shortly thereafter be asked to retire.  This
>is called accountability.  If my PMS knew beforehand about the
>activities in which a person was killed, he would be nailed for
>failing to ensure that proper safety measures were taken.  If he
>didn't know , he would be nailed for improper supervision.  Can we
>hold the President of the US to lower standards than his subordinates?
>After all, he was briefed on the FBI raid.  He could have asked HOW
>they intended to flush the BD's out...

The President is not competent to plan or judge the planning of such a
raid, nor does he need to be.  His job is to set basic policies and
manage the people under him.  If Clinton instructed Reno to preserve
lives, and if she confirmed that the plan for the raid was a safe as
could be, then he did his job.  The President should not involve
himself in the minor details of these kinds of operations.  This sort
of micromanagement only leads to disaster, as was demonstrated so well
in Vietnam.

But the raid went bad:  Over 80 civilians have been killed in a
controntation with U.S. authorities.

NOW Clinton enters the picture in a big way.  Will Clinton start an
investigation?  Or will he try to squash any attempt to investigate?
Is he a responsible leader?  Or is he only interested in protecting
the image of his administration?

We'll all find out as this unfolds.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54606
From: garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness .44 calibre

jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
   From psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell) on rec.martial-arts...
   >I'm sure such weapons have been developed.  Our society does not,
   >however, condone their possession or use.  

Actually, Joe, I wrote the above.  Peter was responding to my article.

I'm actually rather confused by your post.  I suppose I didn't
make myself clear, cause you seem to have gotten exactly the
opposite impression from what I intended.  I suppose "the authorities"
might have been a better term than "society".  Carry and use a firearm
in many parts of the country (certainly the parts I live in), and expect,
at the very least, to have an awful lot of explaining to do.
And there is also appears to be  a trend in society at large that
actively opposes what many see as their right to defend themselves.

   In a few other parts of our society, handguns are banned or
   so restricted as to be practically unavailable to the law-
   abiding citizen for self-defense outside the home.  Funny, 
   though, how the criminals in such places continue to have a 
   lush supply of guns and no compunctions about using them.  
   IMHO, you don't need to be either a political philosopher or 
   a crime victim to realize that there's a flaw in the gun-
   grabbers' logic.  

Agreed.

   You're welcome to your HO, too, the First Amendment being as 
   important as the Second, but please don't let your obvious 
   good intentions be subverted by insupportable generalities 
   about something as big and diverse as US society.

My only intention was to comment that the existence of suitable
weapons of self defense doesn't mean you'll escape a whole shitload
of trouble should you be forced to use them.

   Or by the
   naive hope that making gun possession a crime will give pause 
   to someone who would be a criminal anyway.

I made no such statements, nor do I have such a naive hope or outlook.  
   
   Wishing you peace and the wherewithal to defend yourself
   if others' thoughts are not that kindly,

That's all I want: the opportunity to leave in peace, or to 
have the means to defend myself when that in not possible.

I *think* we agree on this issue.  I guess my position didn't
survive the transition from cognition to ASCII.

-- 
Garry Hodgson			A slow winter day
AT&T Bell Labs			A night like forever
garry@alice.att.com		Sink like a stone
att!alice!garry			Float like a feather

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54607
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Karl Auerbach writes:

>>> Besides, nine people *did* successfully flee the fire.

>Yeah, and at least one person ran back in. SOunds like a personal choice to me.
>Religious fanaticsm, and a beleive that dying in the 'defense' of your beliefs,
>is probably at the core of what happened in Waco.

	Religious fanaticism?

	People try to get back in all the time when their homes are afire.  
	Firefighters often have to restrain them.  They want to rush back in in an
	effort to save things-- old photos, keepsakes, stamp collections,
	cash, books, jewelery, pets, their wives and husbands, their babies...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54608
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <C5sv4r.HFA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

[and quotes a lot of stuff unnecessarily]
>In article <93869@hydra.gatech.EDU> glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes:
>>
>> [worth posting again ;-]
>>Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys,
>>it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming
>>houses and violating civil rights under color of law. 
>>
>>Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution?

>Its also about crazy fatigue clad survivalist types blasting the 
>snot out of people who accidentally stray onto his land in the
>name of 'self defense.'

>Don't get too self-righteous, Mr. gun-toter.

Ain't got a pair of fatigues... and I don't blast people wandering aimlessly,
I ask them what they're doing there... I only blast people who display
obvious violent intent... like black-clad men with weapons climbing thru
second-story windows, or people who break down the door instead of knocking.
Or people who knock my house down with tanks and set it afire.  Sound 
familiar yet?

Riddle me this: Why the hell are the CONVICTED CRIMINALS in Ohio getting
the kid glove treatment, and the BD's are burned alive without a trial?
Put aside who started the blaze, I still think any decent shyster can 
make a case for cruel and unusual punishment, playing the sounds of
tortured rabbits over the loudspeakers (where's the SPCA in all this?)...

Oh, and that's Mister gun-toter SIR to you, bucko.  Just because you choose
to abandon your rights, leave mine the hell alone, thankyouverymuch.

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
Impeach Clinton, Reno -- the case is prima facie.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54609
From: seelowe@well.sf.ca.us (Hudson H Luce)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


 I suggest another name change:

   Thomas Parsli .... to .... Vidkun Quisling

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54610
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks


In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>,  () writes:
>In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
>Arras) wrote:
>>  
>> I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
>> devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
>> government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier
>> own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
>> 
>> Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
>> 
>> Jim
>
>Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
>generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
>Just let him be? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
>the first time.

What is "doing it right the first time"?  Murdered them all?  Used tanks? 
Maybe they should have had enough evidence to indict.  From the list presented
to date, I haven't seen ANYTHING illegal.  They claim that the BD's bought
components to convert their weapons to Class III devices, but no evidence that
they had done so.  In fact, with a Class III FFL living with them, this may
have been legal (given recent court rulings).

What you really meant to say was that the ATF should have done the right and
lwaful thing.  Or did you just want the BD's dead?
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54611
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Clipper Chip

In article <1993Apr20.183938.8024@news.columbia.edu> pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet) writes:
>I thought that the Clipper Chip that was posted to t.p.g (sorry, I lost
>the original post) was a joke.  I really did.  I didn't believe it for
>a second.  But on the way to work this morning, I heard about it on NPR.


No joke.  Here's another copy for you to save.  NPR, hmmm?  Did they
mention the part about "The fact of law enforcement access to the
escrowed keys will not be concealed from the American public." ...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: dg-rtp!psinntp!uunet!news.claremont.edu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!uiboise.idbsu.edu!blh
>From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
>Message-ID: <9304191630.AA03993@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>
>Subject: Heil, Clinton
>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 93 11:50:13 MDT
>X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA21120; Mon, 19 Apr 93 09:30:51 -0700
>X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA03993; Mon, 19 Apr 93 09:30:17 -0700
>X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
>	(16.6/16.2) id AA01185; Sun, 18 Apr 93 11:50:14 -0600
>X-To: talk.politics.guns.usenet
>X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
>Lines: 112
>
>
>    Although the subject matter of this re-posting is not directly 
>    related to talk.politics.guns, I believe that the information 
>    here will be of interest to a large number of readers.
>
>    Especially considering our latest BATF escapade.
>
>> From: clipper@csrc.ncsl.nist.gov (Clipper Chip Announcement)
>> Subject: White House Public Encryption Management Fact Sheet
>> Message-ID: <C5LGAz.250@dove.nist.gov>
>> Sender: news@dove.nist.gov
>> Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology
>> Distribution: na
>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 20:44:58 GMT
>> Lines: 94
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Note:     The following was released by the White House today in
>>           conjunction with the announcement of the Clipper Chip
>>           encryption technology.
>> 
>>                            FACT SHEET
>> 
>>                   PUBLIC ENCRYPTION MANAGEMENT
>> 
>> The President has approved a directive on "Public Encryption
>> Management."  The directive provides for the following:
>> 
>> Advanced telecommunications and commercially available encryption
>> are part of a wave of new computer and communications technology.
>> Encryption products scramble information to protect the privacy of
>> communications and data by preventing unauthorized access.
>> Advanced telecommunications systems use digital technology to
>> rapidly and precisely handle a high volume of communications.
>> These advanced telecommunications systems are integral to the
>> infrastructure needed to ensure economic competitiveness in the
>> information age.
>> 
>> Despite its benefits, new communications technology can also
>> frustrate lawful government electronic surveillance.  Sophisticated
>> encryption can have this effect in the United States.  When
>> exported abroad, it can be used to thwart foreign intelligence
>> activities critical to our national interests.  In the past, it has
>> been possible to preserve a government capability to conduct
>> electronic surveillance in furtherance of legitimate law
>> enforcement and national security interests, while at the same time
>> protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all citizens.  As
>> encryption technology improves, doing so will require new,
>> innovative approaches.
>> 
>> In the area of communications encryption, the U. S. Government has
>> developed a microcircuit that not only provides privacy through
>> encryption that is substantially more robust than the current
>> government standard, but also permits escrowing of the keys needed
>> to unlock the encryption.  The system for the escrowing of keys
>> will allow the government to gain access to encrypted information
>> only with appropriate legal authorization.
>> 
>> To assist law enforcement and other government agencies to collect
>> and decrypt, under legal authority, electronically transmitted
>> information, I hereby direct the following action to be taken:
>> 
>> INSTALLATION OF GOVERNMENT-DEVELOPED MICROCIRCUITS
>> 
>> The Attorney General of the United States, or her representative,
>> shall request manufacturers of communications hardware which
>> incorporates encryption to install the U.S. government-developed
>> key-escrow microcircuits in their products.  The fact of law
>> enforcement access to the escrowed keys will not be concealed from
>> the American public.  All appropriate steps shall be taken to
>> ensure that any existing or future versions of the key-escrow
>> microcircuit are made widely available to U.S. communications
>> hardware manufacturers, consistent with the need to ensure the
>> security of the key-escrow system.  In making this decision, I do
>> not intend to prevent the private sector from developing, or the
>> government from approving, other microcircuits or algorithms that
>> are equally effective in assuring both privacy and a secure key-
>> escrow system.
>> 
>> KEY-ESCROW
>> 
>> The Attorney General shall make all arrangements with appropriate
>> entities to hold the keys for the key-escrow microcircuits
>> installed in communications equipment.  In each case, the key
>> holder must agree to strict security procedures to prevent
>> unauthorized release of the keys.  The keys shall be released only
>> to government agencies that have established their authority to
>> acquire the content of those communications that have been
>> encrypted by devices containing the microcircuits.  The Attorney
>> General shall review for legal sufficiency the procedures by which
>> an agency establishes its authority to acquire the content of such
>> communications.
>> 
>> PROCUREMENT AND USE OF ENCRYPTION DEVICES
>> 
>> The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other appropriate
>> U.S. agencies, shall initiate a process to write standards to
>> facilitate the procurement and use of encryption devices fitted
>> with key-escrow microcircuits in federal communications systems
>> that process sensitive but unclassified information.  I expect this
>> process to proceed on a schedule that will permit promulgation of
>> a final standard within six months of this directive.
>> 
>> The Attorney General will procure and utilize encryption devices to
>> the extent needed to preserve the government's ability to conduct
>> lawful electronic surveillance and to fulfill the need for secure
>> law enforcement communications.  Further, the Attorney General
>> shall utilize funds from the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture
>> Super Surplus Fund to effect this purchase.
>> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54612
From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes...
>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.

	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?
	Further, the BD members have as much reason to lie as the 
	Gov't.


>Medical Examiners have found no bullet wounds, as was stated by the
>FBI, on the corpses.

	They'd only autopsied one body when this information was released.
	I wouldn't doubt though


>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
>the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.

	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54613
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff


In article <C5w0C9.2D0@intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>In <1993Apr21.182458.12735@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> news&aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET) News (brenda kenworthy) writes:
>
>>And another thing that puzzles
>>me--why are they finding dead bodies inside who had bullet holes already in 
>>them???  Don't you think it's possible that Koresh shot the TRAITORS rather 
>>than letting them out???
>
>Possible.  I wouldn't put it past him.  It is also possible that they
>were hit by rounds exploding in the extreme heat.  Remember that kept
>the cops away for hours.  I have only heard that bodies were found
>shot, not any coroner's cause of death.

So far, the medical examiner (according to the news) has found NO EVIDENCE
of gunshot wounds in bodies so far examined.  If this continues to be
the case, it will sort of shoot holes (pun intended) in the FBI story,
wouldn't it?  And cartridges going off outside a firearm do not launch
a bullet like they do when fired from a gun.  The bullet hardly moves,
it is the brass casing that goes flying, and then with less than lethal
force.  It will hurt, yes, but not KILL you - I doubt if it wil penetrate
a coat, for example.

How about an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full subpoena powers, and
powers to prosecute on felony charges, to investigate for any possible
illegal/criminal activity on the part of both the BATF and FBI?  I
cannot see any reason why not - to use the phrase they like to use
so often, "if they have nothing to hide..." they should welcome it,
and vigorously support it.  Note that an internal investigation by the
Dept of Justice is NOT an independent investigation...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54614
From: pagan@DPW.COM (Kathleen M. Pagan)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>
>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?
>
Yes, the local sheriff stated that anytime he wanted to talk to Koresh, all
he had to do was call him and Koresh would come down.


>
>
>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

Full agree with you here.  I think its ridiculous that he did not even talk
to Janet Reno until sometime Tuesday, however, he did talk with Wendell
Hubbel(?).  So who really is the Attorney General????


Hopefully the investigation will answer some of these bizarre questions.

Katie

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54615
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:

> To Rob and all others that have been debating about the wood stove.
>    The original post claimed that the ATF/FBI was pumping napalm into the 
> building with the hopes that the wood stove inside would ignite it.  I responed
> with why would the wood stove be lit in the first place?  It wouldn't be lit 
> for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas. 

Which statement is dead wrong, because our local posters have confirmed that 
it was quite chilly that morning.

> Everyone now claims that it was for cooking.

No, we argue that it was not entirely unreasonable for a woodstove to be 
operational.

> Stop and think about this.  CS gas was being pumped
> into the building and I presume that everyone was wearing gas masks (either
> bought or some type of makeshift type) and this had been going on for 6 hours.
> I don't know if you have ever been around CS, but I have.  Being exposed to CS
> gas was part of my Army training, so I know that without a mask it VERY 
> uncomfortable and makes your eyes water, nose run, and makes you sick in 
> the stomach.  And with the mask it is very difficult to drink water much less 
> eat.  So my question now is "why were they cooking food?"

Obviously you missed my earlier posting about the physica of woodstoves.
In brief, you can't turn your woodstove on and off like your gas range.
It stays on all the time.  It even stays "on" for over 24 hours AFTER you
shut it off (which is why most working woodstoves aren't ever "shut off"
until spring).
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54616
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter's address?

In article <1993Apr23.002908.24394@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> williams@bagels.enet.dec.com (Bryan H. Williams) writes:
>
>In article <16BB89C7D.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu>, R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes...
>>In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com>
>>kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
<< 
<<<
<<<Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him
<<<for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation
<<<into the Waco mess.
<< 
<<If I had Arlen's address, I would go to his house (Do weasels live
<<in houses or in holes?) and personally tell him what a pathetic idiot
<<he is.  Arlen is the personification of the word "jerk". [snip...]
<< 
<I'm no fan of Arlen Spectre's, but he did the right thing, and attacking his
<motives in this case is wrong. 

Pardon me, here, but I don't trust Spectre's motives here at all.  Spectre
was a major part of the Warren Commission, (remember the magic bullet theory?)
and is NOT to be trusted if there's even the tiniest chance the guv'mint may
have done something wrong.  If he gets a chance I'm afraid he will satisfy
the public outcry with another whitewash.

<Unfortunately, if some of us get our wish and the BATF is disbanded or folded
<into the FBI,  etc., we may end up with a "more efficient" agency than the
<bumbling and competition we have today. Some agents should be fired. Some
<should be prosecuted. But keep them as bumbling as possible -- we retain more
<of our liberties that way.
<
Right on the money here.  We should certainly applaud the disbanding of the 
BARTF but we must stress the personal responsibility of the goons who set
up the assault on American citizens.  

We must NOT count on Spectre, though, to get it done.

RJL


-- 
Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54617
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas

In article <1993Apr23.130234.23728@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
> Saw a REAL interesting report on CNN last night;  it seems the gas that
> was used has been banned by international law for military use.  However,
> our president was quick to point out that "there are exemptions for law
> enforcement".  Hmmm...  too inhumane to use in war against the enemy,
> but OK for civilians

Whoa.  Think twice, now, unless you want the same standards applied to
hollowpoints...
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54618
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
>jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>>>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
>>>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
>>>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
>>>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
>>>crime.
>>
>>What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
>>any of these things?  Evidence, please?
>>
>> Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point tha
>there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
>there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
>of common incidents.

Saying "hopefully the effect of policy X will be Y" is *much* different
from saying "hopefully if there is any effect of policy X it will be Y."
Here you've made both statements.
If the former describes a reasonably-likely outcome of policy X, then
perhaps policy X is worthy of consideration - but the latter statement
is not something to base policy decisions on!

> Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
>ages 14 and under.

According to groups like the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (formerly
the National Coalition to Ban Handguns - interesting name change, don't you
think?) who include murder and suicide by firearms in the "leading causes of
unintentional death) figures but *don't* include murder and suicide by other
means as causes of unintentional death.  Can't you see past the bullshit?

>  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
>deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
>What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
>I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
>justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
>gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
>person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
>gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.

Certainly accidental deaths by any cause are serious things - but the
anti-gun groups insist over and over again that accidental death by
firearms is a *stastically serious problem*, and even if you don't use
these deaths as a justification for gun control, these groups do.  I'm
sorry if I jumped to conclusions about your reason for mentioning
accidental deaths due to firearms being something that warranted concern,
but in light of your statement that you are a staunch supporter of gun
control measures, I think the conclusion was a reasonable one.
The fact remains that tragic though individual accidental gun deaths may
be, they are *not* a serious problem statistically speaking.

>>Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
>>
> My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
>departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
>giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
>to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
>had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
>useful.

Sorry if it wasn't clear to me.  I thought you were waffling on your view
of buyback programs with the talk of symbolic offerings and hopefully
preventing accidents and heat-of-passion shootings.  I have to disagree on
all these counts; I can't understand how a buying guns from people who
aren't intending to misuse them (obviously those who want to use guns to
commit crimes aren't going to turn them in) could be construed as a
positive way for police to respond to "interpersonal violence."

>>I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
>>suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
>>students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
>>to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
>>who carry a gun to school daily.
>>
> Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence

What, the people who publish figures saying that as many children commit
suicide by HANDGUNS ALONE each year as the FBI says commit suicide by ALL
METHODS per year?  Who do you think I should believe?  The people who call
everyone up to age 24 "children" when they're screaming about the "carnage
of our nation's children" being caused by handguns?

>or the Centers for Disease Control.

Ah, yes, the agency that considers accidental shootings of children to be
such a statistical problem that a stated objective in the Healthy People
2000 document is to "enact laws in 50 states requiring manufacturers of
handguns to make the handguns more difficult to fire, minimizing the
likelihood of accidental or intentional dscharge by children?"  The
agency that funded the "study" of DC which pronounced that the DC gun ban
had saved X lives (yes, they actually gave us a number) on the basis of
a look at the *number* of shootings rather than the *rate* of shootings?
It wasn't their fault that the population of DC dropped in their "post law"
period...


>  If YOU look carefully you will see
>that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
>The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
>400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
>that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
>in 1990.

Okay, I'll concede I no longer have the numbers I once read on these.  I'll
retract my dispute of your numbers.  However, I would be greatly interested
in seeing how CPHV and CDC came up with these numbers.

>  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
>children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
>to guns in their home.

What's this got to do with anything?  Hell, when *I* was in elementary
school I came home to an empty house with guns in it.  Why is this a
problem?  I didn't touch the guns - I had been taught not to.  I had also
been taught not to mess with the gasoline in the garage, the fuse box, the
car, the knives, the oven, and the tools.  The problem is not the guns,
it's the parents!!!

>  California schools reported a 200% increase in
>student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
>1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
>schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".

And what are these states doing with the kids they find with guns?
NOTHING.  No criminal prosecution, no expulsion, in most cases not even
suspension.  They take the gun, slap the kids on the wrist, say "ain't it
awful," and go on as if everything's back to normal.  What's wrong with
this picture?

> Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
>situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
>act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
>these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
>would not let innocent children die.

I don't think Koresh was the Messiah, either... but isn't it obvious that
if he believed the forces of evil were come to destroy him, then he
believed the children were much safer inside the compound?  I didn't say
he was sane... just that he behaved in a pretty rational manner given what
he thought was going on.  He thought he had them in the one place where
harm *wouldn't* come to them.

>If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
>did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
>burn alive?

Let's see *you* try to find the exits, unbarricade them, and flee a fire
when you've been kept awake for most of 50 days by loudspeakers and subjected
to six hours of tanks knocking in your walls and tear gas assault.

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54619
From: azoun@cormyr.att.com (Joe Preiser)
Subject: Re: Gun Control, who needs it?

In article <1r7693$64f@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>3) The "teflon bullet" bill proposed by NRA included MUCH more than
                                         ^^^
				I think you mean HCI here.

>   "teflon bullets" -- it would have banned damn near ALL COMMON HUNTING
>   AMMUNITION.
>

>4) We finally did get a bill that outlawed the sale of "teflon bullets" --
>   and ONLY "teflon bullets" -- outside the law enforcement community.
>   Guess who wrote it, Joe m'boy?  It was your beloved NRA.
>

[snip]

>Followups to t.p.g.
>-- 
>
>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...
>

				Joe
-- 
 Joe Preiser					AT&T Bell Laboratories
 azoun@cormyr.att.com				Room IH 6G-329	
 cormyr!azoun					2000 N. Naperville Rd.
 (708) 979-4152					Naperville, IL 60566

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54620
From: random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  ():

> 
> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds. 

So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't
seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more
than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What
proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any
"banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your
wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?

> You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.

Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's
going to insult you AND your mom!

> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend
> sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the
> paranoia.

Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior.
Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing
             the same ranch-house.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
                                ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.

Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?

	Random
	

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54621
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>, () writes:

> Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
> generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do?
> Just let him be?

You're sitting in your home reading a good book.  Your neighbors think
you're a quiet, upstanding citizen.  A random person anonymously calls 
the authorities and tells them you beat your children, sleep with all 
the neighbor wimmen, and own a bunch of "nasty 50mm machine guns."  

Now what are they supposed to do?  

> Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
> the first time.

Ah, I see.  They're supposed to send 100 men in horse trailers with
automatic weapons, storm onto your roof, and throw grenades at your 
house with no warning.  Then, after subjecting you to noise torture
and telling the national news media for a month what a filthy son of 
a bitch you are, they're supposed to gas you and knock your house 
around a bit until they manage to collapse it, cause a fire, or 
something equally conclusive.

Hope your neighbors don't tumble to this -- at least none of them that
might have a craving for a ringside seat at some cheap but dramatic 
local entertainment at someone else's expense.  Or maybe even
PARTICULARLY at your expense.

At least they won't have to read you your rights, Joe -- obviously you
had no use for them anyway.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
-- 

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...












Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54622
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <23APR199314304189@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu writes:

> In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes...
> >From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
> >the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
> >tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.
> 
> 	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
> 	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?

  There was at least one blast consistent with petroleum products that I
saw, however propane is interesting stuff.  It doesn't explode on contact with
air.  It is *possible* for a tank to rupture without exploding.  Far more
likely, however, is that the compound was equipped with NG outlets running to
the tank.  Damage from the CEV's could have ruptured the gas lines, allowing
the gas to spread, unnoticed in the CS fumes and general excitement (propane
typically has a distinctive odor added to it for just this reason -- to smell
leaks), until reaching a flame or spark, and then Whooosh!  Fire everywhere,
and maybe an explosion.  Use of NG is pretty common in Texas, especially
semi-rural areas.

> 	Further, the BD members have as much reason to lie as the 
> 	Gov't.

  This is true, but so far the FBI/BATF track record on this incident is very
bad.

> >I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
> >the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
> 	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
> 	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

  I think it would have disarmed many people if the FBI followed this same
policy.  They have not.  They are making claims without evidence, and what
evidence we have so far tends to refute their story.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54623
From: cgwillme@pyr.swan.ac.uk (r b willmersdorf)
Subject: Once upon a time ...

american and european universities were full of Angry Young People(tm)
that wanted to overthrow the government, and wouldn't think twice
about lobbing a molotov cocktail at the national guard (military police
in Europe.)

Certainly, it would have been very bad form to take anything
the System(tm) said at face value.

This was in the end of the sixties and the begining of the seventies,
I'm told. I was too young to remember.

Something wrong happened along the way, I'm afraid.  Maybe the west
became just too comfortable, or maybe I was born too late :(

Yours, disappointed with with the youth of today,

PS: 1) Half smilies implied.
    2) There *is* a difference between lining up 90 people against the
       wall and executing them, and causing their deaths through negligence/
       imcompetence.  I honestly hope we witnessed the latter.  As they say,
       the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
    3) I'm sure the Abused Children(tm) from the compound are much 
       safer now.
-- 

Ramiro || cgwillme@pyr.swan.ac.uk

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54624
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <23APR199314304189@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
>	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?

From what I saw of the videotape, there was an explosion which looked
more like one due to propane rather than (official version)
ammunition.

>	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
>	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
>	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

If only we could be certain that the hard evidence will be released.

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54625
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu wrote:
> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it.

There it is.  The Constitution isn't for "sociopaths", only "normal"
people, eh?  We mustn't allow our Constitution to be cheapened by applying
it to everybody, eh?

You disgust me.

--John L. Scott

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54626
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

In article <22APR199317092767@zeus.tamu.edu>, mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

> >David Koresh's lawyer seemed to think that everyone *would* come out
> >peacefully sooner or later.  The FBI and ATF had NOTHING BUT TIME ON
> >THEIR HANDS!  Why did they have to escalate the situation and cause
> >this senseless tragedy?  Their job is to protect the public and SAVE
> >LIVES NOT KILL PEOPLE for crying out loud.
> 
> 	Koresh had lied and lied and lied about coming out of the
> 	compound. To the FBI. To his lawyer. To just about everyone.

I keep hearing this, but every assertion of this form has come from
government sources except two.  As far as I am concerned, I am not
ready to stipulate that Koresh EVER promised to come out except for
his first promise and his last promise.

The first promise was conditional on his audio tape being given 
NATIONAL exposure.  Well, it never was -- it was broadcast locally,
in a chopped-up fashion, and that's all.  And even then, they cleverly 
cut it off when it got to the part where he demanded "national exposure,"
but not so cleverly that we didn't hear it.

The last promise was conditional on the finishing of his manuscript.
We'll never know if he would have kept that one.

> 	The FBI etc. can't wait forever for Koresh to come out. As
> 	long as they thought that Koresh's intended to surrender 
> 	peacefully. When they lost hope in that, they decided to go
> 	in. 

Strangely enough, the previous day they said they were prepared to
"wait as long as it takes."

>	Further, while the Mondays tactics were silly and clumsy,
>	they were obviously intended to drive the Davidians out of the
> 	compound, not to kill Koresh and his followers. 

Quite possible.  But arguments of intent do not mark the dividing 
line between guilt and innocence -- only the line between murder and 
negligent manslaughter.

> 	*If* it is true. *I* read in the paper that the government 
> 	listening devices inside the compound picked up orders to 
> 	burn the joint down shortly before the fire was started. I'm
> 	waiting to see what the tapes really hold.

This would be an interesting development.

> 	The Davidian may be telling the truth, or he may be lying
> 	to save his skin from possible murder charges resulting from
> 	the blaze. Koresh's lawyer, being the attorney for at least
> 	one surviving Davidian, has an interest in claiming that
> 	the gov't caused the fire, at least as much as the gov't
> 	has an interest in blaming Koresh for the fire. It's the
> 	physical evidence that will decide who's telling what.

It's too tempting for one or more of the survivors to "go state's
evidence," parrot the FBI story, hang the whole "suicide" on Koresh, 
claim they only stayed at gunpoint, etc.  If any of them do this
in the next few weeks, it doesn't prove much; but if none of them
do, it would be a strong indication to me that the FBI story is
dead wrong.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54627
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: What if the Dividians were black?

In article <1993Apr9.134525.21567@medtron.medtronic.com> rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls) writes:
>Kenneth D. Whitehead (kdw@icd.ab.com) wrote:
>: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
>
>: > Questions for the media and the politically correct:
>: > 
  [...]
>: > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits

Some of the Davidians *are* black.

Next question?


-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54628
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

Mr. Nice Guy (rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start
: violence.
:  
: When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back.
: But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for
: their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It
: is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical
: attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.

  This is the first I've heard of the BD capturing and releasing ATF agents.
Is there any more info about this?

Rob P.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54630
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear
>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapons
>that are being confiscated.

Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16
from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and
a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various
versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?

If so, I'd love to hear the details, if only because they'll demonstrate
that Kratz is blowing smoke.

Considering that one can design a gun so that it looks just like
another gun, yet have very different properties, and that that's
quite common....

Most kids in my neighborhood were quite young when they figured out
that my parents car wasn't much like Richard Petty's, even though it
looked just like it (except for the paint job).  Things must have been
different with Kratz.

>Sure it's on TV but why does that make a difference?

No, it doesn't, but that's irrelevant.  If visual inspection of the
outside worked, TV would be acceptable, but since it doesn't, the fact
that it's just as good as seeing in person doesn't mean much.

-andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54631
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Weaver trial update

I've been running a daily summary of the Randy Weaver/Kevin
Harris trial from here in Boise.  These summaries are sent
primarily to mailing lists.  However, I was wondering if
people would be interested in seeing them here.  Post or
email.

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54632
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Need info on 43:1 and suicide for refutation

Here's something Preston Covey (professor of ethics at CMU) wrote:

From: "Preston K. Covey" <covey+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Gun Stats & Mortal Risks
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:35:05 -0500 (EST)


Folks,

Hail from the nether world.  On February 4th, the Wall Street Journal
carried a front-page article by Erik Larson entitled "Armed Force."  I
felt a reply was in order to his citation of the notorious scare stat
that "A Gun is 43 times more likely to kill than to protect."  I sent
the following to the WSJ.

-----

Gun Stats & Mortal Risks

Preston K. Covey


	Erik Larson~s even-handed article on Paxton Quigley (~Armed Force,~
2/4/93, WSJ) cites the world~s most notorious ~statistic~ regarding guns
in the home:  ~A pioneering study of residential gunshot deaths in King
County, Washington, found that a gun in the home was 43 times more
likely to be used to kill its owner, spouse, a friend or child than to
kill an intruder.~  The ~43 times~ stat is everywhere these days;  it
has grown in media lore like the proverbial urban myth: it was inflated
by one pugilistic talk-show pundit to ~93.~  Given the shock value of
the finding, the conclusion of the 1986 New England Journal of Medicine
(NEJM) study is remarkably understated:  ~The advisability of keeping
firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.~ 
 
	Responsible people should indeed question the risks and benefits of
bringing a firearm into their home.   But what we need to know is this: 
What exactly are the risks and benefits?  The NEJM testimony is neither
the whole truth about the benefits nor nothing but the truth about the
risks.  Further, as with motor vehicles, we want to know:  What control
do we have over the risks and benefits?  And, as with the risks of
cancer or heart disease or auto accidents:  How can we minimize the
risks?  Like raw highway death tolls, the NEJM stat is not very helpful
here. 

	The NEJM finding purports to inform us, but it is framed to warn us
off.  It is widely promulgated in the media as a ~scare stat,~ a
misleading half-truth whose very formulation is calculated to prejudice
and terrify.  The frightful statistic screams for itself:  The risks far
outweigh the benefits, yes?   What fool would run these risks?   If your
car were 43 times more likely to kill you, a loved one, a dear friend or
an innocent child than to get you to your destination,  should you not
take the bus?  

	Uncritical citation puts the good name of statistics in the bad company
of lies and damned lies.   Surely, we can do better where lives are at
stake.   Let~s take a closer look at this risky business:

	The ~43 times~ stat of the NEJM study is the product of dividing the
number of home intruders/aggressors justifiably killed in self-defense
(the divisor) into the number of family members or acquaintances  killed
by a gun in the home (the dividend).  The divisor of this risk equation
is 9: in the study~s five-year sample there were 2 intruders and 7 other
cases of self-defense.  The dividend is 387:  in the study there were 12
accidental deaths, 42 criminal homicides, and 333 suicides.  387 divided
by 9 yields 43.  There were a total of 743 gun-related deaths in King
County between 1978 and 1983,  so the study leaves 347 deaths outside of
homes unaccounted.

	The NEJM~s notorious ~43 times~ statistic is seriously misleading on
six counts:

	1.  The dividend is misleadingly characterized in the media:  the ~or
acquaintances~ of the study (who include your friendly drug dealers and
neighborhood gang members) is equated to ~friends.~  The implication is
that the offending guns target and kill only beloved family members,
dear friends, and innocent children.  Deaths may all be equally tragic,
but the character and circumstance of both victims and killers are
relevant to the risk.  These crucial risk factors are masked by the
calculated impression that the death toll is generated by witless
Waltons shooting dear friends and friendly neighbors.  This is
criminological hogwash.

	2.   The study itself does not distinguish households or environs
populated by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories
-- where the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited
by more civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities
like drug dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is
very low indeed.  In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but
avoidable accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with
histories of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and
certifiably at ~high risk~ for misadventure.  To ignore these obvious
risk factors in firearm accidents and homicides is as misleading as
ignoring the role of alcohol in vehicular deaths: by tautology, neither
gun deaths nor vehicular deaths would occur without firearms or
vehicles; but the person and circumstance of the gun owner or driver
crucially affect the risk. 

	3.  One misleading implication of the way the NEJM stat is framed is
that the mere presence of a gun in the home is much more likely to kill
than to protect, and this obscures -- indeed, disregards -- the role of
personal responsibility.  The typical quotation of this study (unlike
Larson~s) attributes fatal agency to the gun:  ~A gun in the home is 43
times as likely to kill . . . .~  (The Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence, a major promulgator of the NEJM statistic, uses this
particular formulation.)  We can dispense with the silly debate about
whether it~s people or guns that accomplish the killing:  again, by
tautology, gun  deaths would not occur without the guns.  The question
begged is how many deaths would occur anyway, without the guns.  In any
case, people are the death-dealing agents, the guns are their lethal
instruments.  The moral core of the personal  risk factors in gun deaths
are personal responsibility and choice.  Due care and responsibility
obviate gun accidents; human choice mediates homicide and suicide (by
gun or otherwise).  The choice to own a gun need not condemn a person to
NEJM~s high-risk pool.  The gun does not create this risk by itself. 
People have a lot to say about what risk they run with guns in their
homes.  For example, graduates of Paxton Quigley~s personal protection
course do not run the touted ~43 times~ risk any more than skilled and
sober drivers run the same risks of causing or suffering vehicular death
as do reckless or drunk drivers.  Undiscriminating actuarials disregard
and obscure the role of personal responsibility and choice, just as they
disregard and obscure the role of socio-economic, criminological and
other risk-relevant factors in firearm-related death.  This is why we
resent insurance premiums and actuarial consigment to risk pools whose
norms disregard our individualities.  Fortunately, nothing can consign
us to the NEJM risk pool but our own lack of choice or responsibility in
the matter.

	4.  Suicide accounts for 84% of the deaths by gun in the home in the
NEJM study.  As against the total deaths by gun in King County,
including those outside the home, in-house suicides are 44% of the total
death toll, which is closer to the roughly 50% proportion found by other
studies.  Suicide is a social problem of a very different order from
homicide or accidents.  The implication of the NEJM study is that these
suicides might not occur without readily available guns.  It is true
that attempted suicide by gun is likely to succeed.  It is not obviously
true that the absence of a gun would prevent any or all of these
suicides.  This is widely assumed or alleged, but the preponderance of
research on guns and suicide actually shows otherwise, that this is
wishful thinking in all but a few truly impulsive cases.  (See:  Bruce
L. Danto et al., The Human Side of Homicide,  Columbia University Press,
1982;  Charles Rich et al.,  ~Guns and Suicide,~  American Journal of
Psychiatry,  March 1990.)  If suicides were removed from the dividend of
the NEJM study~s risk equation, the ~43 times~ stat would deflate to
~six.~  The inclusion of suicides in the NEJM risk equation -- like the
causes, durability, or interdiction of suicidal intent itself -- is a
profoundly debatable matter.  Quotations of the NEJM study totally
disregard this issue.

	5.  Citations of the NEJM study also mislead regarding the estimable
rate of justifiable and excusable homicide.  Most measures, like the
NEJM homicide rate, are based on the immediate disposition of cases. 
But many homicides initially ruled criminal are appealed and later ruled
self-defense.  In the literature on battered women, immediate case
dispositions are notorious for under-representing the rate of
justifiable or excusable homicide. Time~s January 18, 1993, cover story
on women ~Fighting Back~ reported one study~s finding that 40% of women
who appeal have their murder convictions thrown out.  Time~s July 17,
1989, cover story on a week of gun deaths reported 51% of the domestic
cases as shootings by abuse victims; but only 3% of the homicides were
reported as self-defense.  In a May 14, 1990, update, Time  reported
that 12% of the homicides had eventually been ruled self-defense. In
Time~s sample, the originally reported rate of self-defense was in error
by a factor of four.  The possibility of such error is not acknowledged
by promulgators of the NEJM statistic. 

	6.  While both the dividend and the product of the NEJM risk equation
are arguably inflated, the divisor is unconscionably misleading.  The
divisor of this equation counts only aggressors who are killed,  not
aggressors who are successfully thwarted without being killed or even
shot at.   The utility of armed self-defense is the other side of the
coin from the harms done with guns in homes.  What kind of moral idiocy
is it to measure this utility only in terms of killings ?  Do we measure
the utility of our police solely in terms of felons killed  -- as
opposed to the many many more who are otherwise foiled, apprehended, or
deterred?  Should we not celebrate (let alone count ) those cases where
no human life is lost as successful armed defenses?  The question posed
to media that cite the NEJM scare stat is this:  Why neglect the
compendious research on successful armed defense, notably by
criminologist Gary Kleck (Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America ,
Aldine de Gruyter, 1992)?
	Kleck~s estimations of the rate and risk of defensive firearm use are
based on victimization surveys as well as other studies:  the rate is
high (about one million a year) and the risk is good (gun defenders fare
better than anyone, either those who resort to other forms of resistance
or those who do not resist).  Dividing one million gun defenses a year
by 30,000 annual gun deaths (from self-defense, homicides, suicides, and
accidents) yields 33.  Thus, we can construct a much more favorable
statistic than the NEJM scare stat:  

A gun is 33 times more likely to be used to defend against assault or
other crime than to kill anybody.   

	Of course, Kleck~s critics belittle the dividend of this calculation;
what is good news for gun defenders is bad news for gun control.  We
should indeed question the basis and method of Kleck~s high estimation
of defensive firearm use, as I have questioned the NEJM statistic. 
Clearly, the issue of how to manage mortal risks is not settled by
uncritical citation of statistics.   One thing troubles me still:  we
can hardly escape the unquestioned NEJM scare stat in our media,  but we
hardly ever find Kleck~s good work mentioned,  even critically.

-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54633
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Subject: Senator Patty Murrey's tax proposal

   If you haven't heard yet, US Senator Patty Murrey, a Mom in
tennis shoes, is planning to introduce legislation to tax
all handgun transactions and increase dealer licnese costs in
order to raise money to cover the costs of un-insured shooting
victums.  She plans to start with $2500.00 per year dealer fees
and $40.00 or so, depending on the type of firearm, per gun
transaction.  She plans to make it federal.
   She was elected in Washington state under the trade mark as
just a mom in tennis shoes.  She can be written to via the
United States Senate, Washinton DC.  She is looking for your
tennis shoes.  So if you have a pair please send them to her
with your feelings regarding this tax.  
   She claims she has heard little from the opposition.

Lets inundate her!


-- 
BIGOT!  The definition of a bigot is a conservative winning an argument!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54634
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1r8m19INNeph@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
/>/:/g
j:Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
:>coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
:>the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
:>to die.
:
:	Is CS gas lighter or heavier than air?  Do you know?  If the

CS is heavier than air... most chemical weapons are...

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54636
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Reno, fascist dog 

In article <1993Apr23.010640.4583@news.columbia.edu>, pgf5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Garfiel Freeman) writes:
> Janet Reno should be lauded for her decision to attack the 
> compound of the Davidians.  I mean, the last thing we 
> need in this country is more gun-toting hicks who want
> to end the world.  I think ATF, the US Marshalls, the FBI and local
> police forces should make a concerted effort to rid us 
> of the scourge of rebellious freaks.
> 
> Welch eine Wonne!  Welch ein Leiden!
> 
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
	While dedicating the Holocaust Memorial Museum, President 
Clinton remarked:

	``The evil represented in this museum is incontestable, 
but as we are its witness, so must we remain its adversary in the 
world in which we live, so we must stop the fabricators of history 
and the bullies as well."

	Clinton made this comment shortly after giving Janet Reno 
the go-ahead to hastily construct a gas chamber and crematorium
in Waco... on the fiftieth anniversary of the Warsaw uprising.

	Say, wasn't Monday also the anniversary of Paul Revere's ride?
Is that a clue?
	
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54637
From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)

The suggestion that they Davidians committed suicide is
completely without evidence.  Except for the editorials...

Please re-word.  "propensity for allegedly dousing themselves".

Oh, and the survivors claim the the FBI started the burning
by accidentally igniting kerosene lanterns (remember that they'd
already cut the power), and the propane tanks.  This sounds
a lot more likely than committing suicide by setting the place
afire.

--D
-- 
-- -- -- David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu) -- -- --
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will &*kh*&n*&b&mk


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54638
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: The LAW of RETRIBUTION

In article <lteid7INN88q@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:

[re McElwaine]

> Is there NOWHERE on the net that this guy WILL NOT POST?

I just heard this week that he has started on COMPUSERVE flying models
forum now.  Sigh.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54639
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu> blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes:
>I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.
>
>Apparently not.
>
>Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.

That's right.  Despite claims that someone at Kent State fire a shotgun
at the the soldiers, the only projectiles that anyone can prove where
sent in the direction of the soldiers were rocks.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54640
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

From article <1r492jINN5fo@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, by nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish):
> In article <1993Apr19.184303.6205@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>>
>>both of my Senators, and my Rep.  I also called the White House
>>comment line (was on hold for 8-10 minutes so maybe LOTS of people
>>are calling).  Please call your Congress Critter/WH comment line NOW!
> 
> 	Just a general note, I have seen several polls lately and they
> show a large majority (a) thinks that this incident was handled ok and
> (b) thinks that the FBI and BATF gave them more than enough time (51 days)
> to come out.

I take it that when something happens that is wrong it's okay if
a bunch of people say it is?  For instance, if some people go on a
murderous rampage and lynch some blacks and then a poll is taken which
shows that the majority of people think that this is acceptable then
does this mean that what these people have done isn't bad?  This is an
example of mob rule not a democracy---a democracy in which people's
rights are protected.  I hope that I've made myself clear on this.

>>Make the following points:
>>
>> 1) Your outrage over todays behaviour.
> 
> 	And what if I'm not outraged?

Fine...you have the right to hold any opinion that you want to.  But,
let me ask you this:  are you outraged over this tragedy?  I hope
that you are, your opinions of David Koresh and his followers not
withstanding.  I know I am.

>> 2) Since BATF Chief Higgens AND Janet Reno were the 2 who "signed off"
>>    on this plan, demand that they be fired!
> 
> 	Actually, they should both be commended...

Why?  I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.

>> 5) Point out that even if the fire was set by someone inside of the
>>    building, it came as a direct result of the actions of the FBI/BATF.
>>    And the people inside (including 17 children) deserved a trial, instead
>>    of this.
> 
> 	What I want to know is what exactly did you expect them to do?  I
> can see it now...the 11 o'clock news...  "FBI and BATF agents still
> surround the Waco compound after 451 days..."  I don't think so.  They gave
> them every chance.  They had 51 days to surrender to proper authorities.
> They had attornies representing them, etc.  Koresh lied time and time again.
> I don't wish them dead but you can't let it stalemate forever.  It was time
> to do something and the FBI and BATF did.  What happened was unfortunate
> but acceptable (as long as the FBI didn't set the fire intentionally).
> 
> -- 
> Michael G. Larish       | Amateur Radio Callsign:  KD6CTZ
> nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu | Golden Empire Amateur Radio Society (GEARS) - W6RHC
> California State        | Chico State Amateur Radio Society (CSARS)
> University, Chico       | Butte County Sheriff's Search & Rescue - #317


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me

         *******************************************
         * BATF = Cigarette Cops                   *
         * FBI  = Fuehrer's Bureau of Incineration *
         *******************************************




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54641
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, () writes:
> > Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.

> > Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the dictionary  
> > of "cult".

> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's

Know any Mormons?

> and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds.

Know for a fact that this was happening?  State of Texas says it wasn't,
and they held a trial to prove it.

> You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.

Sure we can.  The top two things are perfectly legal.  The bottom one
isn't.  The person here who can't distinguish seems to be you.

> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it.

So the constitution is only for people you approve of.  Fine, fine.
I usually refer to that as "elitism," because "bigotry" is so negative.

> Get a life and chill on the paranoia.

Knowing that people like you are out there really gives me warm fuzzies.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54642
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  writes:
>In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
>Arras) wrote:
>>   
>> You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal agencies  
>> you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from your  
>
>I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
>and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry

Hmm... all reports from Texas authorities indicate that none of the children
which the group released showed any signs of child abuse.. given that the same
results were found the last time the group was investigated for such allegations,
I can pretty much state that I strongly suspect the government of disinformation
/deception on this issue.  And about stockpiling weapons/food, many recognized
religous groups practice maintaining a one years supply of food, and some even
maintain a supply of weapons and ammunition, why are those two facts grounds 
for an armed assault?  And from the dollar value of the weapons purchased, 
if they bought decent firearms it comes out to about one handgun, rifle, and
shotgun for each adult, with a few extras...  Going by that rule, the BATF
best get ready for the fight of their life when they assault Alabama...

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54643
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <1993Apr23.162517.14029@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:

> Good question.  Take an objective look at what happened, listen to the 
> things that the FBI said ("The BD's started the fire."  "The BD's bodies
> were found with gunshot wounds.") that are now being refuted by the 
> evidence being recovered.  Seems that the FBI is deliberately making
> statements that have no rational basis in fact, and trying to make
> them sound like fact.  

That's another sad thing.  I'd expect this sort of shit from the BATF.
But I'm goddamn disappointed in the FBI.  They used to be professionals.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54644
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
>there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
>been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
>rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.
>
>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.
>
>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

I think it was - he went into town fairly often, and was known to go
jogging.  This was even during the 9 month period when he was being
watched.  One wonders why the BATF went ahead, when they had been warned
according to an interview with a BATF agent, that the BD were expecting
them, and why they had the media in tow.  Almost looks like they wanted
to have a romp and a nice show for the media, and it all went to hell...

He was also never known to act violently.  He has always surrendered
peacefully before (but of course, the warrants were served peacefully).
He has been tried on the allegations before and found NOT GUILTY.

The justification for this mess was he was alleged to have purchased
$200,000.00 worth of guns and stuff (over an undetermined time period).
Last I heard this is not a crime, or indication of one.  I know of an
INDIVIDUAL with that much value in guns.  SHould he get a fly-thru-the-door
shoot-first-talk-later raid?  (grenades are shooting first, nobody I
know of can say 'oh, thats only a stun grenade, thats OK...').  Can you?
I sure cannot.  Also, one cannot be sure that 200K figure is not calculated
like the Feds calculate the value of a drug siezure...  Even so, it
is a 'so what' issue...  He wasn't bothering anyone (besides the
BATF who doesn't like folks other than themselves or other govt
people having any effective guns)... and having an unapproved
religeous group.  Are we required to not offend the BATF these
days?  I sure hope it hasn't come to THAT...

MY point is, it DOES NOT ADD UP.  We need an independent investigation,
and NOW.  Assuming other than FBI/BATF are preserving the evidence.

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

They had the premisis bugged.  I am inclined to think a further wait
would have saved lives.  One wonders why they didn't have emergency
gear on hand when they moved, and why they didn't turn on the water
when a fire was observed, instead of saying "aw, gee, there is no water".

Why so long before the fire gear even SHOWED UP - like after the building
had pretty much finished burning?  Fireman safety?  Isn't that a decision
the firefighters should be allowed to make?  No water?  Why didn't
the Feds TURN IT BACK ON?  They sure could cut it off quickly enough...

One does wonder about the possibility of 'settling scores'...

>3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?
>
>And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
>general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
>
>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

What does 'taking responsibility' mean?  You think she is going to be
facing jail time if the acts were found to be criminal?  You think
she is going to face ANY repercussions if the FBI/BATF are found to
have acted wrongly?  I don't.  It is a nice PR gimmick, though.

I am not assured there will even be a serious independent investigation
for possible wrongdoing or criminal acts on the part of the BATF or FBI.
I expect to hear "they are our best law enforcement.  They wouldn't do
anything like that - NO WAY.  OUT of the QUESTION.  End of issue".

I want to see an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full prosecuting and
subpoena powers.  With felony prosecution where felony acts are found.
Fat chance, I bet.  I bet the Justice Dept will have an internal
investigation which will turn up at most 'poor judgement'.

I hope I am wrong, that this is gone over with a fine tooth comb.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54645
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5stLG.Fwq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

> Sorry, guy, you got it wrong.  ATF was pumping tear gas into the compound.
> The Branch Davidians (going along with their apocolyptic faith) set their
> own compound on fire killing all but 9 or so.  No children survived.

Seeing as how people are willing to quote the FBI quoting cultists
who just yesterday were deranged and not to be trusted (hmm the FBI
or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.

Maybe true, partly true, or false.
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54646
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Government Exlanations for WACO

When you have no principles, you can't admit that someone else might,
and everyone who acts differently from what you expect can only be a nutcase.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54647
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:

> And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
> general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.

We've heard a lot of talk about brainwashing in Waco but the brainwashing
of the general population never ceases to amaze me. Here is an
example of action being taken which results in the worst possible
outcome and despite people's deep intuition telling them something
is wrong the programming will still cut in and say that the
agents probably acted in good faith. NO THEY DIDN'T. They either did
not have enough information to act in good faith or else they acted
knowing the risk. Sums up human stupidity all over and one of these
days it will destroy the fucking planet: "Oh sorry. Didn't think they
would respond by launching a strike. All our best calculations told
us they were bluffing."

-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54648
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
> In article <1r1j1l$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
>> 
>> Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.
>> 
>> You sick bastard.
>> -- 
>> 
>> 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...
>> 
> 
> Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said 
> that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  However it was the Branch
> Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior" 
> (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that 
> what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their
> lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
> who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and

For goodness sake if they had fired a cruise missile at the compound more
people would have come out alive. It was obvious to anyone with the remotest
contact with reality that such an outcome was likely (not just possible)
however the fire started. As, Mr Lawnmower, you seem to have already entered
your own little virtual reality I guess you can't be expected to understand
things in the real universe.
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54649
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5sIAJ.Ks7@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

> So, why didn't the BD's leave when the gas was first introduced much 
> earlier in the morning?  Didn't they care about the children?
> 
> Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?

Because most of the children were with their parent(s). Do you understand
that concept? Here's a bunch of people who believe in their minds that
the forces of Satanic evil are outside and you expect them to hand over
their own children? Were you born that stupid or does it take a lot
of effort?

-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54650
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
> In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
>>
> Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
> really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
> a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."

As I understand it was considered unsafe for the tv networks to get
any closer. Surely the networks can judge the risks of reporting
for themselves. I haven't noticed CNN being banned from Baghdad
hotels yet despite the (all too real) risk of having a cruise
missile land in the lobby. Incidentally has that ever been explained
or are we to assume that out of the whole of the city an off-course
missile just happened to hit that hotel at a probability of about
1 in some very large number?

Unsafe for who I wonder?
-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54651
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <1993Apr20.195636.17742@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
> --
> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
> *** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
> *** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
> *** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
>     semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium

If you really want to trigger the scanners then move the keywords
above the -- signature start bit... You'll only trip them once in
a sig (plus every so often it will flag one for human intervention
just to be sure)

I might not be being serious.

-- 
Alan Greig                            Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct
Dundee Institute of Technology	   Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk
Tel: (0382) 308810                 (Int +44 382 308810)
         ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity **

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54652
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

>>This is a stretch.  In fact, a great many of the persecuted Indians were
>>Christian, a great many.  It would be simpler to state the obvious, that
>>white people wanted land the Indians dominated or threatened.  I really
>>don't think the government cared a hill of beans about the Indians' religion.

>My Native American Girlfriend asks: "If the government really doesn't
>'care a hill of beans' about our religion, how come they're still
>busting us for it in Oregon, Washington, and a few other places?
>You'd be a Christian, too, if the U.S. Army marched you into church
>at gunpoint."

Are you saying that the Indians who became Christians did so because the
US Army marched them into church at gunpoint?

This will be news to the Indians of the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi
basin-- of the Southwest-- of Mexico and South America-- who converted even
before there was such a thing as the US.  Are you saying that Indians are
incapable of coming to a decision themselves about their religion without
being forced to at gunpoint?  What about the Christian Cherokees who were
given the boot by the US government after the Civil War... because the
Cherokee nation gave mild support to the Confederacy, since they themselves
owned black slaves.  No, reducing it all to a matter of religion is to
support a much too narrow view of history.

I've never heard of a single treaty, whether broken by the US government or
not (were any NOT????), that said, if you guys convert to Christianity, you
get to keep all the land you claim.  No, treaties were invariably about land...
it meant ceding Indian claims to the government.  Sometimes in return the
US government promised the hunter-gatherer tribes (and plenty of tribes were
already farming for centuries, but we don't hear about non-Plains Indians
in movies) food and training in return for taking up a non-nomadic existence.
Promises, of course, which all to often proved empty. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54653
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article 1r1lp1INN752@mojo.eng.umd.edu, chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>>Does a "not harmful" gassing mean that you can, with a little willpower,
>>stay inside indefinitely without suffering any serious health problems?
>>
>>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam?
>>
>>What IS the difference, anyway?
>
>CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that
>your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but
>you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies.
>
>Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
>chuck@eng.umd.edu
>


Interesting... after several hours worth of exposure, do you still posess
the presence of mind to be able to determine how to escape from an inferno
surrounding you?  In other words, is it possible that the prolonged gassing
disoriented the wackos enough that possibility of escape was rendered
questionable?


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54654
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Cost/Benefit Analysis  (was FBI Director's Statement...)


In article <1993Apr20.212028.17463@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, 
costley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Brett Costley) said:

>> *sigh* I just DON'T understand why they couldn't have waited Koresh&Co
>> out.  [jlpicard@austin.ibm.com]
>
> Uh, maybe because it was costing hundreds of thousands of dollars a
> day to just sit and wait.

Yeah.  We don't want to spend too much money preserving lives, after
all.  Escpecially when they're all just a bunch of crazy fanatic
cultists anyway, instead of normal people.

[The above is supposed to be dripping with sarcasm, but I'm too burned
out right now (get it? "burned out" ha ha!) to tell if it's working.
Look, folks, what David Koresh and his followers were was _broken_.  It
takes a certain amount of flexibility and insanity to survive in this
world and they didn't have enough of it and that wasn't their fault.  So
please stop dancing on their graves, okay?]

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54655
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>>
>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
>>> in Texas. 
>>
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.

Ever hear about cutting off the electricity? That was done.
How effective is an electric stove then?

Al
[standard disclaimer]


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54656
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green)  
writes:
> Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
> there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
> been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
> rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

"Widely reported", eh?  Remember, this has had a news blackout since day 2.
The FBI is the single, sole, source of these rumors.  It may be the truth, but  
it may not be.  We may never know.  We MUST question it, though.  Why no media  
coverare?  What were they hiding?

> 
> What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
> believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
> with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
> well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.
> 
> 1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
> some time before the Feb. 28th raid?
> 
It would seem so.

> 2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.
> 

They would still be alive, today.  Another day is another chance.

> 3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of  
action?
> 
I think it contributed to the outcome.  Folks that are sleep deprived tend not  
to think clearly

> And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
> general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
> 
I feel strongly they were NOT proper.

> One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
> "balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
> had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

As expected.  If it had come out well, he would not have hesitated to take full  
credit.


Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54657
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tKI1.C8s@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques  
Fontenot) writes:
> In <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
> >Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
> >there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
> >been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
> >rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.
> 
> Consider this: The BDs had more than one lamp; The tanks made more than
> one hole in the building. Did anyone else notice on the video that it
> appeared that wherever there was smoke coming out of the building, there
> was a tank nearby?
> 
> The fact that it appears that fires started in several places does not
> rule out anything.

I watched it live, and have re-watched it several times, and from the press  
vantage point, there was only one starting point visible, where the tank  
punched in on the windward side, and the winds whipped that fire across the  
whole, dry, wooden, structure in minutes.  Faned by the 30 mph gusts, and the  
Hueys.   If there were other fires started, they were not visible, nor were  
they needed to cause the flame progression I observed.
> 
> Also, where are these several witnesses? The way I heard it (from the FBI
> spokesman on CNN) the "witnesses" were all people driving the tanks.
> 
All witnesses get thier paychecks from the FBI.

> >One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
> >"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
> >had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.
> 
> Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have
> done their job well.
> 
Yep.  They media has endorsed the FBI version without question.  Sad.

> Dwayne Jacques Fontenot
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54658
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> /  3:34 pm  Apr 18, 1993 /

>>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Listen buddy, if you're going to quote Star Trek get the quote right.  It was
>"Resistance is futile".  Get it right the next time :-)

Sounds like a VOGON quote to me..... Perhaps YOU should READ more widely 
instead of watching that idiot box....

Rick.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54659
From: phd85@seq1.keele.ac.uk (D.H. Holden)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

From article <1qvjh9INNh4l@hp-col.col.hp.com>, by dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff):
> NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!

   Brilliant I like it!
--
Dave Holden Phys. Dept. |  Email:                          
keele university.       | phd85@uk.ac.keele.seq1          
keele. staffs. England. |                                   
-----------------------------------------------------------x

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54660
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:



>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....
>This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!
>(Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the
>figures but they're still *pretty* high right??)
>I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......

In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.
And your numbers are misleading; they include suicides and accidents.  The
real number from the Department of Public Safety:

                   Murders, Non-neg hom		Car fatalities
1991			2651			  3079
1992			2240			  3057

Texas only has "liberal" gun laws as far as purchasing a firearm; aside 
from that, it's probably more restrictive than most states as far as carry
goes.


>One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
>only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

The state was Virginia, and the law passed.

>I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
>other people.

That right only inflicts on those who threaten my rights to life,
liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., in the first place.  I am not
a criminal, and I don't indiscriminately fire my weapons at random.  
So please explain how I am "inflicting" anything on other people.

>	This is not a .signature.
>	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
>	and to bring down the evil Internet.


>                        Thomas Parsli
>                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54661
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
>gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
>is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
>research purposes on such chemicals.

>I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
>definitions.

I hope you realize how trivial it is to manufacture these compounds.  Given
about $10k in lab equipment and chemicals (which are commercially available)
and given the knowledge that I have (graduating BS, Ch, 1993) I could 
synthesize enough of these compounds to make a serious dent in the population
of several major US cities.  As also noted, the knowledge is there for
the production of nuclear weapons.  It's not even that restricted.  The
only thing is the expense.  

Now I'm not going around making these things, but it's not 'cause of any
law; I simply don't get any marginal benefit out of killing anyone.  Any
law you enact in this respect is only going to give you the ability to 
add a charge against someone who does make and use said weapons.  In the
case of chemical agents, I seriously doubt that you would even know that
someone had set up a lab until after the weapons had been used.  

Part of the trouble with the chemical-weapons ban treaty between the US
and the USSR is that many of the precursors to chemical weapons such as
GB and Sarin, etc., is that they have very valid commercial uses, and 
it is very easy to divert those precursors to chemical weapons manufacture
without anyone knowing about it.

>>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
>><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >


>-- 
>doug foxvog
>douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54662
From: se08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth Adam Eliot)
Subject: reference needed....


Does anybody have any solid data on how many legally owned versus
illegally owned firearms are used in crime.  I know the number of
legally owned guns used in crime is small, but I would like a number,
and a reference if possible.

Data should be e-mailed to me.
Open discussion should be directed to talk.politics.guns

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54663
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers

Sorry for posting this here, but noone has replied to my post from the politics
side of the group.

I want to get involved in the fight to save our gun rights.  But first, I need
to get a little more educated.  I've been reading all the magzines and books I
can get my hands on, and sifting through hundreds of messages here in the 
Internet.

I want to obtain a COMPLETE list of Senate Bill and House Resolution
names/numbers.

Can anyone tell me how/where to obtain this info?  Surely there has to be a
way to obtain copies of anti-gun legislation from those *&%$#@'s in Washington.

Any help is appreciated.

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\

| Peter D. Nesbitt |     Air Traffic Controller     | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM    |

|                  |       Oakland Bay TRACON       |                         |

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  CBR600F2 Pilot  |       NRA Member CCX1380F      |  S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |

\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54665
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5tLxr.1xq@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1r21g2INNeah@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
Arras) writes:
> >In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu>  
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu  
> >(Andrew Betz) writes:
> >> >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
> >> >>hands up while national tv cameras watch.
> >> >>
> >> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever
> >> >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of
> >> >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."
> >> 
> >> Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people 
> >> come out with their hands up several weeks ago.
> >> 
> >It didn't happen.
> 
> And who is responsible for it not happening?
> Certainly not the children.  Koresh was calling the shots.  He was 
> talking with his lawyer and the FBI.  Since others were released safely, 
> there is no sane reason for keeping the children inside the compound.
> 

The FBI and Koresh were calling the shots.  And there were very sane reasons  
for keeping the children, if they let them go, the parents would NEVER see them  
again.  That is not an easy choice, in spite of you cold attitude about it.

> >> >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
> >> >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
> >> >>scenarios.
> >> >
> >> >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating
> >> >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly
> >> >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.
> >> 
> >> More than someone who would not release children from the compound.
> >> 
> >Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper.
> 
> Not at all.  Are you a Koresh worshiper?

I am a constitution worshiper.  You quite obviously eat anything the  
authorities feed you, without doubt, which makes you no different that a Koresh  
worshiper

> 
> >> I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ".
> >> I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in 
> >> 1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.
> >
> >Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show  
you  
> >to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed. 
> 
> Thanks for my laugh of the day!  Definitely a very silly supposition.
> 
If you do not believe this, you are truly naive.  It is not only possible, it  
is easy.  I worked in the broadcast profession, at a network station, in the  
late 70s, I know what I'm saying here.  Embarrasing footage is easy to get, add  
a little sinister music, and the right voice-over, and I'll have you mother  
agreeing to commit you.

> >You should at least view the whole  
> >documentary before you claim it as a source.
> 
> I would if I could.  The news show that showed the lengthy excerpts also 
> had interviews with the filmmaker who made the documentary who basically 
> confirmed what was shown in the excerpts from the time he spent at the 
> compound in 1992.
> 
The news shows were looking for excerpts which backed their position.  Do you  
think they would show excerpts which disproved their points?

> >> I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they 
> >> bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are 
> >> responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.
> >
> >Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?  
> >I saw one place.
> 
> I believe that this was reported by local radio reporters on site.
> A fire started in a three story tower at the same time as the two 
> story window shown on the tv coverage.
> 
The reports of multi-starts came solely from the FBI.  Anyone observing the  
fire from the available video would be hard pressed to see more than one point  
of fire.  Which spread across the compound as a uniform rate.

> >> >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
> >> >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
> >> >>ludicrous.
> >> >
> >> >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to
> >> >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people
> >> >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why?
> >
> >Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all,  
it  
> >is the root cause of all the other suspicion.
> 
> I thought about mentioning how Reagan and the military treated the press 
> in Grenada and how that set the precedent, but decided it wasn't worthy 
> of discussion.  If the news reporter got shot, you can bet his family 
> would sue the government for letting him into the danger area.

No reported has ever sued the government for such a situation.  They know the  
dangers.  Remember, the BATF invited the initial coverage. And how about a  
simple, remote-controlled, camera or two?  There were ways to provide media  
access.  The FBI obviously just didn't want any.

> 
> The root cause of suspicion in my mind is why 100 people wouldn't flee 
> a building that had numerous exits during the 30 minutes time it took 
> to burn down.  Or why didn't they flee hours earlier when the tear gas was 
> first introduced?  I can find no rational explanation for their behavior.
> 
I can find several.  Tear gas and smoke making it impossible to remove the  
barricades.  Flames blocking exits to the saferooms. Perhaps the gun shots were  
from the FBI, keeping them pinned in?  Who knows?

> -- 
> 

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54666
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5tnGt.224@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1r21vqINNeb8@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
Arras) writes:
> >In article <C5spov.LrE@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >writes:
> >> In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De  
> >Arras) writes:
> >> >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
> >> >writes:
> >> >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come 
> >> >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and 
> >> >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear  
> >gassed.
> >> >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to 
> >> >> give up and go for the trial he deserved.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  
> >> 
> >> Unworthy of comment.
> >
> >But apparently true.  My opinion, only, of course.
> 
> So, your opinion is truth.  I see...  :-)
> 

Still mastering the language, eh?  Notice the use of "apparently".

> >> >Humans died  
> >> >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the 
> >> >actions  
> >> >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.  
> >> 
> >> Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty.
> >> That is undeniable truth.  
> >
> >No, it is not.  It is possible the FBI planned for this to happen, and the  
> >gunfire heard was the FBI keeping the folks inside.  I'm not proposing this  
as  
> >the way it went down, but just to point out that it's not "undeniable" that  
if  
> >they walked out yesterday, they would be alive today.
> 
> You can believe that if you wish.  It is undeniable, however, that people 
> have left the compound unharmed and alive earier in the standoff.
> 
> And since their leader was preaching that they would have an apocalypse, you 
> can not say undeniably that there wouldn't have been a mass suicide if the 
> FBI had simply stayed outside and waited another 51 days.
> 

I'm not denying that at all.  But every day is another chance for a good  
ending, why push it?  Mr. Roby, you are going to die, anyway, why not today?   
Every moment of life is precious.

> >> My heart bleeds just as much as yours for 
> >> the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities 
> >> to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious  
devotion 
> >> to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up 
> >> and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.
> >
> >My heart "bleeds" for no one.  You are the "bleeding heart".  And I'm sure  
> >beyond any possible doubt that you do not feel for those people as I do.   
You  
> >can not say the heartless things you have said if you did.
> 
> I am the heartless bleeding heart?  You are not making sense.

No, you are the heartless "bleeding heart".  A flaming liberal who "cares  
deeply", who "feels your pain".

> You seem to have no concern that someone would keep children inside this 
> compound when they had 51 days to let them out.  That sounds pretty heartless 
> to me.
> 

You have continually raised this issue, without any understanding of the bonds  
between parent and child.  It is not easy to say a final goodbye to your  
children, I do not think I could do it, either.  If that makes me heartless, so  
be it.  How many children do you have?  I have three.


> I just heard on the news that some of the survivors regret they hadn't 
> stayed in the inferno to prove their loyalty to Koresh.  This makes me 
> sad and sick.
> 

It just makes me sad.  I never claimed Koresh was an angel.

> >> >You seem to say  
> >> >they got what they deserved.
> >> 
> >> I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in 
> >> more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they 
> >> wanted and put into motion themselves.
> >
> >"they got what they wanted".  What kind of creature are you that you can  
> >believe this?
> 
> Have you ever heard of Jonestown?
> The sad thing is the people inside the compound were the authority 
> worshipers and their only authority was Koresh/Howell.   If these 
> people were able to think for themselves, there would likely be a lot 
> more survivors today.  Koresh preached a fiery apocalypse as early as 
> last year.
> 

I made the same authority worshiper point about you a few lines back.  And once  
again, Jonestown, however sick it was, was doing OK, until "the Authorities"  
showed up and pushed a fragile person over the edge.  

A bull in a china shop.

> >> I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely 
> >> by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the  
affair 
> >> from the start.
> >
> >We agree on this.  Now lets have your God, the FBI, investigated, too.
> 
> By all means, the FBI should be investigated, too.  
> BTW, I thought the second ammendment was God.  :-)
> 

Nope, the constitution in total is, for me.  If you think the RKBA is all I'm  
about, you misjudge me.

> >> >Jim
> >> >--
> >> >jmd@handheld.com
> >>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
Jim

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54667
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:
:What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
:had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
:
:With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
:more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
:
:With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
:mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few

I hope this is a joke... if not, here's my response:

The BATF has a history of no-knock raids with poor evidence, often resulting in
innocent people being killed or suffering injury to person or property.  I will
NOT support the BATF until they clean up their act... Maybe...  As to equipment,
the BATF has damn near anything it wants...  Their faults were in intelligence
(military and civilian definitions apply), tactics (attacking during DAYLIGHT??), methodology (the FBI stated that it is against government policy to assault
a position where there are non-combatants/potential hostages without attempting
negotiations first), and legality.  The BATF's jurisdiction is TAXES on firearms
and tobacco.  They are a branch of the department of the treasury.  They have
very curiously backed away from their claims of illegal weaponry to push the
child-abuse charges... The BATF has no jurisdiction over non-firearms/tobacco
issues! And the charges of child-abuse had been investigated in the past with
no violence and no validation.  This was a clear case of first the BATF, then
the FBI, having watched too many Rambo movies...  My opinion is that the agent
in charge should be charged with executing an illegal raid, criminal negligence,
murder, civil rights violations, and breaking his/her oath to uphold and defend
the Constitution of the US.  The warrant should be unsealed to reveal to the 
public what justification the BATF thought it had in committing an armed assault
on American citizens.  And while on the issue of investigating this issue,
the Randy Weaver case and the Johnny Lawmaster case should be investigated for
BATF wrongdoing.

James

btw, if the BATF came busting in my windows with concussion grenades, you could damn well bet I would return fire to the utmost of my ability.



-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54668
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno


In a previous article, gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) says:

>
>Fact:  Both Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have admitted responsibility,
>       even grief, over the deaths in Waco.
>
>Fact:  Regardless of who started the fire, there are more than enough
>       things on tape to make a civil rights case against these two.
>       Cruel and unusual punishment (dying tortured rabbits on tape?)
>       come to mind.  
>
>Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of
>       law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty
>       of life in prison.
>
>Fact:  Impeachment is allowable for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
>       Anything that's a federal felony should qualify.
>
>Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to 
>             impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.


     I HEARTILY agree.  Now that the BATF warrant has been 
     unsealed, it is CLEAR that Clinton and Reno supported an
     ILLEGAL raid.  Did they not KNOW this?



     NO authority for a 'no-knock" raid
     NO authority to use helicopters.
     NO authority to search for a "drug lab"

    And, apparently, not even any authority to search for "automatic
    weapons".

     51 days of GOVERNMENT LIES.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54669
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <dusek.735489223@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>>or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>>interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>>started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>>knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.
>
>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>burning building?

Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about
by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good)
perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the
fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and
rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses)
overcame and enveloped them?

In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?

Does that sound plausable?  Not as dramatic as Korash forcing them to
stay, or shooting them (no shot victims found yet), but plausable...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54670
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Street stories

In article <1993Apr23.050442.149681@zeus.calpoly.edu>, sparker@tuba.calpoly.edu (Sean Lawrence Parker) writes:
> 
> I just caught the last bit of the street stories segment on 
> woman and guns.What caught my eye was that two woman were
> shown on the program in mass. and both were carrying 
> concealed. Can you obtain a CCW in mass.?( for the ordinary citizen )

CCW's are issued at the discretion of the police chief, so it varies
town by town.

In my town, forget about anything more than "target and sport" (carry to
and from the gun club / hunting area only) unless you're Mr. Moneybags
with Large Daily Deposits.  ("Your life isn't worth shit, but your money --
now, that's important.")  In other towns, they treat law abiding citizens
like adults.  

Secret game hint: you never know when the rules will be changed -- a change 
in police chief can throw a town from either side of the board to the other
-- fun for the whole family!

Some chiefs will grant you a "personal protection" permit if you have been
attacked or threatened.  Some other blue-suited assholes have been known to 
count this as a NEGATIVE against applicants.

It's a crap shoot, and your rights are the stakes.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54671
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Subject: Waco

Cross-posted to talk.politics.guns from can.politics:

Mark G. Salyzyn (mark@ve6mgs.ampr.org) wrote:
# cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
# >been to Waco, Texas lately? yes, the government takes care of us
# >all, doesn't it? as long as you belong to a government-sanctioned
# >religion.
#
# Excuse me, but didn't these gun-ladden cult members threaten, shoot and kill
# some people?

They threatened no one.  Their neighbours thought they were a little
strange but all in all the kind of people you would want to live
next door to.

One version has the BATF serving a *search* warrant by jumping out
of a horse trailer with guns and tossing concussion grenades.  If
this is the true order of events then the 'cult' could not know
that a search warrant was being served and since there was no proof
that these guys were police,  the 'cult' had every right to defend
themselves.

: Torching themselves shows briliant tactics, and convinces me
: they *realy* belong in society ...

If you watch actual footage of the fire from start to finish it
is not at all clear that fire wasn't started by the tanks.  The
people who survived are claiming that the fire was started by
the tanks knocking over some kerosene lanterns.  The FBI is
claiming that the 'cult' started the fire.

'they *realy* belong in society' is a catchy phrase but
I'm personally waiting to see what the Texas Rangers have to say
about it all before I pass judgment.   Why don't you do the same.

Some more interesting facts about the Waco incident:

1)  The original assault was conducted by BATF officers wearing
    an assorted types of camouflage.  I saw, on CNN, at least
    three different types.   I would be hard pressed to identify
    a bunch of guys in 'bring-your-own' battle fatigues as
    uniformed officers of the law even if they were claiming to
    be police.
    
2)  The BATF has been lying from the beginning:
    + "We only had handguns" - the original footage showed 4 BATF
      officers on a roof top getting shot at,  one had an MP-5
      assault sub-machine gun.
    + "We were out gunned" - sub-machine guns and shotguns are the
      BEST in quarters weapon,  you can't be out gunned when you
      have the best guns available for the job.
    + "We didn't know they had guns that would shoot through doors!" -
      this one is the best,  there are very few guns that won't shoot
      through a household door,  or through a house WALL for that
      matter.  Since officers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
      *Firearms* should know that,  they are either lying or incredibly
      incompetent.  Not to mention criminally negligent if they are
      shooting bullets that they think will stop when the encounter
      plywood.
    + "We had a search warrant.  Actually, we had an arrest warrant.
       No, wait,  we had both.  Yeah, that's the ticket.
       Oh, and they're child molesters too.  And they make *drugs*.
       Did we mention we think they have rocket launchers."
      - The story from BATF and FBI spokespeople has changed daily
      and their claims were getting increasingly outrageous.
      
3)  Throughout the siege the FBI and BATF have be claiming that one
    of their biggest concerns was that Koresh and his followers would
    mass suicide.   Now they are claiming that that's what he did
    AND that they are surprised that he did.  Huh?

All in all I think that anything the FBI and BATF say should be
taken with a grain or two of salt.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54672
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <1r2cat$5a9@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:

> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> :mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
> :
> :> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
> :> in Texas. 
> :
> :Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious to people who so clearly missed it.
> I can't stand it when people's first reaction is to defend the aggressor.

  Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
not break out for several hours.  I find it highly unlikely that the BD would
be cooking lunch while armored vehicles punch holes in their house and are
pumping in tear gas.  The lantern story makes more sense, except the fire 
seemed to spread too quickly, even given the nature of the buildings and the
very high winds.  And it was daylight, but I guess in the innner recesses it
could be dark--shutters probably closed as well.

  Which puts us back to the FBI did it, or the BD did it, or some other screw-
up occured, which is quite possible.

  The problem with the FBI as a monolithic entity doing it is that it requires
*everybody* involved to keep their mouths shut.  While they tended to behave 
like total idiots, that does not make them homocidal maniacs, either.  And if
it was one nutcase agent, then it serves no purpose to blame the whole agency.

  I can believe that a real nut-case like a Koresh would start such a fire,
but I'm far from convinced he actually did so.

  Then again, I rarely go off making blanket condemnations and pronouncments
within 2 hours of a very confusing incident over 175 miles away...

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54674
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: BATF/FBI revenge


Jason Kratz writing:

...
JK>If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why
JK>shouldn't they have done something?  What possible use would a religious cult
JK>have for a rocket launcher?  Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of
JK>Rights?
...

This is taken a little out of context and I'm not flaming Jason...it's just
that this was the proverbial straw....

I grow a little weary of the allegations (here, the media, people on the
street) that the BD's had all these "horrible illegal weapons and other
paraphenalia of destruction capable of blowing tanks 50 feet into the air..."
and then, without missing a beat, discuss how the BD's willfully commited
mass suicide, or killed their own less fanatical and *then* commited mass
suicide, etc., etc.

If the BD's had all these things and intended to "blow up their abode, blow up
Waco, blow up the entire country, or whatever suits your fancy, what happened
to all the violence they were supposed to unleash? Why wouldn't they have "gone
out in the proverbial blaze of glory" and "come out shooting" with an attitude
of "let's take as many of those dogs as possible with us"?

Instead, they seemed to have preferred death to whatever they thought was in
store for them at the government's hands.

It's totally immaterial whether they were all crazy, all fanatics, all followers
of the antichrist, haters of the government, practicers of weird lifestyles, or
whatever...they must have felt that they were being pressured into renouncing
their beliefs, however how strange or lunatic those beliefs might appear to "you
and me". There is much precedent for such devotion to cause.

My conclusion at this point is that the "authorities" seriously misread their
danger to society (else why did the BD's not do as suggested above) and/or chose
this incident to make some heinous point or satisfy some internal agenda, up to
and including AG J. Renbo using this as an opportunity to assert her manhood.

Some people really do believe it is better to die than be subjected to what
they perceive as the godless government. When I force myself to not judge
others by my own personal standards and beliefs, I can almost admire their
stand.

I surely believe in the Constitution but I don't know that I have such strength
of conviction as evidenced by the BD's.
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Obesa non cantatis!
                          
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54675
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)



Chemical weapons are not concidered a *very* effectiv weapon against
millitary forces. On civillians on the other hand....

That's one GOOD reason for banning it.

You need VAST amounts of chemicals to be affective, so the best reason
to have/use it is price. (that's why it's called The Poor Mans A-bomb)

Any thoughts on Bio-weapons ??	

If this discusion is about civillians having chem-weapons;
What should they use them on?? Rob a bank ??



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54676
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF

In article <1r1ito$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
 writes:
>> It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from
>> the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search
>> warrant AND an arrest warrant.
>
>Check again.  You may find that the arrest warrant was issued AFTER the
>first firefight.

The letter implies that both warrants were issued before the Feb 28th
shootout but doesn't say so exlicitly.  ACK!

    don


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54677
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In <1r3efjINN3jj@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu writes:

> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> >I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......
> 
> In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.

  Currently, there is a bill before the Texas legislature that would make it
legal for some ordinary folks to carry concealed weapons.  I don't have the
details, sorry.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54678
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <3876@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:
> If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are
> true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for
> the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the
> US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no
> exceptions. 

Well, we're not.  Which goes to prove you still don't understand what
we're saying here.

> Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive
> in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?

I've lived through the bombing of Cambodia; My Lai; inflated body counts
in VietNam; the funding of Noreiga; Watergate; Contragate; Chappaquiddick;
Kent State; domestic spying by the CIA; Edwin Meese's Pornography 
Commission; the War on Drugs; civil seizure; the MOVE disaster; the LA 
disaster; and now Waco.

Do you really believe that government always does what is right?

> Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather
> than stupidity?

Watch the news for the next couple of months.  Watch how this whole
government-initiated debacle turns into shouting for "more gun control."
It's already started.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54681
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: WI and IL firearms law Questions


|Question #2

|As I understand it, in Evanston, IL, they have a ordinance banning handguns.
|Is there any way to get around this provision?

Why don't you call the City and ask? Oak Park also has an illegal handgun
ban as well, but does allow those with a "collectors FFL" to possess
("collectible?") handguns.

|What would the penalty if you were found out be?

Probably a fine in practical terms.

|What if you used said handgun in a defensive shooting in your apartment 
|there?  How would the city law apply to your impending 
|trial for the shooting?

It wouldn't impede your defense at all. There was an actual incident
in Oak Park where a gas station owner engaged in a shootout with a
handgun; the grand jury decided not to presecute. On the other hand,
a black man used an illegally owned handgun in Oak Park to defend
himself, and the Village tried to make an example out of him. An NRA
Director who lived there made a stink about this, and it was decided
not to charge the guy. Of course, pissing off anti-gun police thugs
has it's own drawbacks, like when the Oak Park Police Chief came to his
house, and told him: "this is stepping over the line; this could get
dangerous for you." Whereupon the few black Oak Park police officers
watched over his house to ensure that the white anti-gun police chief
and his anti-gun cronies wouldn't f*ck with him, his home or family.

|Also, what is IL state law concerning short barreled weapons?  Short barreled
|shotgun is what I would be interested in if a handgun were not available, 
|either that or a shortened 9mm carbine (ie Colt, Marlin).  

L.V. Cipriani states that the "Any other weapon" category is allowed,
but the exact relationship between an Ithaca Auto-burgular, which I
believe is in the "Any other weapon" category and a chopped barrel
H&K HK-94 (Class 3 for sure) is not clear to me...

|One more thing, what is the chance of getting a CCW permit in IL without being
|rich or famous or related to the mayor?

In your dreams, buddy. As long as Democrats reign in Chicago, Illinois
residents will always be disarmed and helpless in the streets. Politicians
get around this by provisions in the law that allow them to carry
concealed weapons. Voters in Chicago are too stupid to vote these a**holes
out of office; because the Dems are always in power, the Illinois 
Supreme Court is always tilted to the Democratic Party's views on guns.
[All candidates supported by political consultant David Axelrod are
anti-gun, which explains anti-RKBA Crook County States Attorney 
Jack(ass) O'Malley being a so-called "Republican."]

Get rid of the Chicago Democrats, get rid of their members on the IL
Judiciary, and you got a fighting chance of a preemption law and a CCW
law...

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54682
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <C5y9x7.7v0@well.sf.ca.us>, seelowe@well.sf.ca.us (Hudson H Luce) writes:

>  I suggest another name change:

>    Thomas Parsli .... to .... Vidkun Quisling

This is really uncalled for.

You cannot expect a European, growing up in a culture of "rulers" and 
"subjects," to immediately grasp the concepts of individual independence
and citizen sovereignity in the US.

He's less at fault than the countrymen we have here who also can't grasp 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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54683
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Once upon a time ...

In article <1993Apr23.184027.4401@swan.pyr>, cgwillme@pyr.swan.ac.uk (r b willmersdorf) writes:
> american and european universities were full of Angry Young People(tm)
> that wanted to overthrow the government, and wouldn't think twice
> about lobbing a molotov cocktail at the national guard (military police
> in Europe.)

> Certainly, it would have been very bad form to take anything
> the System(tm) said at face value.

> This was in the end of the sixties and the begining of the seventies,
> I'm told. I was too young to remember.

> Something wrong happened along the way, I'm afraid.  Maybe the west
> became just too comfortable, or maybe I was born too late :(

> Yours, disappointed with with the youth of today,

Isn't it ironic.  I'm of that generation, and I remember the lesson.  I
cry to see all the postings from domestic .edu sites that have naively
swallowed everything the government has seen fit to feed to them.
Especially contrasted to such a post from the .uk yet.

>     2) There *is* a difference between lining up 90 people against the
>        wall and executing them, and causing their deaths through negligence/
>        imcompetence.  I honestly hope we witnessed the latter.  As they say,
>        the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

I suspect we saw the latter.  However, the injustice implied in letting
those involved escape without investigation and/or prosecution is also
horrible to contemplate.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54684
From: mjp@watson.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers


Try the firearms archive.  Larry Cipriani's instructions follow.  By
the way, thanks for the archive Larry..

This year is the 103rd congress directory.

----------------------------
From
watson!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!howland.r
reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!mimsy!cbvox1.
.att.com!lvc Thu Apr  8 19:41:01 1993
Article: 40039 of talk.politics.guns
Path:
watson!yktnews.watson.ibm.com!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!howland.r
reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!mimsy!cbvox1.
.att.com!lvc
From: lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Information about the anonymous ftp RKBA archive
Message-ID: <1993Apr8.182924.7274@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 8 Apr 93 22:50:09 GMT
Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Lines: 1795

This is the INDEX file for the anonymous ftp RKBA archive.
The archive site has been moved and is now at:

	godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
	
in the directory

	/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba

This archive is accessible only via anonymous ftp; instructions for
anonymous ftp are at the end of this file.

An email server is available at another site, and as a result is
not completely in sync with this archive.  To get the index for
the rkba email-server send:

	get rkba index

as the body of a message to listserv@mainstream.com

For help send:

	help

If you have any additions or suggestions for improvement to the
RKBA archive please let me know.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l.v.cipriani@att.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: rkba82

Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second
Session, February, 1982
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HCR11

House Concurrent Resolution 11 by Mr. Crane, January 3, 1991

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all
Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or liberty and in
pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HJR438

House Joint Resolution 438 by Mr. Major Owens, March 11, 1992

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution; includes comments
by Owens entered into the Congressional Record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1133

House Bill 1133 by Mr. Goodling, February 27, 1991

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit transfer of firearm to,
or possession of a firearm by, a person convicted of a drug crime, and to
provide enhanced penalties for possession of a firearm during a drug crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1354

House Bill 1354 by Mr. Scheuer, March 7, 1991

To end the use of steel jaw leghold traps on animals in the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1412

House Bill 1412 by Mr. Staggers, March 13, 1991

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the establishment
of a national hotline which a Federal Firearms licensee may contact to
learn if receipt of a handgun by a prospective transferee is prohibited,
and to require such a licensee to contact the hotline before the transfer
of a handgun to a nonlicensee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1559

House Bill 1559 by Mr. Gibbons, March 21, 1991

To prohibit the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and certain accessories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR1770

House Bill 1770 by Mr. Smith of Florida, April 15, 1991

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain handguns
which are unsuitable for lawful sporting purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR19

House Bill 19 by Mr. Hughes January 3, 1991

To prohibit the possession, transfer, and certain exports of restricted
weapons, the manufacture of firearms capable of accepting a silencer or
bayonet without alteration, and the possession and transfer of large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR282

House Bill 282 by Mrs. Collins, January 3, 1991

To provide for the mandatory registration of handguns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR2922

House Bill 2922 by Mr. Cardin, July 17, 1991

To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an entitlement of
States
and certain political subdivisions of States to receive grants for the
abatement of health hazards associated with lead-based paint, and to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax and establish a
trust fund to satisfy the Federal obligations arising from such
entitlement.

[This bill would impose upto a $0.75/pound tax on all new lead, and
$0.37/pound tax on recycled lead.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR318

House Bill 318 by Mr. Dornan, January 3, 1991

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit dog racing and dog training
involving the use of live animals as visual lure and to make such Act
applicable to facilities that are used for dog racing or dog race training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR3371

House Bill 3371
			
"The Violent Crime Prevention Act of 1991"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR371

House Bill 371 by Mr. Marlenee, January 3, 1991

To protect persons engaged in a lawful hunt within a national forest;
establishing an administrative civil remedy against individuals or groups
intentionally obstructing, impeding, or interfering with the conduct of a
lawful hunt; and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/101st/HR4079

House Bill 4079 by Mr. Gingrich, February 22, 1990

To provide swift and certain punishment for criminals in order
to deter violent crime and rid America of illegal drug use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR436

House Bill 436 by Mr. Weiss, January 3, 1991

To prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber
and .32 caliber ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR465

House Bill 465 by Mr. Rangel, January 7, 1991

To prohibit certain exports of fully automatic or semiautomatic
assault weapons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR4897

House Bill 4897 by Mr. Cunningham, April 9, 1992

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
to deny grant funds to States unless law enforcement officers are permitted
to carry concealed firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR5633

House Bill 5633 by Mr. Schumer, July 21, 1992

To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of the multiple
firearms sales reporting requirement, and to require that persons comply
with State and local firearms licensing laws before receiving a Federal
license to deal in firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR5807

House Bill 5807 by Mr. Schumer, August 10, 1992

To impose criminal penalties upon the failure of a Federal firearms
licensee to report to appropriate authorities the loss or theft of a
firearm from the inventory or collection of the licensee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR7

House Bill 7 by Mr. Feighan

To require a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun;
also known as "The Brady Bill"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/HR750

House Bill 750 by Mr. Russo, January 30, 1991

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that the excise tax
on handguns will be transferred to a trust fund to be used for purposes of
providing compensation to victims of crime, and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S214

Senate Bill 214 by Mr. Hatch, January 15, 1991

To provide procedures for calling Federal constitutional 
conventions under article V for the purpose of proposing 
amendments to the United States Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S2304

Senate Bill 2304 by Mr. Lautenberg, March 3, 1992

To amend title 18, United States Code, to permanently prohibit the
possession of firearms by persons who have been convicted of a violent
felony, and for other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S257

Senate Bill 257

To require a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S2813

Senate Bill 2813 by Mr. Gore, June 4, 1992

To establish in the Government Printing Office an electronic
gateway to provide public access to a wide range of Federal
databases containing public information stored electronically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S2913

Senate Bill 2913 by Mr. Chafee, June 30 1992

To prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale,
purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of
handguns and ammunition, with certain exceptions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S3282

Senate Bill 3282 by Mr. Mitchell, September 28 1992

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a waiting period
before the purchase of a handgun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/101st/S386

Senate Bill 386 by Mr. Metzenbaum, February 8, 1989

To control the sale and use of assault weapons.                
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S51

Senate Bill 51 by Mr. Moynihan, January 14, 1991

To prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber
and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S634

Senate Bill 634 by Mr. Symms, March 13, 1991

To amend chapter 44, title 18, United States Code, to provide clarification
of limitations on controls of firearms, and to prohibit the use of Federal
funds to political subdivisions which implement certain gun control ordi-
nances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/101st/S747

Senate Bill 747 by Mr. DeConcini,

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, regarding
assault weapons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S789

Senate Bill 789, by Mr. Moynihan, April 9, 1991

To prohibit the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and certain accessories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S892

Senate Bill 892, By Mr. Metzenbaum, April 23, 1991

To amend title 15, United States Code, to authorize the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to regulate the risk of injury associated with firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/102nd/S918

Senate Bill 918, by Mr. Packwood, April 24, 1991

The amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt small manufacturers,
producers, and importers from the firearms excise tax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HCR3

House Concurrent Resolution 3, by Mr. Crane, January 5, 1993
Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all
Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or liberty and in the
pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HJR81

House Joint Resolution, by Mr. Owens, January 27, 1993
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR277

House Bill 277, by Mr. Mazolli, January 5, 1993 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a waiting period 
before the purchase of a handgun. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR544

House Bill 544, by Mr. Torricelli, January 21, 1993

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the transfer of 2 or
more handguns to an individual in any 30-day period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR661

House Bill 661, by Mrs. Collins, January 27, 1993

To provide for the manufacturer, importer, or dealer of a handgun or an
assault weapon to be held strictly liable for damages that result from the
use of the handgun or assault weapon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR737

House Bill 737, by Mr. REYNOLDS, February 2, 1993

To provide for the manufacturer or importer of a handgun or an assault
weapon to be held strictly liable for damages that result from the use
of the handgun or assault weapon, and to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to increase the excise tax on firearms and use a portion
of the revenues from such tax to assist hospitals in urban areas to
provide medical care to gunshot victims who are not covered under any
health
plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/HR1025

House Bill 1025, by Mr. Schumer, February 22, 1993

To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a hadgun,
and for the establishment of a national instant criminal
background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers
before the transfer of any firearm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S108

Senate Bill 108, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To prohibit the importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, and certain accessories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S109

Senate Bill 109, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To amend section 923 of title 18, United States Code, to require the
keeping
of records with respect to dispositions of ammunition, and to require a
study
of the use and possible regulation of sales of ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S178

Senate Bill 178, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the
manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber and .32 caliber
and 9 millimeter ammunition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S179

Senate Bill 179, by Mr. Moynihan, January 21, 1993

To tax 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S376

Senate Bill 376, by Mr. Lautenberg, February 16, 1993

To prohibit the transfer of 2 or more handguns to an individual in any
30-day period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress/103rd/S414

Senate Bill 414, by Mr. Metzenbaum, February 24, 1993 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a waiting period
before the purchase of a handgun. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-free-zones

Text of the GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 from PUBLIC LAW 101-647
NOV. 29, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aclu

A collection of articles on the ACLU's position on gun control.
Included is ACLU Policy Statement #47 which gives the ACLU interpretation
of the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dcm-info

A collection of articles explaining the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
In other words, "Why does the United States Department of Defense sell
battle rifles to civilians ? "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dial911

"Dial 911 and Die!"  By Aaron Zelman and Jay Simkin of Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fija-info

The Fully Informed Jury Amendment, and what it means to gun owners
and the right to keep and bear arms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: whitemanslaw

White Man's Law by William R. Tonso, from the December 1985
Reason magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: jefferson

The First Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson, 2nd president of the
United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: jewishistory

Jewish History Rufutes Gun Control Activists, by Elliot Rothenberg
from the February 1988 *American Rifleman*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: law-abiding

The Law-Abiding Gun Owner as Domestic and Acquaintance Murderer
from "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of
Gun Control," by Don B. Kates, February, 1990, pp.45-49.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: second-ideology

"The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection" by
Don B. Kates, Jr.  Reprinted from CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY,
Vol. 9. No. 1. Winter 1992, (c) 1992 by Constitutional Commentary,

Kates puts the Second Amendment and philosophies of self-protection
into a historical perspective
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: new-understa

Toward a New Understanding of the Second Amendment, by David T. Hardy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: to-bear-arms

"To Bear Arms for Self Defense: Our Second Amendment Heritage" by
Stephen P. Halbrook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: no-treason

No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: resistance

Excerpts from the study "Crime Control Through the Use of Armed Force",
by Associate Professor Dr. Gary Kleck, Florida State University School
of Criminology, published in the February 1988 issue of SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: waitper-qna

Waiting Period -- Questions and Answers by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)
and Citizens for Safe Government (CSG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: warsaw

"The Warsaw Ghetto; 10 Handguns Against Tyranny",
by Dr. David I Caplan from February, 1988 American Rifleman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: wethepeople

Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: sc-ftp

How to retreive Supreme Court decisions via anonymous ftp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: alternative-policy

ALTERNATIVE POLICY FUTURES by Franklin E. Zimring
from THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.
Volume 455, May 1981; published by The American Academy of Political
and Social Science; 1981.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: embarassing.2nd.amendment

The Embarassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson, Yale Law Journal
Volume 99, pp 637-659 (1989)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra800

Phone numbers for the NRA, many are toll-free 800 numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nradrugs

A collection of articles on the NRA's position on the War on Drugs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fl-aw-part1

Florida A.W. Commission - Exec Summary Part 1,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fl-aw-part2

Florida A.W. Commission - Exec Summary Part 2,
STOCKTON -- THE FACTS  by Martin L. Fackler, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: iwba

Information about the International Wound Ballistics Association,
Martin Fackler, president
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gunshyjudges

Gun-Shy Judges by Jacob Sullum, from the May 1991 issue of Reason Magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: heatofmoment

In the Heat of the Moment, By James D. Wright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: racist-soil

Article "Gun Control Sprouts from Racist Soil." by Roy Innis,
from the Wall Street Journal 11/21/91
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: core-policy

"Bearing Arms for Self-Defense -- A Human and Civil Right" by
Roy Innis, National Chairman, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: righttobear

The Right to Bear Arms By Sanford Levinson from the
Daily News, Ft Walton Beach, FL.  (1991)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: rock-island

United States of America v. Rock Island Armory, US District Court for
the Central District of IL; the court ruled that making a post '86
machine gun is not illegal -- believe it or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dalton

United States of America v. John William Dalton, US Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit, 91-1149; the court ruled that owning or transferring
a post '86 machine gun is not punishable under the NFA -- believe it
or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: waitdanger

Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety By David B. Kopel,
March 25, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aw-qna

Assault Weapon Questions & Answers
by Handgun Control, Inc. and Citizens for Safe Government (CSG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: ccw-survey

A state by state survey of Carrying Concealed Weapons laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: us-vs-miller

United States vs. Miller et al., Appeal from the District Court of the
United States for the Western District of Arkansas.

Argued March 30, 1939 -- Decided May 15, 1939
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: presser

The history of Presser v Illinois is a fascinating exercise of how
politically based decisions on our Constitutional rights have come back
to haunt us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cia-ncbh

A column by Neal Knox presenting evidence that former CIA agent
Edwin O. Welles played a major role in founding HCI and NCBH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: conphone

A list of voice and fax phone number for representatives and senators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: billofrights

The first 10 articles of amendment to the United States Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: decl-of-indp

The Declaration of Independence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dont-wait

"Criminals Don't Wait -- Why Should You ?" from the NRA.  Exposes the
fraudulent arguments made for waiting periods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: external

Positive Externalities of Gun Ownership, by John Kell, from
"The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, October 1991 "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: english-hist

Firearms Legislation in Great Britain, by Jan A. Stevenson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: simkin

"Control Criminals, Not Guns" by Jay Edward Simkin found in the
March, 25 1991 [or '92?] Wall Street Journal:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: unabridged

The Unabridged Second Amendment, by J. Neil Schulman

An interview with Roy Copperud, retired professor of journalism at
USC and author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus".  Copperud
offers his professional opinion on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: uzitruth

A letter from J. Harper Wilson, Director FBI Uniform Crime Reporting
Program to Paul H. Blackman, Research Coordinator of the NRA stating
that only one police officer, of Puerto Rico, was shot and killed with
a semi-automatic 9mm Model A Uzi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: maketheirday

"How to Make Their Day" by Don B. Kates Jr. and Patricia Terrell Harris
in the National Review, October 21, 1991

Kates and Harris debunk several myths about firearms, criminals, and
violence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: two-myths

Two myths of gun control from "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in
America" by Gary Kleck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aw-not-problem

"Assault Weapons Aren't the Problem", by Gary Kleck, published in
The New York Times Tuesday, September 1, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: oregon-study

1990 Oregon Study of Retail Firearm Sales and CHL Licensing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: children

Fighting for Children's Hearts and Minds by Robert Pew, American
Rifleman - April 1992

Discusses how HCI and it's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
have set out to use public schools as forums for their anti-gun
propaganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gunssputter

"Guns and Sputter" by James D. Wright, from July 1989 issue of REASON.
Wright exposes the flaws in the New England Journal of Medicine study
comparing the homicide rates of Seattle and Vancouver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm-info

A collection of articles and information on the New England Journal of
Medicine Vancouver/Seattle handgun crime comparison study.

See also the file gunssputter, authored by James Wright.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dcstudy.1

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1991 Dec 5. 325 (23).
pp 1647-1650.
Editorials: Firearms And The Killing Threshold.
Kassirer-Jerome-P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dcstudy.2

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1991 Dec 5. 325 (23).
pp 1615-1620.
Special Article: Effects Of Restrictive Licensing Of
Handguns On Homicide And Suicide In The District Of Columbia.
Loftin-Colin.  McDowall-David.  Wiersema-Brian.  Cottey-Talbert-J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm-editorial

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1988 Nov 10. 319 (19).
pp 1283-1285.
Editorial: Firearm Injuries: A Call For Science.
Mercy-James-A. Houk-Vernon-N.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm-letters

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1989 May 4. 320 (18).
pp 1214-1217.
Correspondence: Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, And
Homicide: A Tale Of Two Cities.
Blackman-Paul-H. Hagen-Tim.  Morris-David-C.
Stolinsky-David-C. Tirer-Samuel.  Gryder-John-W.
Kuziak-John-D. Sloan-John-H. Kellerman-Arthur-L-Kellermann.
Rivara-Fred-P. Koepsell-Thomas.  Reay-Donald-T.
LoGerfo-James-P. Rice-Charles.  Ferris-James-A. Gray-Laurel-
A. Mercy-James-A. Houk-Vernon-N.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: suicide.1

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1990 Feb 8. 322 (6).
pp 369-373.
Special Article: Firearm Regulations And Rates Of Suicide:
A Comparison of Two Metropolitan Areas.
Sloan-John-Henry.  Rivara-Frederick-P. Reay-Donald-T.
Ferris-James-A-J. Kellermann-Arthur-L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: suicide.2

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1990 Jul 12. 323 (2).
p 137.
Correspondence: Firearm Regulations and Rates of Suicide.
Blackman-Paul-H. Sloan-John-Henry.  Rivara-Frederick-P.
Kellermann-Arthur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: totc

The New England Journal of Medicine. 1988 Nov 10. 319 (19).
pp 1256-1262.
Special Article: Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, And
Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities.
Sloan-John-Henry.  Kellermann-Arthur-L. Reay-Donald-T.
Ferris-James-A. Koepsell-Thomas.  Rivara-Frederick-P.
Rice-Charles.  Gray-Laurel.  LoGerfo-James.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra.cdc

An open letter from Paul H. Blackman, of NRA to the Director, Office
of Scientific Integrity Review, U.S. Public Health Service, detailing
why they should evaluate the integrity and competency of firearms research
conducted by and for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.000

What the RKBA.nnn files are all about.

The RKBA.nnn series are set of small (60-100 lines typically) postings
that address common questions and myths about all aspects of firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.001

Accidental deaths by firearms and by other means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FILE: RKBA.002

Declining trend of accidental deaths by firearms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.003

Homicide per capita in the US
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.004

Children and firearms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.008

Annual firearm manufacture in the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.010

Declaration of Independence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.013

Trend in weapons use for robberies (1974-86)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.014

Reasons for homicide and non-negligent manslaughter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.015

Are firearms a leading cause of death of children?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.016

Is the United States the most violent nation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: RKBA.999

Complete list of all sources used for the RKBA.nnn series.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cox-study

Analysis of the Cox Atlanta Journal Constitution, 21 May 1989 article
on Assault Weapons, by James J. Baker of NRA-ILA, before the Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, U.S. House of Representatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: feder11.txt

The Federalist Papers, as transcribed by Project Gutenberg 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: great-quotes

Thomas Jefferson quotes and more ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: civilian

Civilian Possession of Military Firearms, by Richard A. I. Munday,
from the January/February 1988 issue of the UK Handgunner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: good-go-bad

"When Good, Law-Abiding Citizens Go Bad", from UK Handgunner No. 46
Jan-Feb 1989.  Discusses how the rate of compliance of gun control
laws is always very low, even among otherwise law abiding citizens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: tory-national-socialism


"Tory National Socialism", by Richard A.I. Munday, UK Handgunner,
Jul-Aug 86.  Discusses the gun control leanings of socialists of
the right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: the-big-lie

" Gun Grabbers vs. Assault Rifles: The Big Lie" by Neal Knox,

Semi-auto military-styled "assault" rifles are not now nor have they
ever been a threat to society. These facts have been determined by
the government - but never released to the public!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: ff-47

"The Founding Fathers and the AK-47", by Sue Wimmershoff-Caplan
Discuss the question if the Founding Fathers would have approved of
the AK-47 for civilian ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hcikkk

"Handgun Control, Inc., & the KKK" by David Kopel, from the Oct 91
issue of Gun World magazine.  Discusses the parallels in the hate
campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan and Handgun Control, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: rkba-orgs

A list of organizations devoted to the preservation of the Second
Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: victoria

"The Gun Law Handbook" for the state of Victoria, Australia (Oct 1988).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra-purposes

A summary of the NRA's purposes and objectives, and positions on some
gun control issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: ktw

A collection of articles relating to teflon coated, armor piercing
bullets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: thompsoncenter

The Supreme Court decision in the case:

United States of America v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: DMN_Gratia_CCP

"Concealed weapons can prevent tragedies like Killeen's" by
Dr. Suzanna Gratia in the Dallas Morning News, Sunday April
29th, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: Knox_AW_lies

Neal Knox on how military style semi-auto's are not a threat
to public safety, how they are not fundamentally different
than ordinary hunting weapons, and how the gun grabbers are
exploiting the bad image this class of weapons has to enact
further gun control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: WSJ_Crimestrik

"The NRA Mounts a Militant Campaign Taking Aim at Criminal-Justice
System" by Alix M. Freedman staff reporter of The Wall Street Journal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: med-media

"Gun Prohibition in the Medical Literature - Telling the Truth?" by
Edgar A. Suter, MD ; discusses anti-gun bias in medical journals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: toy-guns

"Court Psychologist Says Toy Guns Are Good For Children" from Gun Week,
1989. 

Glen David Skoler, court psychologist for the Arlington County, VA,
claims "toys of violence" -- including toy guns are, in fact, good
for children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: awca89-appeal

Text of the 9th Circuit court of Appeals in the Fresno Rifle and Pistol
Club challenge to California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act
of 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: lp92-rkba

The right to keep and bear arms plank of the 1992 National Platform of
the Libertarian Party.

And a reproduction of the Libertarian Party brochure
"Responsible Gun Ownership: Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners"

The entire 1992 National Platform of the LP is available via anonymous
ftp on think.com in the file /pub/libernet/LP/libertarian-platform-1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: let-july91

An article from the July/August 1991 issue of Law Enforcement Technology
with a survey of police officers on their views of gun control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nacp-poll

A study conducted by the National Association of the Chiefs of
Police (NACP) through its American Law Enforcement Survey for 1989,
in which 16,259 chiefs of police, sheriffs and law-enforcement command
personnel were polled with a list of 30 questions, it was determined
the overwhelming majority of officers support the right of private
arms ownership, and agreed that gun bans had little effect on crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-advert

A example of the propaganda used by HCI in soliciting contributions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-transcript

A transcription of the HCI video tape "America Needs a National
Handgun Control Policy"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gartner

Michael Gartner, president of NBC News, calls for a ban on handguns
in this USA TODAY Thursday January 16th 1992 editorial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nra-lp

A resolution passed by the voting membership of the NRA at its national
convention in Anaheim, CA stating the NRA will support third party
candidates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cooley

Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., General Principles of Constitutional Law in
the United States of America, 298-299 (3rd ed. 1898), a leading 
constitutional commentator discussed the rights protected by the Second
Amendment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: kilpatrick

"Gun Law Might Curb Rising Murder Rate" by James Kilpatrick, St. Louis
Post-Dispatch Tuesday June 23, 1992.  Kilpatrick expresses support for
a national firearms law as proposed by C. Everett Koop, that is, a
requirement that gun owners pass a competency test, among other things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: vanity-fair

A summary of the 10 page article on Jim and Sarah Brady which appeared
in the January '91 issue of Vanity Fair Magazine.

Question: "Was it true you wanted to get a gun to protect
	yourself against Hinckley?"

Answer Jim brady: "I had a gun"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: goldwin

"Gun Control Is Constitutional," by Robert A. Goldwin from the
Wall Street Journal edtorial page, Thrusday, December 12, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: anniston

Two articles on a murder averted in Anniston, Alabama by a man
with a CCW permit.  The importance of this event is that it closely
followed the murders by Hennard in Texas, but the media did not
cover Anniston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: staggers-brady

A survey of public support for the Staggers Instant Background
Check and the Brady Waiting Period.  The basic finding is that
once the public understands the advantages of the instant background
check vs. the problems with the Brady waiting period support for
the Brady waiting period diminishes greatly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: brady-vote

How Congress voted on the Staggers Instant Background Check and
the Brady Waiting period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: vs-vote

How Congress voted on the Volkmer-Sensenbrenner Amendment to
strike the new gun control sections from the administration
crime bill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: dc-vote

How the U.S. Senate voted on S. 2113, the repeal of the District
of Columbia's anti-gun strict liability law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: covey

"Gun Control: Trying the Facts,  Weighing the Values" A monograph based
on "Crime, Inequality, Guns, & Equity" by Preston K. Covey, Ph.D.,
Director Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics, Carnegie Mellon
University.

Addresses the desirability of gun bans: ethical aspects, equity issues,
and other values at stake in the management of mortal risks, deadly
force and its instruments.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: assays-of-bias

"Assays of Bias on the Second Amendment: The Media Elite" by
Preston K. Covey, Director Center for the Advancement of Applied
Ethics [excerpts from a longer monograph]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cleveland

A critique of:

ACCIDENTAL FIREARM FATALITIES IN A METROPOLITAN COUNTY (1958-1973)
Rushforth, Hirsch, Ford, and Adelson
American Journal of Epidemiology #100, 1974, pp. 499-505.


This is THE study that lies at the heart of the gun control
claim that owning a firearm for self-defense is too dangerous.
The claims that a defensive gun is X (=6 in this study)
times more likely to be used against an innocent person than
in lawful self-defense originated with this report in 1974.

by Robert I. Kesten
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: tiananmen-lessons

"LESSONS FROM TIANANMEN SQUARE" by Neal Knox reprinted from
Guns & Ammo, September 1989

Why the Second Amendment is so important, even in todays more
"progressive" era.  Included is a description of the 1932
Bonus March in Washington, DC in which Gen. Douglas MacArthur
opposed unemployed WWI veterans lobbying for the government to
immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: forward-trace

"California FFL Dealer Defies "Forward Trace"" by Neal Talbot in
The New Gun Week, March 1, 1991.

Details how the BATF bullies FFL holders into giving BATF copies
of 4473's in violation of federal law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: justice-stats

"Handgun Crime Victims", by Michael R. Rand, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Statistician, U.S. Department of Justice.

This Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report describes the key findings
from an analysis of handgun crimes reported in the National Crime Survey
for 1979-87.  It describes the victims of hand-gun [sic] crime, how the
handgun was used during the crime, and the nature and extent of handgun
crime injury.  It also provides information on handgun offenders, the
location of handgun crimes, and whether the crime was reported to the
police.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: chafee

Included are:

1) Transcript of press conference with Senator John Chafee, and former
Supreme Court justice Warren Burger on S. 2913, Chafee's, handgun ban.
Also speaking was Vernon Jordan, former member of the Jimmy Carter
White House; Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly; Michael Beard of National
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Michael Casserly (executive director,
Council of the Great City Schools); Dr. Carden Johnston representing
the American Academy of Pediatrics;

2) An article by Neal Knox in which he describes how Sarah Brady kicked
out HCI president Charles Orasin because of a disagreement on Chafee's
handgun ban.

3) An article on Burger's support for S. 2913.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: alarmist-view

"Gun Registration: An 'Alarmist' View" by Jon vanWormer; reprinted
from the December 1985 Guns & Ammo.  How an rkba moderate became a
radical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fackler-papers

A list of articles by "Col. Martin L. Fackler, M.D., F.A.C.S."
Wound Ballistics Lab, and where to write for copies of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-war

"THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN WAR" by Barry Bruce-Briggs,
_The_Public_Interest_  No. 45, Fall 1976, pp 37-62
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: george-will

"Repeal Second Amendment and Save Lives", by George Will
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: reeves

"Drastic Steps to End the War at Home" by Richard Reeves, no date
nor publication available; placed in rkba archive 9/2/92

"Studies _Prove_ Gun Control Works" by Richard Reeves, from the
Kansas City Star, 9/28/92.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: canada-ban-list

A reproduction of a brochure from the Canadian Department of Justice
listing newly prohibited and restricted firearms (as of June 1992).

Also included is the "point system" used to determine if a firearm
should be reviewed for possible banning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: copkiller

Lyrics to the rock song "Cop Killer" by Ice-T on the album Body Count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: cva.1

A letter from the California Voters Alliance, asking for support in
their effort to defeat anti-gun California Assemblyman Terry Friedman,
co-author of California's waiting period law for rifles and shotguns. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: astrology

"CRIMINOLOGY'S ASTROLOGY: The CDC Approach to Public Health Research
on Firearms and Violence" by PAUL H. BLACKMAN, Ph.D., Institute for
Legislative Action, National Rifle Association, 1990

A paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of
Criminology, Baltimore, Maryland, November 7-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: aw-panic

The Assault Weapon Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim,
at the Constitution, by Eric Morgan and David Kopel

Published by The Independence Institute, October 10, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: state-rkba

A collection of RKBA provisions from State constitutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: too-late

Chapter 13 "But then it was too Late" of "THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE
FREE: The Germans, 1933 - 1945", by: Milton Mayer, University of
Chicago Press
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: militia-code

The legal definition of the militia of the United States of America
taken from:

United Stated Code (USC), TITLE 10, Section 311 and Section 312.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: legal-mg-crime

Report No. 32 of the Firearms Coalition of Silver Spring, MD. 11/29/89
by Neal Knox.  Knox reports that a legally registered machine gun was
used in a drug hit.  Subsequent reports said charges were dropped for
lack of evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-cash

HCI donation records to US Senators and Congressmen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: paulreverenet

Information about the "Paul Revere Net", a network of 2nd Amendment
Bulletin Boards

The Paul Revere Network (PRN) is a coast-to-coast network of
committed grass-roots gun rights activists who rely upon computer
bulletin board systems for their primary mode of communication.
Leroy Pyle (NRA Director and 27-year San Jose police veteran)
is Founder and Director of the PRN.  Based in San Jose, CA,
Pyle's BBS (1:143/223) currently hubs all network message
traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-talk

Information about the NRA-ILA Bulletin Board "Gun Talk"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congressgrades

A grading of congressmen based their votes on 1) the Brady Bill
(HR7), 2) Staggers (HR1412) and 3) the Volkmer-Sensenbrenner amendment
to strike the anti-gun provisions from the house crime bill (HR3371).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: lawmaster

"FEDS TRASH LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER'S HOME", NRA official journal March
1992, by Richard E. Gardiner.  Details how the BATF raided the home of
Johnny Lawmaster in search of a non-existent unregistered M-16 auto-sear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: point-blank

The concluding chapter to "Point Blank" by Gary Kleck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: purdy-rapsheet

Patrick Purdy's criminal record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: progundocs

Statement of purpose and contact information for "Doctors for Integrity
in Research & Public Policy"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: orlando

A summary of the effects of the highly publicized Orlando training
program in which over 6000 women were trained in basic pistol
marksmanship and the law of self-defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: form4signoff

A letter from Wayne Miller, Chief National Firearms Act Branch of
BATF stating that local law enforcement signoff on the ATF Form 4,
application for Taxpaid Transfer and Registration of Firearm [i.e.,
machine gun], is completely discretionary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: badlands.txt

New Zealand Firearms Control by Robert Badlands.

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: danto.txt

Issues Regarding Gun Control in America by Bruce L. Danto

A paper was presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fine.txt

Impediments to the Purposeful Reform of (Australian) Firearms Laws by J. D.
Fine

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: greenwd.txt

Untitled paper by Colin Greenwood

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: kates.txt

Gun Control: Recent Research on the American Experience by Don B. Kates,
Jr.

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: marsden.txt

Gun Control: A Banker's Perspective, by ??? Marsden

A paper presented at a conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre 27-28 August 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.

Note, this paper is almost impossible to read currently as the original
would not scan well.  A more readable copy will be supplied later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: backdoor

Back Door Gun Control by Peter Alan Kasler from the January 1993
issue of American Survival Guide magazine.

Kasler discusses four examples of innocent people whose firearms
are confiscated, and/or charged with a crime when none was committed,
as examples of how gun control is implemented in the real world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: armed-citizen

"The Armed Citizen" feature from "The American Rifleman" and "The
American Hunter"; these stories show how firearms are indeed useful
for self-defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: botsford

The Case Against Gun Control by David Botsford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: academia-bias

"Fighting Anti-Gun Bias in Academia -- an article downloaded from the
NRA-ILA BBS "Gun Talk"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: story-of-gun

"The Story of a Gun" by Erik Larson, from "The Atlantic", January 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hcr**

Reports to the Firearms Coalition, by Neal Knox.

All these files are named hcr then two numbers, e.g., hcr51 for
"Report No. 51 to the Firearms Coalition"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: whose.txt

"Whose Side Are They On ?"

"Freedom From War: The United States Program For General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful World." an official publication of the United
States of America government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nccfa

Contact information for the "National Collegiate Coalition for Firearms
Awareness"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: canada

Some facts about Canadian gun control laws, gun ownership and violent
crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: time-letter

Time magazine's form letter response to criticism of their
"Death By Gun" issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gun-in-school

"Health Objectives for the Nation: Weapon-Carrying Among High School
Students -- United States, 1990" edited by David Dodell, D.M.D.

Proposes ways to reduce carrying of firearms by high school students.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: congress-cover

"Congress Covers Itself But Not Public" by Paul Craig Roberts, printed
in the Cleveland Plain Dealer October 2nd, 1992.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hamper

"Restrictions hamper law abiding folks, not criminals." by
David B. Kopel, printed in the Columbus OH Dispatch, January 16th.

Points out how waiting periods can cause a great deal of harm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: schumer-gripe

A "Washington Post" letter to the editor by Congessman Charles E. Schumer
discussing his bill, H.R. 5633, which requires law enforcement sign-off
on FFL applications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: sof

A UPI article on a lawsuit against "Soldier of Fortune" which forced
them out of business.

This article is copyright by UPI, and archived with permission; please
respect the re-distribution prohibition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fl-stats

A summary of CCW permit statistics for the state of Florida, e.g.,
the number of permits issued, number revoked, number denied, etc.
This proves that people obtaining CCW permits are law abiding
citizens and are not wreckless with their firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: knox-on-ruger

"Knox Replies To Comment From Ruger Counsel's" from
The New Gun Week, December 1, 1989.

Neal Knox discusses how Sturm, Ruger Inc. are willing to sacrifice the
RKBA for the benefit of their business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: american-blacks

"Gun Control and American Blacks" by Raymond G. Kessler (pp. 476-478)

In the United States, the experience of blacks from slavery 
through the 1960's was one of the clearest and best-documented 
examples of the political functions of gun control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nraction*

The NRA-ILAs little known newsletter "NRAction"; names will have the
month and year at the end, e.g., nraction0291.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: americamilitia

"America's Militia" by David B. Kopel, appeared in "Gun World" magazine
December 1992.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci93agenda

The "Action Agenda for a National Gun Policy" by HCI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-newsletter

The Handgun Control Semi-Annual Progress Report for December 1992.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hattoripetition

A petition written by the host family of Japanese exchange student
Yoshihiro Hattori, who was killed when he went to the wrong home for
a Halloween party:

"To protest the easy availability of firearms in the United States"

which will be presented to President Clinton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hci-election

"What the Election Means for Our Gun Control Movement" by Sarah Brady.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: centerwall

University of Washington Pyschiatrist Dr. Brandon Centerwall writing
in the April 1989 American Journal of Epidemiology says that television 
exposure is related to half of the homicides in the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: va-outrage

"An Outrage in Virginia" by Neal Knox.  Describes how BATF used a
Virginia gun dealer to general strawman sales and then later "traced"
those guns back to VA so they could claim 40% of guns they traced
came from VA.  When the dealer stopped cooperating they were convicted
of conducting strawman sales, one of the owners committed suicide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: factcard93

The 1993 Firearms Fact Card published by the NRA-ILA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: nejm43

A letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal by Preston Covey
on the factoid "You are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know
with a gun than a criminal."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: gifford

An op-ed piece by Dan Gifford which appeared in the March 8 1993 issue
of the Cleveland Plain Dealer; it discusses the issue of police abuses
and citizen self defense against such abuses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: reynolds

An editorial "Gun Makers Must Pay the Price" by Mel Reynolds (D-IL),
member US House of Representatives, which appeared in the 02/15/93
issue of the Chicago Tribune.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: pozner

"Gun Control" with Vladamir Pozner (yes, the commie) and Phil Donahue
from a Feb. 25 1993 broadcast on CNBC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: trustpeople

CATO Institute Policy Analysis No. 109, July 11, 1988
"TRUST THE PEOPLE: THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL," by David B. Kopel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: bitterprice

The British Shooter Pays A Bitter Price, by Keith G. N. Nicholson
from the American Rifleman, March 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: batman

"Cartoon Campaign for Gun Control" from the March 8th 1993 issue
of "New American"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: batfss

"Waco Shootout Evokes Memory of Warsaw '43" from the Wall Street
Journal, Monday, March 15, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: academics

Contact information for "Academics for the Second Amendment"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: propaganda

Anti-Gun-Ownership Propaganda, by Doan Boal in the March, '92 issue
of Survival Guide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: media-fairness

Media Fairness Action Plan Is Continuing, by James H. Warner, NRA Ass't
General Counsel, from American Rifleman, March 1993, page 54.

This describes the FCC's "personal attack" rule and how the NRA may
take advantage of this rule against broadcasters who attack the NRA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: artconf

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, Proposed by Congress November 15, 1777,
Ratified and effective March 1, 1781
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: pending-bills

A list of the currently pending gun control bills in the US Seante and
House of Representatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: noduty

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
by Peter Kasler
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: leftout

The Second Amendment: A Right Left Out, by Doctor Linda Karen Miller
appearing in The American Rifleman, February 1993, p. 33.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: copsnguns

WHAT COPS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE GUN ISSUE! by Leroy Pyle,
from the May 1992 issue of Guns&Ammo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: crossfire

A transcript of the Wednesday, March 3 1993 edition of the CNN
show CROSSFIRE.  The participants are Michael Kinsley, John Sununu,
Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Criminal Justice Subcmte.,
and J.F. = Rep. Jack Fields (R-TX) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: naziconnection

The WAR ON GUN OWNERSHIP STILL GOES ON! -- GUN CONTROL'S NAZI CONNECTION!
by Craig Peterson from the May 1993 issue of Guns & Ammo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: armedcriminal

The Armed Criminal in America, by James Wright, 1986.  A Research in
Brief published by the National Institute of Justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: bigotry

"BIGOTRY, SYMBOLISM AND IDEOLOGY IN THE BATTLE OVER GUN CONTROL" by
Don Kates, from the 1992 "Public Interest Law Review"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: flmurd.ps
File: gamurd.ps
File: idmurd.ps
File: mtmurd.ps
File: nodiscr.ps
File: ormurd.ps
File: pamurd.ps
File: philmurd.ps
File: utmurd.ps
File: vamurd.ps
File: wamurd.ps
File: wvmurd.ps

CCW laws and murder rates in several states, by Clayton Cramer.  These
are all PostScript files and require the use of PostScript printer to
print.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: hammer

Marion Hammer on the Failure of Gun Control, downloaded from Gun Talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: threechiefs

The views of Police Chiefs Daryl Gates (LA), Lee Brown (NYC), LeRoy Martin
(Chicago) on gun control and other civil rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

RKBA archive: general information and anonymous ftp instructions.

The moderator of the firearms-politics mailing list, Karl Kleinpaste,
has agreed to set up an anonymous ftp archive directory for RKBA
related information.  This directory can be used for things like
articles by Kates, Wright, Tonso, Levinson, Supreme Court Decisions,
the RIA vs US decision, copies of legislation, and so on.  It's not
meant to be for the discussions that normally appear here.

So, in the future if you're looking for something check there first
and then ask here.

Instructions:

Short version for techies:

The site is godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu.  Place contributions into the
directory /usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba.  The ftp commands
get, put, mget, or mput should work.  Give the command "type binary"
to be sure files are transferred correctly.  Your files will be moved
to the rkba directory.  To get a file use the commands get or mget.

I will maintain an index which you should get first to check if
the file you want to read or write already is archived.

Long version for non-techies:

In order for you to use this archive your computer must be on
the Internet.  To connect to the archive site run the command:

	ftp godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu

If that doesn't work you cannot use this archive.  If the ftp
command is successful you'll get this prompt asking you for a
login:
	Name (godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu:lvc):

Instead of lvc your initials will appear.  Answer this prompt with:

	ftp

Next you'll get this prompt asking your for your e-mail address:

	Guest login ok, send e-mail address as password:

I would enter:

	l.v.cipriani@att.com

You'll enter your own e-mail address.  You'll get these lines
or similar as output:

	Remote system is UNIX.
	Using binary mode to transfer files.

Next, the command prompt is printed:

	ftp> 

If you do not get the line "Using binary mode to transfer files."
Run the command:

	type binary

Now you're logged in to the archive machine.  There are many
directories on this machine  but the two you are concerned with are

	/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba
and
	/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/incoming

There are subdirectories to the rkba directory, those are discussed below.

When you login to the system your directory is /usr0/anon.  To retreive
files change your current directory to the rkba directory with the command:

	cd /usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba
or
	cd pub/firearms/politics/rkba

To submit files change your directory to the incoming directory with
the command:

	cd /usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/incoming
or
	cd pub/firearms/politics/incoming

Once you do this you'll get another ftp> prompt asking you to enter
another command.

To find the names of the existing files in the directory you are
in run the command:

	ls -l

This will produce something like:

total 6021
-r--r--r--  1 karl          6932 Jun 16  1992 DMN_Gratia_CCP
-r--r--r--  1 karl         69149 Apr  5 19:20 INDEX
-r--r--r--  1 karl         18965 Jun 16  1992 Knox_AW_lies
-r--r--r--  1 karl         10930 Apr 30  1992 S361
-r--r--r--  1 karl          8958 Jun 16  1992 WSJ_Crimestrike
-r--r--r--  1 karl          2649 Jan 13 18:33 academia-bias
-r--r--r--  1 karl           935 Mar 22 22:38 academics
-r--r--r--  1 karl         36079 Aug  4  1992 aclu
... and so on ...

Each line corresponds to one file.  Reading right to left, the fields
are the file name, the last modification date of the file, the size of
the file in bytes, and some permission fields which you do not need
to be concerned with.

To get a file run the command "get" followed by the name of the file
you want, for example:

	get INDEX
or
	get noduty

After the file is transfered to your machine a message like this:

	Transfer complete.
	19580 bytes received in 5 seconds (4 Kbytes/s)

You can repeat the get command for every file you want to retreive.
You can use the mget command to retreive multiple files.  If the
file you want is in a subdirectory, for example, congress/103rd/HR1025
you should change your directory to the appropriate subdirectory first
and then retrieve it:

	cd congress/103rd
	get HR1025

Once you're finished you can log off with the command:

	quit

If you have a file you want to contribute the procedure is a little
different.  First of all you should find out if the file already
exists, so get a copy of the index file with the procedure above
and look it over to make sure you wouldn't repeat an entry.  The
index will have a description of each of the files in the rkba
directory.  For example:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: whitemanslaw

White Man's Law by William R. Tonso, from the December 1985
Reason magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Once you've determined you won't be duplicating an entry, login
and change to the incoming directory command (see above).  Once
you are in the incoming directory use the command:

	put file_name

In this case:

	put whitemanslaw

Again there'll be a "Transfer complete, so many bytes transfered
in so many seconds" message.  Now your file is on the archive
machine.

Another thing to watch out for is duplicate file /names/.  Be sure
there isn't a file in the incoming directory that is called the same
as the file you want to write.  If you use the same name you'll
overwrite the previous file [or you'll get an error message].

Your file may have to be renamed if there is a conflict with a
file by the same name in the rkba directory.

Once your file is in the incoming directory send me an entry for
the INDEX file and I will add it to the file.

If you cannot use anonymous ftp and would still like to contribute
a file email the file to me and I'll take care of the rest.

If you submit a file and do not notify me it may be removed, so
be sure to let me know first.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com





-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54685
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun Talk -- State legislative update

In article <lairdb.735523285@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>In <C5sGG3.Bnv@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>As William O. Douglas noted, "If a powerful sponsor is lacking,
>>individual liberty withers -- in spite of glowing opinions and
>>resounding constitutional phrases."
>
>An excellent quote.
...
>I looked under 'C' and 'K' for Kalifornia; has the NRA given up on us?

One might well ask if CA gun owners have given up on the NRA/CRPA.

The national NRA doesn't march in and get things passed.  They provide
a convenient label for local activities/activists.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54686
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to
tear gas, the first thing that came to mind was the location of the exit.  If
there had been anything in the way, corners to negotiate, doors to open, or 
any other obstacles to movement, I would have had a difficult time exiting the
chamber.  And any concentration of tear gas is hazardous to individuals with
respiratory problems, and the wearing of soft contact lenses in a tear gas 
contaminated area is considered a REAL BAD IDEA.  So hoping the BD's would
peaceably come strolling out the door after being gassed is a bit unrealistic.
If they could have found the door, having them staggering out retching wouldn't
be too far fetched.  Throw in the factor of 50-51 days of being under siege and
subject to psychological warfare, and all bets on functional abilities are off.
Anybody tried to get Amnesty International to jump in on this one?

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54687
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Analysis of Second Amendment (Was: Re: Some more about gun control...)

In article <1993Apr21.042608.26086@ra.msstate.edu> dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:
>First, I would like to say how much I appreciate having so literate and
>erudite an individual as Mr. Rutledge with whom to discuss this topic.
>Frankly, most anti-RKBA posters refuse even to approach the topic of
>the original understanding of the Bill of Rights as detailed in the
>writings of the era. This  is most refreshing.
>
>Second, I must apologize for leaving the discussion for several days.
>My brigade's quarterly drill was this weekend and I needed to attend
>to several matters pertaining to the State Militia.
>
>Some people seem to feel that the concept of the Militia is an anachro-
>nism that is out of place in the 20th century. I'm not sure the Swiss
>would agree and I think perhaps a discussion of how the Militia, both
>organized and unorganized, fits into the defense plans of my State,
>Mississippi. Please do not assume that this describes something peculiar
>to one southern state. For instance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>has a well organized Militia which, members report, maintains stocks
>of both riot guns and machine guns. The laws of other States will vary
>but are probably similar.

It appears it is time that this article (originally posted by Larry
Cipriani last year, and which I saved) gets posted again.  It offers
as good an analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment, especially
regarding the militia clause, as I have seen.  I have not seen any
rebuttles with similar bone fides...

Enjoy.  (Flames to /dev/null)

--------- Begin Enclosed Article -----------

			THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

			      by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan,
right ?  And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call
would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it.  But who would you call
if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning
of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los
Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton
Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the
foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system.  Mr.
Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor
journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of
"American Usage and Style: The Consensus."

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's
expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades
before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at
USC.  Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the
professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly
magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam
Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.  Copperud's
fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in
continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner
of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent
the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in
English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect
to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted
entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent.  Further,
since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation
regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever
analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to
stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under
oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment,
then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task
with this letter.  I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is
vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment.
While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of
its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for
his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our
opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political
subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have
inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your
letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause.  It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall').  The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear
arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by
others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect
to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted
by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a
preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state
that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence
is assumed.  The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be
preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact
necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not
existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied.  The right to
keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence
of a militia.  No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the
right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated
militia as a requisite to the security of a free state.  The right to keep
and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place
conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such
right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as
previously stated.  It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the
militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,'
'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior
authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian
control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the
changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200
years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the
intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the
meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
amendment.  If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also
appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second
Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way
the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people
to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for
example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the
amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the
possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his
cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative
efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach
any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what
many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally
protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all
governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the
Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that
part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the
old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed
officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States
ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely.
American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning
arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements
regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an
abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms,
guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the
rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to
preserve that right.  no one else will.  No one else can.  Will we beg our
elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding
them as representing us if they do?  Will we continue obeying judges who
decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but
means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution
of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend
that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are
credited.  All other rights reserved.

			About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony
Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight
Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK
assassination.  He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing,
the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal
computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second
Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to
keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those
afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore,
24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud).  Mail address: PO Box 94, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0094.  GEnie address: SOFTSERV

--------- End Enclosed Article -------------
-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54688
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

>> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
>> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. 

With one exception, that's a pretty good description of many of the
Baptists I know.  The exception is that they know the difference
between an M-16 and an AR-15.  Heck - they even know that "it looks
like Richard Petty's stock car" doesn't mean "it's a racing stock
car".  They may be uncouth, but they've figured out that appearance
isn't function.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54689
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <23APR199302461670@zeus.tamu.edu> djh4484@zeus.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH) writes:
> "  A well regulated militia, being necessarry to the security of a free state,
>   the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
>  What is regulated? Regulated means "controlled"! How about security?

While it may mean that in 1993, the relevant meaning comes from 1789.
Moreover, "controlled" doesn't tell you WHO's doing the controllling.

Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in 1749, defines a "well-regulated
militia", that being the relevant phrase, as being an armed people NOT
under the control of govt.  The wigged gents who argued about the
constituion used it in that way.

Feel free to provide a 1790s-era reference showing a usage other than
"individual right, not to be interfered with by govt".

Note that the first clause has a meaning - it is a restriction on
govt military power.  See Scarry's University of Penn law review
article for an extended discussion.  The existence of a well-regulated
militia is a necessary part of that restriction, but it is not sufficient.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54690
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Gun clubs:
>If you are a member you CAN borrow weapons....(Suprised??)
>You are supposed to train with a .22 for the 6 months, THEN
>you can start with anything bigger.
>
>Drivers licence:
>Forgot that USA is THE land of cars.....
>Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy.
>Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......
>But we think this is acceptable because a car is NOT a toy, and
>bad drivers tend to hurt OTHERS.
>(If you are really bad, you WON'T get a lincence!)
>
>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

Unfortunately, elections can, and are, bought.  Promise the voters money, and
they will vote for you.

>
>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.

Same here.  Convicted felons may not legally purchase firearms.

>And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe),
>we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.

That you know of.

While I lived in the DBR, a gang robbed a joint US Army/Bundewehr armoury and
got several hundred M-16s, ammunition, handguns and some explosives.  When I
left two years later, there were no clues.

>
>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!
>Someone said that if we 'ban' guns we'd have to ban cars to, because they 'kill' to...
>I don't think we should argue on this one..... ;)
>
>The issue (I hope..):
>I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem.
>Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)

Who uses them is the problem.  Crime, in the U.S., is "no big deal" if you are
the criminal.  How about 5 years for murder.  Credit for time served (in jail,
waiting for trial) and you are out in 12 months, worst case.  If we would put
criminals, especially violent ones, in the slam for true sentences, crime would
drop.  Instead, we reward them for being good and let them out early, very
early.

>
>I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia:
>They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them
>to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.

Serbs, Croats and Muslims have been killing each other almost since before the
invention of guns.  Old women are throwing stones at UN trucks.  This is a
hatred that goes beyond reason.
>
>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??
>(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)

Yes, the problem is the user.  Question back (since you are one of the rational
ones):  If all gun crime were to stop, would you support dropping all gun
controls?

>
>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

They did not believe, from experience, that the "police" (including National
Guard) could/would protect them.  Unless you want to argue that a human being
does not have a right to protect him/herself, they did the right thing.  What
would you suggest as a defense against a mob throwing bottles and rocks, and
also likely armed with stolen firearms?

>
>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

Criminals would move to Scandinavia??? :-)  The average criminal would look for
a less hazardous job, and the rest would likely be buried at county expense.

>
>Don't flame the Englishmen because of Northern Irland, they have gun control that works
>(in England) and fonds from USA are one of the reasons why IRA can bomb innocents...
>(Something about throwing stones in glass houses...)

Personally, I criticize the fools who send money to the IRA to "make Ireland
free".  Of course, this is the last thing the IRA wants, because they lose
power if England pulls out.  But that's for another group.

>Don't flame them because of what to (three?) children did either.

The U.S. has roughly 20 times the major sporting events as the U.K..  How many
riots did we have at sporting events last year (off the playing field)? 
Hooligan is a word never used when reffering to sports fans here.  I guess
that's where the different cultures thing comes in.

>(Can an Jugoslav have an oppinion on guns or even peace??) (YES!)

Yes.  The question is, is the problem one of too many guns (mostly from the
army) or not enough (nonSerbians can not defend themselves.

>
>(My numbers about crime rates after restrictions on shot-guns are from the police
>and the Statistisk Sentralbyraa) (understood that one Sorenson??)
>
>LAST WORD:
>Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if you want to protect 
>your citicens.

But disarming responsible gun owners is not the solution.  Yet, that is exactly
what HCI is proposing.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54691
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

In article <C5ME6D.Iy0@cs.uiuc.edu> kratz@cs.uiuc.edu (Jason Kratz) writes:
>In <1993Apr16.202441.16032@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear
>>>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapo{s
>>>that are being confiscated.
>
>>Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16
>>from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and
>>a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various
>>versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?
>
>Well, let me see.  UZI, no.  M-11/9, no.

I see that I misphrased my question.  I should have asked WHICH
full-autos Kratz can accurately distinguish from semi-auto
look-alikes.  I should have also included some semi-auto only guns in
my list to see if he'd ask how to distinguish them from their
non-existent full-auto "relatives".

Let's do the former now.  Kratz has claimed that he can visually
distinguish full-autos from semi-autos.  For which full-autos is he
making that claim?  How does he do it?  Let's get specific, and as
exhaustive as possible.

>M-16/AR-15, maybe.  I remember there
>being a selector swtich on the AR-15.  If I remember correctly (please correct
>me if I'm wrong) the switch would set to an "off" position or an "on" position
>because the gun (AR-15) is semi-automatic.  Wouldn't the M-16 have a position
>for semi-auto fire and full-auto fire (or maybe 3 round bursts)?

Maybe?  Why is Kratz asking about what he told us that he knows?

Is Kratz certain that he can distinguish a three position switch from
a two position switch via TV inspection?  (Does he even get to see the
switch in the typical police display of guns?)  Note that one might
well be able to see this sort of thing in a hands on visual inspection
even though it won't be seen on TV.  And to think that Kratz was
telling us that seeing it on TV was just as accurate as being
there....

>How about the other guns?  Do they also have selector switch to switch between
>semi-auto and fully-auto fire?

Why all the questions?  Kratz assured us that he could make this distinction
and now he's asking us how he did it....

>Well, what about what I said above?  If that is correct I guess TV would be
>acceptable (if you had a good enough picture and a picture of the lower 
>receiver of the AR-15/M-16).

What about it?  It only demonstrates that, as I predicted, Kratz
was blowing smoke on this.

>>-andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private
>>--
>Jason Kratz <- didn't take andy's offer to back down in private

-andy wonders what Kratz is learning from this
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54693
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (I am an android..)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.113723.10103@synapse.bms.com> hambidge@bms.com writes:
]In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
]>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
]>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
]>>
]>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
]>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
]>>> in Texas. 
]>>
]>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
]>
]>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
]>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.
]
]Ever hear about cutting off the electricity? That was done.
]How effective is an electric stove then?

Didn't the Branch Davidans have an emergency generator? Oh well, I don't think
Brent thought of that anyway.


-- 
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester   (aka: claypigeon)         wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|The Earth is our cradle, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever... |
|People's organizations rarely stay that way... or even begin as such. |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54694
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>In <1r3efjINN3jj@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu writes:

>> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>> >I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......
>> 
>> In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.

>  Currently, there is a bill before the Texas legislature that would make it
>legal for some ordinary folks to carry concealed weapons.  I don't have the
>details, sorry.

>semper fi,

>Jammer Jim Miller 
>Texas A&M University '89 and '91
>________________________________________________________________________________
> I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
>"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
> "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
>      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

If I recall correctly, the bill would provide for concealed carry if
the person takes a 15-hr DPS safety course in firearms and pays a $150
fee for the license.  The bill is apparently veto-proof in the House,
but LtGov Bullock has said it will never come to the floor of the
Senate and Dreamboat Annie has vowed to veto it if it comes to her
desk.  *shrug*

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54695
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: news says BATF indictment/warrant unsealed...


|QUESTION:
|What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald
|denny trial?

The Wall Street Journal had an article on how the police were whining
about all the new guns; excuse me, but police are EMPLOYEES of the
government. Rather like having your janitor complain about job
conditions.

I say Californians should form armed block clubs that would engage
in coordinated strategies should BATF attempt to disarm them based
on the "nefarious tipster" theory of law enforcement. Unlike Waco, 
Californians should be able to destroy armored vehicles in city
streets with incendiary weapons, acetylene after slowing them down
with abandoned car blockades. M-1 Garands should easily outclass
BATF shock troops with their H&K MP-5 SMGs, and there should be
enough Sony Walkmans and Boom Boxes to overwhelm any FBI psy-war
operation... yes, a good time would be had by all. Billary Clinton
would get what he wanted, a War on Gunowners, the BATF would attempt
to show the anti-gun press they they really, REALLY were in charge
with a 500-man "Charge of the Light Brigade," and the FBI would attempt 
to show how _THEY_ really were in charge by asking the Californian 
National Guard to level the area with artillary!

:-) :-) :-)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54696
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu

In article <1r6qqcINN8j4@clem.handheld.com>
jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
 
>
>In article <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>> In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
>> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>>
>> >
>> >In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
>writes:
>> >>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
>> >>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
>> >>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
>> >>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
>> >>crime.
>> >
>> >What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
>> >any of these things?  Evidence, please?
>> >
>> > Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point
>tha
>> there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
>> there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
>> of common incidents.
>>
>> >If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps
>> >you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the
>> >rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps
>> >with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners
>> >spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death
>> >among children in the U.S. is a serious problem.
>> >
>>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
>> ages 14 and under.  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
>> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
>> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
>> I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
>> justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
>> gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
>> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
>> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
>>
>
>Any death is serious.  Wanna discuss match control?  Firearms related
>unintentional deaths among children ages 14 and under are the fault of one or
>more negligent persons, not the gun.
>
   Did I say that a child who unintentionally shoots someone is not negligent?
 NO.  I hate to repeat myself Jim, but like I told Joe, I was not attempting
in any way to justify gun control.  You're right, any death is serious.
THAT was my point to Joe who said that "anti-gunners" try to convinve
the country that accidental gun deaths related to children are a serious
problem.  I guess I assumed everyone thought that it was a problem.
No, I don't want to discuss match control.  I don't equate a book of matches
to a loaded 9 millimeter either.  Don't confuse the issue.  And please don't
say that tired old NRA line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Sure, people can kill people without guns.  But easy access to guns makes it
a lot more convenient.  "Guns don't kill people, People with easy access to
guns kill people".
 
>> >>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the
>> >>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good.
>> >
>> >Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
>> >
>>  My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
>> departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
>> giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
>> to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
>> had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
>> useful.
>>
>
>Providing false hope, then, is the intent?
>
    Jim, I'm just saying how it is.  I'm not saying if that is a good thing
or not. From the police who I have talked with who run some of these gun
buyback programs, I get the impression that they really think they are
having an impact on the community.  When I ask them if they have an evaluatory
component to the program, they say "well no..."  So, in answer to your
question, no, false hope is not the intent.  I think the intent is to
show folks that police are attempting to do something to curb interpersonal
gun violence whether its effective or not.  Look, if you can't measure
the impact of these programs using some sort of pre-test and post-test
evaluation, what is the point?  It must be symbolic in nature.  The police are
essentially saying "look, if you have a gun lying around and you don't
want it, we'll give you $50 for it...because we care about the community".
If you, I and Joe could think of a way to measure the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of these programs we could become rich and famous.
 
>>
>> >>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or
>> >>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are
>> >>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often
>> >>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge.
>> >
>> >I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
>> >suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
>> >students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
>> >to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
>> >who carry a gun to school daily.
>> >
>>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
>> or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see
>> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
>> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
>> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
>> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
>> in 1990.  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
>> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
>> to guns in their home.  California schools reported a 200% increase in
>> student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
>> 1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
>> schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".
>>
>
>200% increase in California schools, eh?  Gun control is working fine, there!
>>
>>  I didn't anything about gun control, what are you talking about?
 
>> >>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news
>> >>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours
>> >>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they
>> >>were in danger).
>> >
>> >"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the
>> >children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were
>> >outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door
>> >if you believed as they did?
>> >
>>  Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
>> situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
>> act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
>> these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
>> would not let innocent children die.
>> If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
>> did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
>> burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.
>>
>So your religion is different.  Does that make it his wrong?  Even assuming
>Koresh actually made that decision, and the verdict is still out on that.
>
> Jim, listen to me, I said I'M NOT RELIGIOUS WHATSOEVER, do you understand?
  Religion has nothing to do with this.  I could care less what religion
they were okay?  To put children in that situation is wrong, pure and
simple.  Difference is good Jim, I am the most progressive and diverse
person in the world.  But, if different is allowing kids to be exposed
to tanks and tear-gas, then yes Jim, DIFFERENT IS WRONG.
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54697
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek)

ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.

	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
burning building?

James Dusek

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54698
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
|> Thank you for remembering Matzada.  Matzada was not an insane act. It was
|> a sanctification of G_D's name and the most extreme denial of tyranny
|> possible. To this day the officers of the Tzahal (Isreal Defense Force)
|> take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will
|> not fall again!
|> 

Not anymore!  Recent archaeological inspection of the site presents pretty
compelling evidence that the "mass suicide" at Masada never occured.  This
evidence was so compelling tha the Tzahal no long hold their secret ceremony
at the fortress.


-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54699
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Waco Questions


Folks,

It's time to start building some precise questions to send to our
federal elected officials and to investigative reporters in our
local TV, radio and newprint media.  Ideally, these questions could be
asked at any investigation into the BATF's and FBI's participation
at the WACO fiasco in hopes of being resolved and, hopefully, wake
up the local news media that they are not getting the entire truth
from the BATF and FBI.  My list is up to 13 that are really nagging 
at my gut.  The list will probably grow. 

1.   What were the contents of the original warrant, now sealed, that
     the BATF obtained?

2.   It is reasonable to believe that illegal firearms and/or ammunition
     could not be flushed down the toilet.  Therefore, a "no-knock"
     raid could be ruled out.  Prior to the initial assault on the 
     complex, did a single BATF agent and accompanying witness (without 
     a contingent of assault and news media personnel) attempt to knock 
     on the door of the Branch Davidian's complex and serve the warrant 
     in a manner prescribed by law?

3.   On the day of the initial assault on the complex, BATF agents
     were aware that several small children were inside the buildings.
     In the ensueing gun battle, BATF agents fired into a building
     known to contain children, killing at least one two-year old child.
     Knowing children were present, why didn't the BATF have an
     alternate plan and immediately retreat from the area close to
     the complex and implement the alternate plan rather than opening
     fire and jeopardizing the lives of the children in the building? 

4.   The FBI spokesman states that paper evidence indicates that
     David Koresh and members of the Branch Davidians possessed over
     $200,000 in firearms and ammunition.  Did David Koresh and the
     members of the Branch Davidians have a valid Federal Firearms
     License, were they actively participating in the legal business
     of selling/buying firearms and ammunition, and were any of the
     weapons they had illegally possessed?  Does this paper evidence
     consist only of weapons purchased or does it include legally
     dispossessed weapons.

5.   After the original assault on the compound tragically failed,
     a BATF spokeswoman stated "We were outgunned!".  Yet, TV newscasts
     of video tape filmed at the time of the incident show BATF agents
     armed with MP-5 and AR-15/M16 rifles.  Although unclear on the
     video tape because of obstruction from full view by agent's
     bodies, they also may have had AK-47 and SKS rifles.  What type(s)
     of firearms did the BATF agents have immediate access to at the 
     scene of the original assault on the complex?

6.   Since there is no evidence to confirm anyone was inside the
     complex involuntarily, why did the FBI treat it as a "hostage"
     situation? 

7.   Along the same lines, why did the FBI use "psychological warfare"
     techniques, including sensory overload, sleep deprivation, and
     other disruptive techniques that would test the sanity of any 
     normal person rather than using techniques aimed at placing the 
     complex occupants into a calmer frame of mind?

8.   Reports indicate several of the children inside the complex
     were accompanied by their mothers.  Since it is reasonable
     to expect these mothers would have their children taken away
     from them if they came out, why did the FBI expect the mothers
     to just walk out and surrender themselves to the authorities?

9.   Agents at the scene claim to have seen members of the Branch
     Davidians setting fire to the complex.  Branch Davidian members
     who survived the inferno claim the fire was started when an 
     armored vehicle punched through the wall and knocked over a 
     lantern which was setting on a table.  Video tape of the incident 
     does show an armored vehicle punching a hole in the wall and the 
     fire erupted almost immediately from the same general location.  
     Was the source of the fire the same room where the armored vehicle 
     penetrated?

10.  FBI spokesmen are voicing the opinion that the David Koresh and
     the members of the Branch Davidians committed mass suicide.  Yet,
     bodies are being discovered throughout the house and other areas
     within the building complex.  This seems to be counter to any
     known mass suicides through history.  What evidence does the FBI
     have that a mass suicide pact existed?

11.  FBI Director Sessions stated that the massive fireball shown on
     the video tape was caused by the Branch Davidian's ammunition
     and/or powder cache exploding.  Yet, the fireball seems to be
     more characteristic of the type created when compressed gas
     or other highly volatile fuel source explodes.  Was any evidence 
     found which would indicate the Branch Davidians had an ammunition 
     and/or powder cache which exploded to create this fireball?  If so,
     and if David Koresh and members of the Branch Davidians were 
     engaged in the legal business of selling/buying firearms, was the
     amount determined to be excessively greater than one would expect
     for someone engaged in such a legal business?

12.  It is rumored that one FBI agent was extremely upset about critical
     news media coverage and intentionally used an armored vehicle to
     crush a reporter's car which had been left at the compound.  Is 
     there any factual basis to this rumor and, if so, what charges will 
     be brought against the FBI agent who performed the act?

13.  FBI Director Sessions states that, during the final assault on the
     complex, "over 80 shots were fired at the vehicles."  On the video
     tape of the incident, you can hear the drone of the armored vehicles
     engines.  Yet, there is no sound of the sharp reports that one
     would expect to hear if shots were fired.  Also, there are no 
     indications of smoke and/or muzzle flashes appearing from the windows,
     buildings or other structures in the video.  Surely, these should be 
     evident if the Branch Davidians had fired on the armored vehicles.  
     Finally, the video tape does not show any indication of paint splatter, 
     sparks or other characteristic spray of material which should be 
     apparent if the Branch Davidians had fired upon the vehicles.  Do 
     any of the armored vehicles which were brought in to pump tear gas 
     into the compound show evidence of fresh damage due to being hit by 
     shots from high-power rifles?

14.  CS gas is considered to be a chemical warfare agent.  The United
     States has signed international treaties which prevent the use
     of CS gas in warfare.  If the United States could not morally use
     CS gas against Saddam Hussein and his troops, why is it morally
     acceptable to use the same agent against citizens of our own land?

15.  On April 21, FBI spokesmen state that at least 3 bodies discovered
     in the complex had bullet wounds to the head indicating they had
     been murdered or had committed suicide.  On April 22, the county
     coroner claims he knows nothing about any bodies found with bullet
     wounds to the head.  Were any of the victims bodies found within
     the burned out complex have bullet wounds to the head?
-- 
**************************************************************
* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
**************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54701
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5y36B.8MG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with
>how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the
>compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter. 
	Lots of house fires give off black sooty smoke.  And as far as
	the speed of the fire the winds were gusting to 30mph at least
	that day.  I guess you're forgetting the way Oakland and Berkeley
	looked back in 91.  Did those folks use accelerants?

						smg

	



 I doubt the Feds
>did that as they were more interested in arresting Vernon.  The real
>unbalanced one (at least the one that lost his cool) was Vernon, so
>I figured that he was more likely to do it (after all he was Jesus 
>being persecuted by the authorities, and had followers to hold onto,
>so made the decision.  He and his followers also probably felt that they
>were rocketing to heaven by doing this stuff).  Thsi conclusion, I came
>to after umpteen million hours of listening to NPR and other radio
>shows (I always have the radio going when I am in my office on some
>innocuous talk-show or news program as background noise).
>
>
>-- 
><><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
><><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54702
From: porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges)
Subject: Re: JFFO has gone a bit too far


Having read the posted long article by JPFO, I have some observations:

1.  This article does NOT claim that the GCA of 1968 is a "verbatim 
translation" of a Nazi law.  What it says is that in another place --
the book they're talking about -- they compare the two things section
by section.  The implication is that the similarities are devastating.
In the next sentence, they talk about how in that book they reproduce 
the German text of the Nazi law, together with its translation.  Not 
surprisingly, a reader could easily conflate these two things into a 
single idea:  that the American GCA is a literal translation of the Nazi
law; and sure enough, that's what the whole thing has mutated into, 
urban-folklore style.

2.  The article goes to great pains to establish that Senator Dodd had a 
copy of the Nazi law, either from his time on the Nurnberg prosecution 
team or later.  This fact is considered highly incriminating, but I don't 
understand why.  The author repeats several times that he is simply unable 
to imagine how anyone could come into possession of the original text; and 
yet in a paragraph towards the end, he explains it perfectly:

"If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons
Law during his time at Nurnberg, it likely was part of a collection of
documents, for example, issues of the Reichsgesetzblatt [the German
law registry]."

Bingo.  Exactly.  

Dodd had a *book*, with a series of Nazi laws in it, including the one
under discussion.  All of the stuff about "Why would a U.S. congressman
have a copy of a Nazi law?" melts away, by the author's admission.  He
then continues:  "But if he acquired the original German text of the 
Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nurnberg, he must have done so 
for a very specific reason..."  But there's absolutely no reason to 
think that this is the case.  In fact, as a "senior member of the U.S. 
team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals", it seems to me that
he would have *had* to have a copy.  All arguments about whether 
the Nazi Weapon Law is really of historical interest (as it obviously
is, certainly according to the author here), or whether Dodd personally
prosecuted the Interior Minister who signed it, can be put aside as red 
herrings.

3.  Having established that Dodd owned a copy of the original German text, the
JPFO article then tries to draw sinister implications from the fact that he 
asked to have it translated.  The problem is, in the context of the charge 
levelled at Dodd, these two things work *against* each other.  People ask 
to have things translated when they *don't know what they mean*.  If Dodd 
took it upon himself to preserve the Nazi law with idea of someday introducing 
it into American law, surely by 1968 he would have know what it *meant*, 
wouldn't he?
    Anyway, this precise charge -- the main one that I questioned in an earlier
posting -- is just silly.  Why would Dodd need the exact translation for this
purpose?  Is the idea that the gun controllers, despite being presumably bent
on disarming the populace with the goal of eventually destroying all civil
liberties, needed a crib sheet?  Didn't they have any idea how to do it
on their own?
    Once again, the author provides a perfectly acceptable answer to his
own question: "Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law
to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the 
Nazi law."  In fact, since the law and its translation *were* entered
into the Congressional Record, under the heading of documents "concerning
the history of Nazism and gun confiscation", Dodd's motivation isn't a 
mystery:  he asked for the translation in order to put it in the CR.

4.  Even this article makes it clear that the part of the Nazi law that
was added *by* the Nazi regime is only a small part of that law.  
Registration of guns, for instance, was begun in 1928, and thus NOT
a "Nazi-inspired" idea.  The parts of the Nazi law that parallel the 
1968 GCA include handgun control of some sort, and the identification 
of certain weapons as sporting weapons.  The JPFO then goes on to list 
other parts of the Nazi law, forbidding ownership of weapons by Jews;
of course, there are no such provisions in the American GCA.  Nevertheless,
in a rhetorical move guaranteed to muddy the waters, immediately after the 
discussion of the anti-Jewish parts of the law, the JPFO article continues, 
"Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA'68..." -- so 
as to get maximum emotional mileage out of that aspect of the law.
-- 
					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54703
From: gress@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (GRESS  JOSEPH JOHN  )
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith

In article <C5D05G.6xw@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>In article <1993Apr10.155819.18237@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
>>Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from
>>bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be
>>for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.
>
>Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.
>
>Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
>die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as
>long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few
>shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One
>assumes they are moving!)
>
>
First of all let's assume that you are right that fewer guns would make it 
in to the country, that sounds great (to those that see guns as inherently
evil) except then every one  of those guns would be in the hands  of someone
who obviously couldn't care less about following the law, after all they 
got the gun illegally, so is more likely to commit a crime with that gun.
Great then everyone with a gun is likely to use it in a crime, nice system.

Now  as to reducing the number of guns  coming into society by making it 
illegal to manufacture, sell, or import them in this coutry,  let me use
a parallel for empiric evidence.  The amount of cocaine in this country is
far less since its manufacture, sale, and importation was out lawwed.    If
that last statement is true then perhaps we should consider your plan.  This 
could also apply to drugs in general.

PLAIN OLD  JOE
>



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54704
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
>>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.

>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?

According to an AP report (from Texas, written by Jaime Aron) this morning,
in addtion to the gas pumped in by hoses from CS generators, canisters of
tear gas were thrown into the building from armored vehicles, one of the
canisters hitting a man inside in the face.

This was in the part of the article *before* going into differences in
the stories told by BD survivors and the gov't.

Tear gas canisters *used* to be able to start fires...





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54706
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: The Holocaust Revisited

The U.S. Government's campaign of persecution and genocide against the
Branch Davidians was a resounding success.

Heil Clinton!  Heil Reno!  The Gestapo is alive and well and living in
Washington, D.C.

-- 
Kevin, who agrees that David Koresh was probably a first-rate nutcase
       but who firmly believes that the Bill of Rights guaranteed his
       his right to be a religious fanatic and that the government is
       guilty of violating his civil rights and of 1st degree murder.

       OK, which small, under-represented-in-congress religious group
       are we going to persecute next and are we going to torch their
       church with a rolled up copy of the Constitution?

       I think I'm going to be sick now. . .

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54707
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption

In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
>a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
>in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.

What interpretations?  Just read it as it's written.
   "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Where does it say "The right of the people to be members of a militia shall
not be infringed" or "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed?"  NOWHERE.


"Well-educated businessmen being necessary to the ability of the nation to
compete in the international marketplace, the right of the people to attend
schools shall not be infringed."

Would you "interpret" this to mean that only businessmen should have a
protected right to attend schools?  Why or why not?

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54708
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: S414 (Brady bill) loopholes?


In article <shepardC5p2y6.GC1@netcom.com>, shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard) writes:
>Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about
>the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).

Good!
>
>1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?
>     What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".
>     How close is that to being made law?

Not very.  Thanks to the filibuster in the Senate, things are backing up.  The
House judiciary  is going to start looking at our friends from the ATF, so that
bill will be held up a little, too.  NOTE: Things can change quickly.

>
>2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important
>   differences I missed?
>
>3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:
>  A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during
>     the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals
>     process once the required instant background check system is established,
>     but not before).

I thought there was a correction process in both bills for both parts.

>  B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving
>     using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an
>     inaccurate record corrected?)

Very correct.

>  C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person
>     can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an
>     immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.
>     But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does
>     it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception
>     statement.

Welcome to the world of "the privileged".

>True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?

How about no compulsion to allow purchase if there is no evidence against?

>
>4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from
>   buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?
>   At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?

It is already illegal to do this.

>
>   'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed
>   (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised
>   to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun
>   registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.

This is the "health" card.  Or so some "paranoids" claim.  I say that just
because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.   :-) 1/2

>
>Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current
>legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits
>of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54709
From: fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot)
Subject: FBI is not stupid

hello,

I just want to make 2 points:

1) The FBI is not stupid. These people are chosen for their intelligence,
education, loyalty to the government, etc. They are given much intensive
training. So, to all of you who refuse to believe there could be any
conspiracy here, and say that the FBI was just stupid, I say I don't
believe it.

2) The FBI has acces to the latest in audio and video technology -- the
latest digital systems. The FBI can manufacture evidence. Need a tape of
Koresh saying, "light the fire", and you can have one. Need a thermal
imaging video of three people lighting fires, and through the magic of
computer graphics, you can have one. The thing is, manufacturing these
pieces of evidence takes time. So it may be a few more days before we
get to see them. Or maybe we just haven't heard any tapes or seen any
FBI video is because it is:
	1) classified
	2) too gruesome for our eyes
	3) lost/got coffee spilled on it

Dwayne Jacques Fontenot

BTW, I get my information from live video feeds. I read the papers too,
but almost everything in them contradicts what I have seen with my own eyes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54710
From: fbrown@seaway.ssd.kodak.com (Frank Brown 726-0415)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r75n1INN97g@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <dusek.735489223@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes:
>> ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes:
>> >or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice
>> >interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire
>> >started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse
>> >knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.
>> 
>> 	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>> burning building?
>> 
>I don't know, why?
>
This is the AP story from Fri morning.

As the walls came tumbling down and tear gas filled the air, cult leader
David Koresh sprang into action. He left his third-floor bedroom and began
looking around the house, making sure women and children were secure and 
checking that everyone had their gas masks on properly. Within hours, the    
compound became an inferno. Nine Branch Davidians excaped.
   This is their story, gleaned from lawyers who spoke with six of them
who are jailed on charges that include conspiracy and murder. That day the 
six said a portable radio offered the only contact with the outside world    
since Koresh's right-hand man, Steve Schneider, ripped out the compounds's 
phone line after FBI agents called before dawn Monday saying this was the
cults last chance: Come out or prepare to get forced out.
    They kept their word. By dawn, tanks were battering the Mount Carmel
compound, punching for hours to creat holes for tear gas to enter. The BD
meanwhile proceeded with their daily routines. Strapped into gas masks, the
women did laundry. Others read Bibles in their rooms. The 17 children, all
under 10, remained by their mothers' sides. Still, it was hard to ignore what    
was happening around them. Each time a tank rammed the poorly-constructed building
it shook violently. Cult members dodges falling gypsum wallboard and doors.
Hundreds of gas canisters hurled in from the armored vehicles were filling
the air with noxious fumes. The flying canisters were more frightening than
the tanks. At least one man was hit in the face. The gas began filling the air,
driven by heavy gusts of wind coming through windows and the holes the tanks
made. Scattered throughout the house, the cult members made no efforts to
gather. Then the FBI sent in its biggest weapon -- a massive armored vehicle
headed for a chamber, lined with cinder blocks, where authorities hoped to 
find Koresh and Schneider and fire tear gas directly at them.
  Here the cult members' story diverges from the government's version. The
FBI says cult members set fires in three places. But each of the six cult
members, in separate discussions with lawyers, consistently gave versions
at odds with the FBI's account. They say the tank flattened a barrel of 
propane, spilling its contents. And as the tank thundered through the house,
it tipped over lit lanterns, spitting flames that ignited the propane and
other flammables. The home of used lumber, plywood, and wallboard tacked 
together with tar paper was vulnerable. The building erupted. Nine BD's
escaped jumping through windows and dashing through other openings. Others
died groping in the blackness.

Frank




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54711
From: malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu (ALEXANDER MICHAEL)
Subject: Re: BATF Acronym

In article <8110360@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> cunniff@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ross Cunniff) writes:
>diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich) writes:
>>B. arely
>>A. dequate,
>>T. otally
>>F. ***ed!
>
>The one I made up last night was:
>
>	Bureau of
>	Assault,
>	Theft, and
>	Frame-ups
>
Try this one, a favorite around here:

Bureau of Assholes, Tightwads, and Facists.

And remember, they were created by the Infernal Revenue Code.

			--msa


-- 
Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true.  Jerry Lee Lewis was the Devil.
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet.  All of a sudden,
I found myself in love with the world, so there was only one thing that I could
do was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54712
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr21.200151.4937@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
> >                                     A BILL 
> > To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
> >     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
> >     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

> In article <1qkshq$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
> writes:
> [ ... ]
> >Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
> >I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.

> Hey, guys.  You're absolutely correct, and well on the way to winning
> this battle ... and losing the war.  Yes, there are serious philosophical
> flaws in HR 1276.  Technical ones, too -- how'd you like to sue the Feds,
> lose, and have to pay _their_ "reasonable Attorney's fee" ... ?    :-)

> Still, I have one basic question:  compared to what we've _got_ is HR 1276
> (a) better, or (b) worse?  This one shouldn't even take you three guesses.

Compared to the Second Amendment?  I think it's worse.

The problem is, the devil is in the details.  You know, the Brady Bill
sounds like a "good idea" too, until you discover that there is NO check,
and that the police DON'T have to allow your purchase even if you check
out, and that you have NO recourse if they don't.

Are there any loopholes here?  I'm no lawyer, I can't be sure.  I
would have never noticed the second one mentioned above in the Brady
Bill, for example.

The more words involved, the more details.  What was that saying about
Abraham Lincoln requiring 200 words to free the slaves, and the modern
Congress requiring 3,000,000 words to describe price controls on rice?

> If there's a good enough show of support for HR 1276, maybe for a change
> _we_ could be the ones saying "it's a reasonable first step" ...

That only works with bad laws.  Good laws are like good computer programs.  
Quality has to be written in from the start, not added on later.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54713
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Photographers removed from compound

In article <C5wJFz.Bus@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> >> I find this disturbing. 

> >Good.  Keep thinking critically.

> Dont' patronize me and I won't patronize you.

Feel free to patronize me all you like; I need the tips. :-)
Seriously, if you were insulted, I apologize.

> The most tiresome thing about this group is that so many people 
> tell others they are sucking up to the government when ever they 
> decide that something the government says is plausible and praise 
> them as independent thinkers whenever they find something the government 
> says implausible.

People are sucking up to the government when they decide that ONLY the
things the government says are plausible.  Especially if they refuse to
consider reasonable alternatives.

However, from what I saw plastered all over the TV news last night, it's
no longer necessary to be an "independent thinker" to depart from the
government's party line.  It looks like our "independent press" may 
actually be starting to be earn its clothes allowance.  This, to me, is
a good sign.  I hope it continues.

> Here's a clue.  Independent thinkers are able to come to either conclusion 
> depending on the circumstances.  Non-critical thinkers are the ones who would 
> always come to the same type of conclusion regardless of the circumstances.

Independent thinkers question authority.  In a situation where only one
set of facts are being presented, "coming to a conclusion" is not the 
hallmark of an independent thinker unless it's coupled with the ability
to challenge those "facts" critically.  The scientific method consists
of more than choosing the popular hypothesis; it's even more than choosing
between two hypotheses that other people have proposed.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54714
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
> a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
> contrary.

Murderous, huh?  Yeah, there was all sorts of carnage going on there in
the 60 YEARS they were there -- BEFORE the government assaulted them.
Oh, I forgot -- you probably consider self-defense as murder.

> Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
> the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
> prefer to believe the cultists?

Damn right.  This is not a partisan thing; it's about individual 
liberties -- the right of a citizen to be left the hell alone.

> (No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

That's another indication that you don't understand the issue.

> So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
> people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
> one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
> to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

Maybe they said:

"Our appropriations are coming up soon.  We need a good PR boost.  Let's
find a socially unpopular group who happen to have a lot of guns, go in
like gangbusters, be heros, and have the local media get it all on video 
tape.  Then we won't have to worry about our budget until next year."

> Does [Bill Clinton] look good in a cape?

Why don't you knit one to match his jogging outfit?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54715
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.152549.8169@starbase.trincoll.edu>, () writes:
> In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu

> > Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
> > are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
> > that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
> > briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
> > go ahead.

> > Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?

> Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How
> in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking
> governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE
> reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't
> there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the
> sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens. 

Hey, joe -- assuming you're old enough to remember it -- how did you feel
about presidential responsibility every time Reagan said "I don't recall" 
about his arms-for-hostages meetings with the Ollie North gang?

How did you feel about it when Bush said he "was out of the loop on that
decision" when he was right there in the thick of it?

Oh, right.  "He was responsible in the sense that he was briefed, but so
what -- shit happens!"  Is that what you said?

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54718
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that
>there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also
>been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which
>rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.

The only folks claiming this are the ATF/FBI who have an interest in
putting the blame on the BD's. Wake up.


>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

Right and proper? How? It was FUBAR from day 1.

>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?
>
From all independent sources. Yes. 

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

It would have hurt nothing to wait and the result could hardly have been
worse.

>3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?

Sure, it you want to someone you claim is a dangerous paranoid even
more paranoid.

>And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
>general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
>
>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

And what makes you think that "waffle boy" didn't tell her to take the
wrap. It was job preservation not "balls".
-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54719
From: strait@cheetah.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait)
Subject: Re: NRA address?

In article <7307@pdxgate.UUCP>, barker@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (James Barker) writes:
> Could someone email me a USNail address for the NRA? I'd like to write them
> a letter encouraging them to see to it VERY EMPHATICALLY that the 2nd
> amendment is restored to the form that the founding fathers intended.

National Rifle Association
1600 Rhode Island Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036-3268
1-800-368-5714 (membership)

-- 
| Jeff Strait                       | strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu        |
| University of Illinois            | PHONE: (217) 333-6444            |
| "If you ladies leave this island, if you survive basic recruit       |
| training, you will be a weapon, a minister of death praying for war" |

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54720
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Question on Senate Bills

 I'm writting letters to my Congresscritters and was wondering if
 there is any reason(s) why I should NOT support the following
 Bills, other than the previous comments about S.458.  Just checking
 before I mail the letter to make sure I don't support something
 that I really shouldn't.

 -----------------
 I strongly SUPPORT the following laws currently being considered in Congress
 as they would either have a positive effect towards reducing crime, or re-
 enforce our Constitutional right under the 2nd amendment.

 * S. 441 (Campbell)	To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a
			mandatory minimum sentence for the unlawful possession
			of a firearm by a convicted felon, a fugitive from
			justice, a person who is addicted to, or an unlawful
			user of, a controlled substance, or a transferor or
			receiver of a stolen firearm, to increase the general
			penalty for violation of Federal firearms laws,
			and to increase the enhanced penalties provided for the 
			possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of 
			violence or drug trafficking crime, and for other
			purposes.

 * S.458  (Smith) 	To restore the second Amendment Rights of all Americans.

 * S.488  (Specter)	To provide Federal penalties for drive-by shootings.

 * S.504  (Kohl)	To amend section 924 of title 18, United States Code to
			make it a Federal crime to steal a firearm or explosives
			in interstate or foreign commerce.


                                Bill Vojak
                                vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Coalition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Here's a story, bout a man named Brady, who took a .22 bullet
 in his head.  Even though he can act perfectly normal, he
 prefers to pretend he's brain dead.

 Here's a story, bout a woman named Brady, who had nothing to
 do but sit around all day.  Then her husband became a media
 martyr, now she wants to take all your guns away.

 The Brady Bunch, The Brady Bunch, This is how we got stuck
 with the Brady Bunch. . . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54721
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??


In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli 
<thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or 
> 	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY


Well, may I point out that paranoia is an IRRATIONAL fear, without basis
in reality.  As we've seen here in the US, there is nothing irrational
about it.  Perhaps you folks in Finland have been down on your knees
being good little boys and girls so that the former Soviet Union didn't
come across the border and stomp the snot out of you for so long that
you just figure everybody should be so accomodating to tyranny.


> 
> 	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
> 
> 	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup


If you don't like us talking about political issues involving attacks
on people for owning guns, don't read talk.politics.guns.


> 
> 	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil 
> 	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
> 	let's say 1000 people ????
> 	

Nobody's trying to save YOU from anything, so butt out.  I couldn't
care less about what somebody on the other side of the world thinks 
about this. Of course, you do have a right to an opinion...  but I've
always figured that opinons are like hemmorhoids.  Every asshole's
got them, I just don't care about yours. 



  **************************************************************************
*     I remember what I was doing         *    Bad boy, whatcha gonna do    * 
*  when I heard that JFK had been shot.   *        Whatcha gonna do         *
*  Will you remember the Battle of Waco?  *    when they come for you...    *
 ***************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54722
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

Could y'all PLEASE stop posting this stuff to tx.general.  tx.politics
is sufficient and is where this stuff belongs.  Thanks.

	Cathy
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54723
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
media-event brought to you by HCI.

Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
tacky, but hey, whatever works.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54724
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers

In article <C5u7Io.uMw@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>Try the firearms archive.  Larry Cipriani's instructions follow.  By
>the way, thanks for the archive Larry..

There are a few bills not yet in the archive, but these are the main ones
we need to fight.  And thanks to David Robinson for scanning so many of
them in for us!

The subdirectory bills are stored in was moved from "congress" to
"Congress", that is:

godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu:/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/Congress
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54725
From: j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <1993Apr21.040839.20574@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>>That the gas was "not harmful", as the sensitive, caring Janet Reno described 
>>it?
>
>Is it? As far as I know, tear gas, especially in large concentrations,
>is very dangerous (even toxic) for small children. This makes the
>FBI's supposedconcern for the safety of the children seem rather 
>hypocritical.
>

Not to mention that the G-men believed the children didn't have gas masks.

But that was not, with respect to the children, the point of the gassing.
The feds *knew* that the children's health would be in danger and proceeded
under the assumption that the "motherly instinct" of the Davidian women
would remove them from harm's way. I busted a gut on that one.

Someone else on the net observed that the administration's appeal to a
woman's "motherly instinct" would never wash with feminists and liberals
if a republican were in the White House. I say that such an justification
could *only* come from a feminist mindset. 

BTW - I'd read in the paper yesterday that the type of gas used was CS2.
The paper didn't provide any specifics about it.

"Guess I'm still writing..."
Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick
malcolm@atlantic.cs.unb.ca or j979@jupiter.csd.unb.ca              }>:-/> --->
_____________ Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem ____________

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54726
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)

In article <C5wMp5.5u9@boi.hp.com> jeffw@boi.hp.com (jeff waldeck) writes:

>Where did you hear about the thermal imaging? I haven't heard this yet 
>(not that I doubt it, I'm just looking for sources...) 

This was reported in Canadian papers Thursday, 22 April - I _think_ the
source was UPI, but don't recall for certain.

>It seems to me that if they did have this kind of info, they could
>broadcast it and it would resolve (or at least help to resolve) alot
>of doubt in people's minds. 

>Personally, the way the (FBI/BATF/Reno/etc) is claiming all sorts of
>things without offering one shred of proof (other than their "good word")
>is very suspicious to me. A picture is worth a thousand words...

I understand that at least two goverment investigations have been ordered,
so we may learn more during their hearings. 

>I sincerely hope you are right and it turns out (with indisputable
>proof broadcast across our land) that the Government groups had nothing
>to do with the fire. But until I see such proof, I think it is just as
>likely that a tank did knock over a lantern as Koresh torching the place.
>The only "evidence" I have seen is a tank crashing through the front
>wall, withdrawing, and seconds later flames are seen (the first flames
>on the video) erupting from this very same spot. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Tough call without more investigation, but if the thermal imaging story
holds up, I think the government will be more credable... of course,
paranoia fans won't believe their results anyway, will they?

>If such proof exists, the Government should publish it and put all this
>speculation to rest.

Hear, hear! I'd also like to see the autopsy reports confirm news reports
that multiple victims were found shot (in the head), and in positions
inconsistent with fire victims. It is simply too early to draw conclusions
either way about this nasty incident, but I tend to believe the government
side.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher 
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
  Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island  
with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54727
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker bashes tpgers (was Re: Welcome to Police State USA)


In article <1993Apr22.041542.11054@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:

|>From article <C5t9IA.6F9@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):

|>> If anyone wants to understand the paranoid mindset of Koresh I offer you
|>> talk.politics.guns. There you can dredge the sewers of minds so hung
|>> up on power and ego trips that they bend reality arround their own
|>> particular set of beleifs.
|>
|>Just what the hell do you base that ludicrous claim on?  There are 
|>*plenty* of fine, decent people people who read/post to t.p.g.  If
|>any of these people are paranoid it is because of people like you.

Hey dude you are making me paranoid! What an argument!!!


|>> I long ago gave up arguing the case for arms control directly. Instead
|>> I invite people to ask themselves, would you want to be in a room full
|>> of the occupants of talk.politics.guns, their personal armouries and
|>> attempt to enter a discussion with them?
|>
|>I'd have a spot of tea with them. :)  You probably gave up on arguing the
|>case for arms control directly long ago because posters who *know*
|>what they are talking about (e.g., Frank Crary) disproved all your
|>arguments for why more gun control is needed.  So, you gave up because
|>you know they are right and you couldn't refute their answers.

No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people
are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners. USEnet as a whole
disproves it of humanity as a whole.

We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of
guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn
down your house. See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons
to support gun control.


Cuddles 'n kisses

Phill 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54728
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <9l15qxn@rpi.edu>, lswilfin@mercury.ral.rpi.edu (Lee S Wilfinger) writes:
> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> 
> >Obnly something like 12% of guns used in crime in the US are purchased 
> >from legitimate dealers (and not necessarily by the person who used them
> >in the crime).  So we already HAVE that much "gun control."
> 
> I've seen this mentioned a number of times. I'm curious; what is the
> source for this statistic? 

The number bounces between 2% and 18%, depending on the study quoted and
the type of gun being studied.

Some cites:

---------------------------------------

A recent BATF study (titled "Protecting America, Yes") surveyed 471 career 
criminals and found that only 7% of guns used in violent crimes were
purchased from retail dealers.

---------------------------------------

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

November 1986

                        The Armed Criminal in America
                              by James D. Wright

(1) Legitimate firearms retailers play only a minor role as direct
    sources of handguns for adult felony offenders.

Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most
recent handguns through a customary retail transaction involving a
licensed firearms dealer.  The remainder -- five out of six --
obtained them via informal, off-the-record transactions involving
friends and associates, family members, and various black market
outlets.  The means of acquisition from these informal sources
included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and
often theft.  The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated
by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.

---------------------------------------

INDEPENDENCE ISSUE PAPER No. 4- 91
Independence Institute
14142 Denver West Parkway #101
Golden, CO 80401 
(303) 279-6536

              WHY GUN WAITING PERIODS THREATEN PUBLIC SAFETY
                             By David B. Kopel

     The basic problem with waiting periods is shown by a Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms study of gun dealer sales in Des Moines and Greenville.
The study found that about one to two percent of sales were to dangerous
criminals.[51]  In short, waiting periods have no statistically noticeable
impact on any type of crime because only a tiny fraction of crime guns
are purchased at retail by ineligible buyers.

51. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Assistant Director of Criminal
Enforcement, Memorandum to Director, July 10, 1975 (Greenville survey; of
20,047 names submitted to FBI for record checks, 68 had felony convictions;
of those, 41 had not been represented by counsel at their conviction or who
committed crimes in the distant past; twenty-seven buyers were prosecuted)
(of the 1.3% of buyers selected for prosecution, .9% had non-violent felony
convictions, and .4% had violent convictions). Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, Assistant Director for Criminal Enforcement, memorandum to
Director, May 8, 1975 (of 374 records checked, 39 were purchasers with felony
records who were not appropriate for prosecution because of age or
non-violent nature of felony; six purchasers were prosecuted).

---------------------------------------

INDEPENDENCE ISSUE PAPER No. 12-91

                          THE ASSAULT WEAPON PANIC:
                      POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" TAKES AIM
                            AT THE CONSTITUTION

                      By Eric Morgan and David Kopel

     Testimony before Congress revealed that most "assault weapons" in the
hands of criminals were obtained through illegal channels.{97}  The testimony
is consistent with the National Institute of Justice's research findings
based on studies of felons in state prisons. The NU study, authored by
sociologists James D. Wright and Peter Rossi found that only sixteen percent
of criminals had obtained their most recent handgun from a gun store. (The
figures included purchases by legal surrogates, rather than directly by the
criminal.) Wright and Rossi, who had begun their research as firm proponents
of gun control, concluded that no set of controls on retail purchases, and
probably not even full scale gun prohibition, would reduce criminal use of
guns. Wright and Rossi suggested that lawmakers concerned about gun crime
directly target the black market in criminal guns, and
leave the legitimate retail market alone.{98}   Not surprisingly, Wright
believes that the consequences of current "assault weapon" legislation on
street violence are likely to be ineffective.{99}   He warns that gun
controls aimed at ordinary citizens are less likely to reduce the pool of
criminal guns than to provide organized crime with lucrative new
business.{100}

6.   _See, _e.g., The Anti-drug, Assault Weapons Limitation Act of 1989. S.
Rep. No. 160, 101st. Cong., 1st. Sess. 6-8 (1989) [hereinafter SENATE REPORT]
(introduced by Senator DeConcini to reduce semiautomatic firearms abuse by
drug traffickers and violent criminals); Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control
Act of 1989, CAL. PENAL CODE $$ 12275-12290 (West 1990) [hereinafter Roberti-
Roos]; MD. ANN. CODE art. 27 $$ 442,481E (1989) (placing greater restrictions
on 17 varieties of "assault weapons," and providing punishments for failure
to comply or attempts to evade).

97.  SENATE REPORT, _supra note 6, at 17.

98.  James Wright & Peter Rossi, ARMED AND CONSIDERED DANGEROUS: A SURVEY OF
FELONS AND THEIR FIREARMS (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

99.  _Lock _and _Load _for _the _Gunfight _of _'89, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP.,
March 27, 1989, at 9 [hereinafter _Gunfight]. Wright also said, "If criminals
can get all the drugs they want, they can get guns, too." _Id.

100. James Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," 91 _The _Public
_Interest (Spring 1988), at 30-3 1.

-- 
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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54729
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
>to defend the burning of the children.

    Actually all the liberals I've seen have deplored the burning of 
children. I would far preferred that the Davidians had not set the 
fire that burned themselves and their children to death, but I don't 
believe that the responsibility for the fire (or the almost complete 
absense of attempts to escape the blaze) can be placed at the door of 
the Federal authorities.

>Probably drooled all over themselves while watching the TV coverage.

    Not so. My wife got me a convenient plastic "drip pan" for Christmas...

>Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.

    Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis.

>Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
>a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.

    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54730
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Need info on 43: 1 and suicide for refutation

In article <1qmuv8INNl8s@dns1.NMSU.Edu> loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:

>The following is quoted from the tail end of a (rather condescending)
>article about Paxton Quigley, that appeared in US Snooze and World Lies,
>(sorry... i think it was in the wall street journal...)
>and was repeated in the Colorado (people's) Daily, a student newspaper
>at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
>
>"A study of residential gunsot deaths in King County, Wash., found that
>a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder.  

       The "used to kill" is the heart of the misinformation.  It's one
of those technically accurate phrasings that conveys the wrong impression.
What Mr. Quiqley is more than aware of, I'm sure, is that when people
read this they think violent arguments where one member of the family
grabs a gun and shoots another, thereby creating a tragic situation
which could easily have been avoided had the gun not been there, or
a tragic accident, especially involving a child.

       Unfortunately, that's not the way things stack up.  The majority
of that 43 "times" (37 I believe) are suicides.  That is, someone 
intentionally took a firearm and shot themselves intending to kill 
themselves.  And why it's popular to try and blame suicides on guns,
the evidence doesn't support this.  Internal studies, as well as
comparative studies with other countries, indicate that cultural
factors far outweigh whether a person will kill themselves or not.
(Japan, for instance, has a slightly higher rate than the U.S.  There
people jump off buildings.)

       According to the National Crime Survey, 40% of violent crime
is commited by "non-strangers," which mistakenly has been generalized
regarding the King County study to mean, "Friends and family."  That
is, Mr. Quigley, and others who quote this statistic, are banking on
the mental image that a "Friend, family member, or child," equates
to a loving relationship, and that it was cut short in a moment of
anger.  Unfortunately, all too often husbands beat and kill wives,
children assault parents, or vice-versa.  Most rapes are commited by 
someone known to the victim, for instance.  Essentially, that a gun
was used against a "friend" or family member doesn't mean they
weren't trying to hurt the other person.  Crime is highest among
poor urban families, and those are also the areas most "at risk"
for family problems, especially violent ones.  A son in a gang may
not be as loving toward his parents if they disapprove than a suburban
kid might.

       Finally, it hinges on the fallacy that a dead intruder is the
only value of a self-defense firearm.  Using the minimum figures I
worked out using the NCS I got about an 80:1 ratio between deadly
self-defenses (justifiable homicides) and with-gun self-defenses.
Between the FBI Uniform Crime report and the NCS there's an enormous
amount of data and anybody with the calculator can crunch the numbers.
As such it is incorrect to assume that a dead body is the only valid
means of determining the success of such a defense, since according
to the NCS (which has been considered by many to seriously under-report
defenses) there were far more successful with-gun defenses than intruders
killed.

       Not it also confines itself to the home, where attack by a "friend
or family member" is far, far more likely, and excludes any defense
which occurs outside the home.  (I believe a large number occur in
businesses.)

>Studies by the 
>Western Psychiatric Institute, in Pittsburgh, found that the mere presence
>of a gun in the home sharply incresases the likelihood a family member
>will commit suicide, even in the absence of psychiatric illness."

       I have not seen the exact data for this, so I can't comment.  I
will point out Canada's and Japan's suicide rate as indications that
culture far more than firearm availability affect suicide rates.

       There was also a comparative study between Canada (for what
it's worth, considering the difficulty of comparing across cultural
lines) published in the New England Journal of Medicine (I can get the
exact cite if you need it) that concluded that restrictive firearm laws 
would not significantly impact the over-all suicide rate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54731
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93105.165359U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>>
>>Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
>>do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
>>Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
>>outside.)
>
>Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.

Kratz comments above show otherwise.

>It's basic purpose - not to let the gun fire until you're ready.

Bingo - now the question is, does the Glock's qualify?  Let's see
the evidence that Kratz uses.

>Christ, I've known that since I had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't
>know me so don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know.

But first an aside.  Having an air gun proves nothing.  Moreover,
my comments are based on what Kratz writes.  He's free to argue that
he babbles in text but actually knows something off-line.

>>A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
>>what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
>>off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
>>it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
>
>From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the
>trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.

Harder than what?  I note that almost all revolvers work the same way,
so it can't be "harder than revolvers".

>Every article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.

Sure they can.  (Moreover, we know now that Kratz' sample is
unrepresentative.)  We can look at the reasoning.  It is basically
"these Glocks are dangerous because they're not like my 1911/S&W third
generation."  Part of that is true, but since those same people don't
claim that revolvers, which share the relevant property, are
dangerous, we see that the argument fails.

>me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or

Why would I care?  I'm not looking for more bogus reasoning.

>rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on
>here without someone getting right on your ass.

One can make hundreds of simple statements without having anyone
"getting right on your ass".  One merely has to make accurate simple
statements.  Then you get "attaboy"s by mail and publically.

Accuracy is a severe burden, but most of us manage it.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54732
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <93105.215548U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>>I have been at a shooting range where
>>>gang members were "practicing" shooting.

>In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
>>or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
>
>"We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on
>the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.

So?  Kratz was there - does that mean that he's a gang member?

Even in the most gang-infested areas, most of the residents ARE NOT
gang-members.

>that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned
>it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.

How was it obvious?  Were they not trying to hit the target?  Or, does
Kratz confuse "marksmanship" with "trying to simulate a post"?  If so,
that excludes self-defense shooting, but the rest of us understand
that that exclusion would be an error.  (It excludes a lot of legit
"gun games" as well.)

>don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
>taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.

Sounds like practical pistol or maybe IPSC.  It also sounds like how a
self-defense shooter might well practice.  The only things that action
excludes are hunting and "like a post" shooting.  Kratz should get out
more often.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54733
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:
>Public health experts will tell you that you are far more likely
>have your gun stolen, use it yourself on a family member or
>have it used on you than you are to use it on an actual criminal.

Actually, they won't.  What they'll tell you is that if you add up the
number of suicides, murders of one drug dealer by another, legit
self-defenses of a battered spouse, and so on, you'll end up with a
number that is much larger than the number of self-defense killings
against strangers committed in the bedroom.  (BTW - they didn't
honestly count the latter either, but let's not quibble.)  They
try to claim that comparison is between the costs of self-defense
and the benefits, but they're wrong.

This comparison doesn't measure the costs of self-defense and it
doesn't measure the benefits either.  For example, the goal is not to
kill the attacker, whatever your relationship to him, but to stop him.
While the number of killings may be proportional to the number of
stops, it isn't equal.

Anyone who confuses that comparison with an honest evaluation
is either lying or....

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54734
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Government = biggest cult leader?

Look, folks, I don't know what happened in Waco.  I do not claim the BDs are  
angels, I never did.  Koresh may very well be the devil incarnate.  I just  
don't know.  But I do know that I must question any single source of  
information, such as we have here.  And I must question even harder given that  
it is single source at the insistance of that very government.  What ever else  
happened at WACO, that is perhaps the biggest evil done.  And even more so in  
light of the discrepencies turning up between the federal officials and the  
state officials.

But what I really don't understand is the hoards of devoted government  
worshipers who believe the government could not possibly do any wrong.  They  
are fanatic to the point of making things up, such as Brent's microwave oven  
disclaim of the BD's using fire for food heating.  

I am hard pressed to see any real difference between the claimed power Koresh  
held over the BDs, and the demonstrated power the government holds over those  
rapid apologists.


Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54735
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker bashes tpgers (was Re: Welcome to Police State USA)

In article <C5yypo.EI2@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

> No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people
> are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners. USEnet as a whole
> disproves it of humanity as a whole.

Heavens!  Everybody but Phill is out of step!

> We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of
> guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn
> down your house. See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons
> to support gun control.

Once again, Phill lets us all know that might makes right -- but ONLY for
the all-sacred government.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54736
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Letter in Colorado Daily


The Colorado Daily recently reprinted the Wall Street Journal's article
on Paxton Quigley, including the nefarious little paragraph the Journal
tacked onto the end.  After recieving much assistance from various T.P.G.
type folks, I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing this last paragraph,
and surprise, surprise, surprise, they published it.  The text follows.
The Colorado Daily, btw, is the University of Colorado (Boulder) student
(I think) newspaper... not exactly a big coup, but every little bit, i guess...

(The title was the only thing they changed/added)

"Gun Stats"

The Daily recently reprinted an article from the
Wall Street Journal, primarily concerned with Paxton
Quigley, author of "Armed and Female."  The article,
in turn, cites a misleading statistic that was originally
reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.  The
article states, "A study... found that a gun in the home
was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder."  This
is an often-quoted statistic, and it is misleading for sev-
eral reasons, outlined below:

The study gives the impression that, if you own a 
gun, the likelihood that you will successfully use it to 
defend yourself is less than that of the gun being turned
against you.  The study, however, fails to take into
account cases where a law-abiding citizen uses a gun 
to thwart a crime, without actually killing the perpe-
trator.

The study actually refers to 'acquaintances' rather
than 'friend'.  This would include the friendly neigh-
borhood thug who shows up like clockwork, every
month, the second your grandmother cashes her social
security check.  Possibly an acquaintance, but hardly a
friend.

The NEJM study is based on the immediate dis-
position of cases and fails to take into account cases
originally filed as homicides that were later ruled to be
self-defense.  Especially considering the small sample 
size (396), taking these events into account has a sub-
stantial effect on the 43:1 ratio quoted.

Criminologist Gary Kleck gives us a slightly dif-
erent statistic: a gun is 33 times more likely to be 
used, successfully, by a private citizen against an 
aggressor than it is to kill anyone at all.  Further, per-
sons defending themselves from aggression by using a 
gun fare better than those who resist vicimization by
some other means, or who offer no resistance at all.
Statistics available from the FBI and other agencies 
also show that a gun is 245 times more likely to be
used by a non-criminal to defend against criminal threat
than to be used to commit criminal homicide, 535 times
more likely to be used to defend against a criminal
threat than to accidentally kill anybody, and 50 times
more likely to defend against criminal threat than to be
used to commit suicide.

It is well to keep in mind that nearly anything can 
be proved by uncritical quotation of statistics.  One has
to consider carefully what questions were asked by
those gathering the data before one can draw an accu-
rate conclusion from them.

D.F. Taylor
CU Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry


--
Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54737
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: The Ballad of David Koresh

In article <C5w448.2np@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> pwithere@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (patricia anne withered) writes:
>                        The Ballad of David Koresh.
[ ... ]
>At Concord and at Waco
>the tyrant's minions failed.
>Though they all died in the fire
>Koresh's people have prevailed. 

Good irony.  The Waco finale was on April 19, Patriot's Day.
On that day 218 years earlier, the militias of Concord, Mass.,
and other nearby towns repelled a gun-control raid by the
then-current Colonial government ...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54738
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735383339.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>NOTE!!!
>My posting was in reply to those about FBI torching the plasce after
>filling it with napalm, and arrested people dissapering.
>
>[...]
>
>About Waco
>It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this.
>The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house
>in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)
>
>It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???

       I don't think we've got a conspiracy on our hands, or anything
vaugely similar.  I do think that the Feds showed a distinct lack of
both intelligence and disregard for others safety throughout this whole
mess.

       I do think the FBI and the BATF screwed up big.  What made me
really concerned was FBI director William Sessions being on CNN engaging
in what could only be called spin control before the place had even
cooled down.  Evertyhing had literally blown up in their faces and I felt
there had to be something more important he should have been doing...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54739
From: chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

In article <C5soMx.HMD@boi.hp.com> kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:
>If anyone is keeping a list of the potential contributors, 
>you can put me down for $1000.00 under the conditions above

Seems to me folks, that if you are so interested in acquiring CNN, just
buy your $1000 worth of stock today.  It's being traded everyday.  After you
own your piece, we can work on the proxy votes later.  It's probably even a
good investment.

Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
chuck@eng.umd.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54740
From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>shoot-to-kill directives.

You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.


-- 
                            REMEMBER WACO!
     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54741
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....

       How about "firearm related."

>This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!

       Texas is unusual in this regard.  It would be nice to reduce them
both, though.

       As Texas doesn't appear to have an murder rate that much higher than
the national average, I would expect it is a result of a much higher
suicide rate.

>*I* should not suffer because of others....

       Be nice if you didn't have to suffer at all.

>We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
>we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

       Here's where we run into a problem.  I am perfectly willing to
have government regulation on something which is likely to cause others
harm.  What we're discussing, though, is the extreme regulation of a large
group in order to target a small group, and I don't think that's
appropriate. 

>Do you have an insurance??
>Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...       
>
>Do you buy anything??
>YOU are paying for those who return goods, steal or even those who gets a bonus...
>
>Do you live with other people??
>Then you 'can't' do ererything you'd want (burping/farting playing music LOUD)

        Does this, then, justify anything?  At some point you have to draw
a line (at least to my way of thinking) where the government must have
something a little more substantial than a set of percentages with which
to punish an individual.

        Where do *you* draw the line?  Or is there one?

>One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
>only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

        Virginia.  It passed.

>I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
>other people.

        Does it?

>It seems like you all realize that you have a problem in America, the only
>problem is that you won't take the car away from the drunk driver, you 
>hope to cure him first.

        Cute analogy. 

        The U.S. doesn't treat drunk driving like a serious crime.  However,
we also don't confiscate cars of people who drink.  We also don't confiscate
*all* cars because some people drink and drive.  It's the core of the legal
system that in order to punish an individual (and I'd call property
confiscation a punishment) you must have evidence against that individual.
That is, it isn't enough to show that the majority of people convicted of
murder are white  in order to convict a particular white guy of murder.

>Hope life comfirms to the standard of Winnie the Poh.

        Huh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54742
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
> Arras) wrote:
> >  
> > I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group  
of  
> > devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
> > government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of  
thier
> > own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.
> > 
> > Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?
> > 
> > Jim
> 
> Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
> generalizations evince your own ignorance. 

Eloquently, if somewhat shrilly, put.  

> What were they supposed to do?  Just let him be? 

Well, why not?

> Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right
> the first time.

You have a way with words.  And you sure get shrill on cue.
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54743
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r9bfc$bm1@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)  
writes:
> In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU> mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael  
Frederick Rhein) writes:
> >># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
> >
> >for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims 
> >that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.
> 
> This whole thread is rediculous.  Who cares if they had a stove going
> or not.  Does it matter if they had a stove burning, or lanterns
> burning, or candles burning, or someone smoking, etc, etc, etc.  The
> premise is that the FBI was filling the house with napalm so that it
> would catch fire.  This is crazy.  FBI was NOT PUMPING NAPALM into the
> Davidians home.  You will have to have pretty damn strong evidence to
> convince me of that.
> 
> I can believe mass suicide/murder by Koresh.  I can believe an
> accident by the Davidians.  I can believe an accident by the FBI.  I
> can easily believe mass stupidity on all sides but I can not believe
> that the FBI lit this fire intentionally.  No way.
> 

I tend to agree, but I would like a better explanation of why the FBI stopped  
the firetrucks at the gate.  I saw this in realtime.  It concerns me that the  
FBI "appeared" to not be too interested in stopping the fire after it started,  
and actually started flying hueys around the compound, which had to add in some  
small part to the winds driving the fire.

> -- 
> -- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54744
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno


 >   I HEARTILY agree.  Now that the BATF warrant has been 
  >   unsealed, it is CLEAR that Clinton and Reno supported an
   >  ILLEGAL raid.  Did they not KNOW this?



>     NO authority for a 'no-knock" raid
 >    NO authority to use helicopters.
>     NO authority to search for a "drug lab"

>    And, apparently, not even any authority to search for "automatic
>    weapons".

>     51 days of GOVERNMENT LIES.

	Sorry, I missed all this!  Can you please give an update on
	the warrant?  I hadn't heard that it was unsealed.  There
	was no authority for a "no-knock?"  This is news.  How about
	an OK for a wiretap?

	Please summarize!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54745
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

In <C5wI8x.Cqs@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov (Doug S. Caprette) writes:

>Can anyone cite an example in which this defense was successful?
>How about a source for this?

Please take this thread out of "tx.politics.talk.politics.guns" which does
not exist.  How about "tx.politics,talk.politics.guns" instead, eh?
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>

<1993Apr3.071631.9811jp@tygra.Michigan.COM>:  "I run an anonymous server and
it is STAYING FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, which should be about 55 years."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54746
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
><MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> says:
>>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.

>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?

This claim hasn't been retracted or contradicted yet, as many earlier
government claims have?  At least one clip showed a fire erupting
after a tank busted in a wall.  We have unsubstantiated claims by
the government about the FLIRs spotting "simultaneous" fires.

>And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
>to get out of the compound?

That's easy.  Six hours of CS gas, heavy smoke from a rapidly spreading
fire, confusion, panic.  Only 10% got out.  The building was collapsing
all around them and finding the way out was a matter of luck.

>And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.

The Davidians may have committed suicide, or some few zealots among
them might have started the fires -- that is possible.  But, given
the government's earlier inability to tell a straight story, I find
my above scenario equally possible.  I wait for some independent
investigation to look into the whole thing.

It would be one thing if the government spokespeople had been
consistent and forthright throughout.  Keeping the press far away
and ghettoized in "pools" was not conducive to building up trust.
Sealing the warrants was non-optimal, as well.  This operation
was out of control from the git-go.

>>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
>>the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.

>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
>a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
>contrary. Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
>the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
>prefer to believe the cultists?

Speaking only for myself, I think Bush and Reagan should have been
impeached over Iran-Contra.

In 1979, I would probably have given the benefit of the doubt to
the government.  No more.  Like I said, I'll wait to see the
results of an independent investigation -- if there is one --
before I choose whom to believe.

>(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)

But you got one, anyway.

>>But then
>>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
>>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.

>Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?

I generally vote for the lesser of two evils.  This last time, it
was the least of three evils.

>>If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they
>>will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the
>>Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation.

>So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
>people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
>one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
>to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

It was a bureaucratic execution.  Out of control bureaucracies driven
by percieved self-interest and gross stupidity.

>And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? How is he
>on diabolical laughter? Does he look good in a cape? These things MUST be
>investigated. You first.

Clinton is just another statist.  My only problem with Clinton on this
is that he is apparently willing to blindly back the ATF and FBI.

>   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
>   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54747
From: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: Waco, they did it.    ( MASADA )

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Mike 'HK G3ZF Full-Auto' Newsome) writes:
>>> I'm sick to my stomach as I write this.  The BD compound
>>> is on fire, and will burn to the ground in minutes.
>I used exactly this one-word reply, to suggest a likely ending to
>the siege several weeks ago. But like Masada, this wasn't entirely
>a government action: The defenders held out as long as they could,
>and then killed themselves, their families and their children 
>rather than surrender. Israel calls the action of the Zelots
>"heroic", and trains their army to follow this example. Now that 
>someone has repeated this action in modern times, what do we call it?

Liberals and supporters of Clinton say that costs made the action 
necessary.

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54748
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>>In article <1r2d2rINNa7e@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) says:
>>>NUT CASE PANICS!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF
>>>THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE
>>>MERCY ON HIM!!!!
>I thought we were discussing Koresh here, not President Clinton.
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

	Dave 1 Clinton 0

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54749
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

> Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping
> generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed 
> to do? Just let him be?

once upon a time, that's exactly what they would have done & everyone
could have just gone on living a peaceful (if well armed) life. what
is it that makes people think they have the right -not- to just leave
others be?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "Innocence, joy, and squeezable fun for everyone" - TOYS       `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54750
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
> Arras) wrote:
> >   
> > You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal  
agencies  
> > you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from  
your  
> > Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious  
> > persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all?
> > 
> > Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.
> > 
> > Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the  
dictionary  
> > of "cult".
> > 
> 
> I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. 

I don't recall saying Baptists do any of that.  Though I suppose some do.  And  
none of them are listed in the dictionary as characteristics of a cult.  My  
mother stockpiled Campbells soup when it was on sale.  

> You're a sorry
> son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.

You are an intolerent, foul-mouthed human.  You sound like you are ready to  
join the KKK or neo-nazis, with a narrow mind like yours.

> People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.
> 

Far from it, I defend the rights of anyone to be different under our  
constitution, which was formed in part to protect religious cults which had  
been persecuted in England before migrating here to be free.  You are the one  
endangering our constitution.

> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54751
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: Feds Caught in Another Lie

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>Well, after 2 days of hearing that 3 of the BD bodies had
>been shot in the head (Horrors!  Another Jonestown! Crazed
>Cultists!  Child Abusers!  WHACKOS in Waco!), last night the 
>medical examiner was on TV and was pretty vehement in denying
>that ANY of them had bullet wounds...  he seemed just a tad upset 
>at the Feds for having spread that rumor.  

Funny, the medical examiner today stated that there was no
evidence ONE WAY or ANOTHER that there were bullet wounds --
not a single autopsy has been performed, so all reports are
deemed speculative.  INCLUDING reports that there were NO
bullet wounds.

>Before long, I think all the kneejerk government apologists
>are going to start getting pretty pissed off at how easily
>they were misled.

Before long, I think all the kneejerk conspiracy theorists
are going to start getting pretty pissed off at how easily
they mislead themselves.  Also, pretty disappointed at
being ignored by the coutnry.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54752
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: ABC Confirms Two Points of FBI's Version


Well, the question of why fire equipment took so long to reach the 
compound has been answered. ABC aired a report including the 911 tapes 
from Monday. The FBI called 911 within 4 minutes of the fire's breakout. 
Unfortunately, dispatch of vehicles outside the Waco city limits 
required approval of a deputy chief, who was not available (literally 
out to lunch?); the 911 operator desperately called around to local 
community volunteer fire departments to get something out there. By 
the time trucks arrived 27 minutes later, the whole complex was aflame 
and it was clearly too little, too late; there were just two pumpers 
and no water supply. The FBI made another call requesting a tank truck, 
but the Waco department apparently depended on hydrants and did not 
have one. Though clearly unwilling to risk firemen's lives in the 
line of fire, it seems they might have done so had there been sufficient 
equipment and water to make a difference.

They even aired a tape of a woman who called Waco 911 from Georgia 
asking if anything was being done. Civic-minded, but probably 
irresponsible; if everyone watching television did that, no local 
calls could get through.

ABC also aired the comments of an independent fire investigator who 
viewed tapes from more than one side of the compound (not just the 
standard "pool shot"), and agreed that the fire a) must have been 
started in at least 3 places, and b) must have had an accelerant 
to spread so fast.

Neither of these is conclusive proof that the Koresh crowd offed 
themselves more than the FBI offed them, but it's a heck of a lot 
stronger proof than some of the "theories" floating around the net.

Score 2 FBI, 0 Branch Davidians. Or is that -89 Branch Davidians?

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54753
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Medical Examiner Says No Evidence for Bullet Wounds EITHER WAY

Apparently needing to clarify his comments from Thursday, Dr. Nizam
Plawaby (spelling?), the Medical Examiner for Tarrant County, Texas,
who has authority in the Waco deaths, stated that since no autopsies
had been performed, there is no evidence for bullet wounds, or 
evidence against bullet wounds.

Janet Reno also stated that she had never been told of bullet wounds
by anyone in the Justice Department.  

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54754
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU (BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT) writes:
>>I doubt if Koresh had let the BATF have a look inside his place as they 
>>intended to do, "orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and
>>a holocaust" would never have come to pass.
>
>Do you know what a "no-knock search with grenades" is?

Once again, Koresh closed the door on an agent with a search warrant,
and the door was then perforated by a rain of bullets from the
inside.

They shot first.


-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54755
From: belansky@rtsg.mot.com (Steve P. Belansky)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

>In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>>
>>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>>themselves to death.

>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>of paranoia?

It is not a matter of dis-belief but a matter of which of their constantly
(and radically) changing stories we are to believe.

Steve B.

>-- 
><><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
><><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54769
From: hagerp@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn) writes:


>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>> Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>> by cult members.

>Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire
>was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away,
>we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's
>claims in this matter.

Indeed.  Larry King had the two attorneys (whose clients are now
dead) of Koresh and another Davidian on his show last night.  Their
discussions with the survivors differ from the FBI account.  The
attorneys say that they were told that the tanks knocked over lanterns
in the compound which started the fires.

Government spokespeople have lied and contradicted each other 
throughout this whole affair.  I'll wait for some better evidence before
I form an opinion.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54770
From: s5uapw@odysseus (Aaron Walker)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5toMp.24o@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
 
> And another survivor claims he heard someone shouting "The fire's  
started!".
> Odd terminology.  That's what one says when you know a fire is planned,  
not 
> when one occurs by accident.
> 

It's also what you say when you're waiting for the end to come in a 
"fiery apocalypse"...just a thought.

Personally, if the fire was set (by either side), I wonder about the
timing.  If Koresh & Co. set the fires, why wait through six hours of
wall-bashing and tear-gassing before starting; was there anything "new"
that happened just around that point?  Similarly, if the FBI were going
to torch the place (and fake it, of course), why wait so long, wouldn't
it be more "reasonable" to believe the BD's would set the fire early
after the assault began?  

The most plausible (to me) explaination is that of an accidental starting
of the fire by the tanks.  Among other things, I say that because I
was listening to the radio when the fire started and the reporter
(watching from a distance, of course) said that it looked like at least
one of the tanks had penetrated farther into the building than previously.
Specifically, he said that one tank apparently was halfway (half of
the tank's lenght) into the building where it previously had only been 
penetrating a few feet.

reserving judgement,
-Aaron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54771
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <C5rrot.MMM@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes:
>>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>>In article <1993Apr19.184303.6205@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>>>>
>>>  [...]
>>>> 5) Point out that even if the fire was set by someone inside of the
>>>>    building, it came as a direct result of the actions of the FBI/BATF.
>>>>    And the people inside (including 17 children) deserved a trial, instead
>>>>    of this.
>>>
>>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv 
>>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their 
>>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>>
>>Correction: The FBI says that the Davidians set fire to their buildings.

>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their 
>hands up while national tv cameras watch.

Well the attorneys of the Davidians reported on Larry King that
the tanks had actually damaged the structure to the extent that
effectuating egress from the building was difficult at best.
With a rapidly spreading fire and large amounts of smoke and
tear gas, finding the right exits, or acceptible holes in the walls
were nearly impossible.  I find this explanation to be completely 
plausible.  Doesn't mean that it's true, but I don't find it
intrinsically less believable than the government stories.

>>The FBI also said that the Davidians had a methanphetamine lab in their
>>basement and that the Davidians had .50 cal machine guns.
>>
>>Do you believe everything the FBI says? 

>Do you disbelieve everything the FBI says?
>I balance my gut reaction to question authority together with the 
>independent facts as I see them on video.  I usually adopt the 
>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally 
>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely 
>scenarios.

I concur.

>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair.
>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is 
>ludicrous.

Indeed.  According to the lawyers, the Davidian survivors say that
lanterns were knocked over during the "probing" and that's how
the fire started.  A tragic accident, if true.

>>Do you trust that snivelling little
>>piece of sh*t special agent Ricks? He seems to think he is a comedian, and
>>the media who laugh at his sick jokes are just as guilty as he, IMHO.
>>
>>>Up until now the BATF had been making me sick.  Today the people inside 
>>>the compound who set the fire made me sick.  Keeping the children inside 
>>>the compund when they should have been released earlier with the other 
>>>people weeks ago is absolutely inexcuseable.  Not releasing them before 
>>>deciding to set the place afire is the work of madmen.
>>>
>>>Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set 
>>>by cult members.
>>
>>Correction: The FBI says that two of the nine said the fire was deliberately
>>set by the sect members.

>If the fire were set by accident or by people outside the compound, I would 
>have expected far more cult members to flee the compound.  Or at least come 
>out shooting.

See above.  This one is going to be thoroughly investigated.  Maybe
we'll eventually get some idea of what happened.  My view is that,
from beginning to end, this operation was a botch and that it is
completely possible that nut cases who were otherwise law-abiding
citizens were victims of a bureaucratic execution.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54772
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>> Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people
>> leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the
>> press first?
>
>Oh, you mean something like moving the press back to a single
>location, 2 miles away from the "compound"?  The press was allowing

That doesn't count as getting rid of the press.  Getting rid of the press
would mean getting them far enough away so that they wouldn't be able to
see what is going on.

--Tim Smith

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54781
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes:
>wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the
>systemic effects of cumulative individual actions.  If you want fire
>insurance on your house that's prudent and it has no effect on me; but
>if you and a bunch of other paranoids are packing handguns in the
>backcountry it makes me, and anyone else who doesn't chose to protect
>himself in this manner, pretty f**king nervous. 

Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.

>I mean, take this to its logical conclusion, suppose we all carried
>handguns all the time, for protection from all the other people
>carrying handguns. Would we collectively be, or feel, safer? Hell no.
>We'd feel a lot more insecure.

Why?  I note that the available psych info says that feelings of
security INCREASE.  The victimization stats say that that increase
is rational.

>Another systemic effect of all the "good" people protecting themselves
>is that the "bad" people are going to modify their behavior in
>response:

Yes, they are, but how?

>they're going to be much itchier and much more willing to
>kill people in the course of routine muggings if they think their

Nope - that doesn't happen.  Instead the switch (among those who
change behaviors) to property crimes.  That's an improvement even if
the economic take is unchanged.  Sure - not everyone switches, but
they were killing before.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54782
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Backcountry Confidence

In article <C5L02E.8GH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>	The rest of us fall in the middle.  There IS too much violent
>crime in the U.S., but turning the whole country into an old-time
>Dodge City (ref. to American Old West) is not the way.

That's an interesting statement.  There's quite a difference between
Hollywood's "Old West" and the real one.  Yes, there were drunks,
saloons, mining camps, and thugs.  However, as McGrath showed, the
thugs preyed almost exclusively on one another.  McGrath claims that
this was due to the fact that no one much cared if someone who
insisted on getting into a fight got his way, even if he lost, while
they really did care when thugs preyed on others.

>citizens should be able to own weapons, but we see no sense in some
>types.

We haven't figured out that those distinctions don't actually work.
Machine guns have been strictly regulated since 1934.  Said regulation
is both perfect (legally owned machine guns aren't ever used
criminally) and a complete waste of time (the criminal use of machine
guns hasn't change at all).  The result - we're now arguing about
guns that LOOK like machine guns, but are no different than other
guns.

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54815
From: jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman)
Subject: Re: Dillon puts foot in mouth, film at 11


I have also heard about HCI claiming thant anyone they  get an address
from is a member.  If this is the case their membership rolls are
grossly inflated and we should not call them and give them a name
and address to add to their already false rolls.  Perhaps
if you could get a copy of their existing membership, then pretend to
be an existing member, do that several thousand times, you could
hurt HCI.  But names are power.  Remeber the NRA uses the fact
that it has 3 million paid members in order to flex its muscles.

Perhaps politicians don't realize the lying tactics of HCI, wait a
minute, HCI learned it from politicians....

Later,
Josh



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54816
From: clochmul@nrambr.chem.duke.edu (C. H. Lochmuller)
Subject: Re: Dillon puts foot in mouth...

# So the Blue PRess suggests that we bankrupt HCI by requesting information
# and the concern by list members is that HCI will claim everyone that calls
# as a new member.  I think they will. I also think they will claim a new
# MANDATE to ban all firearms from the solar system wheter we call and ask for
# information or not!
# 
# On the other hand, with due respect to the Editor of the Blue PRess, just
# becaue Mike makes damned good presses, dies, powder scales, and got tired of
# Lee's atacks DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY DILLON FAN FOLLOWS WHAT MIKE CALLS FOR
# LIKE HE WAS KARESH AND WE WERE TRANSDILLIDIANS! 
# 
# Our local State Assemblyman has called for a complete ban on all non-bolt
# action military rifles and all assault weapons, a 7 day wait for purchase
# permits { it currently takes 10 to 14 working days here in NC } and one
# permit/year. The flood of calls he got was 7 for and 3 against. Guess who
# called supporting his move? Guess what ILA is doing? Right?
# 
# CHL
# 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54817
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Dillon puts foot in mouth, film at 11

In article <199304160443.AA25231@sun.Panix.Com> justice@Panix.Com (Michael Justice) writes:
}Dillon has published a letter in the Blue Press telling people
}"How to Bankrupt HCI" by requesting information from them.
}
}Last time this idea went around in rec.guns, a couple of people
}said that HCI counts all information requestors as "members".
}
}Can anyone confirm or deny this?
}
}If true, what's the impact of HCI getting a few thousand new
}members?

Last I heard, HCI had something like 250K members to the NRA's 3 million.
If true, and they want to play duelling mandates, well ...

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                      Laws define crime.
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483       Police enforce laws.
Santa Monica, CA  90405                            Citizens prevent crime.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54818
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: JFFO has gone a bit too far

rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:


>|>Would somebody please post evidence that the gun control act of
>|>1968 is "a verbatim transcription" of a nazi law?

>|The "evidence" is that the two laws are basically identical.
>|However, that's not evidence that one is a copy of the other.

>|There's no evidence that the 68 GCA's authors used the nazi law as a
>|guide.  Yes, they ended up with roughly the same thing, but that comes
>|from their shared goal, disarming those menacing minorities.

>I thought the same thing too, until JPFO's RKBA article 
>in the latest Guns & Ammo
>at the newstands. This article makes it certain that Sen. Thomas Dodd
>(D-MD?) back before 1968 definitely asked for a translation of the 
>German weapons laws back then. Read the article, and see what you think
>of JPFO's argument. They note that Ted Kennedy and John Dingell are
>among the three of the originals left from the 1968 stuff, and they
>are asking that folks request of John Dingell that he introduce 
>legislation to lift GCA '68, something which I would support whole-
>heartedly!

>|-andy

Can someone post a general idea of what GCA '68 does?
Thanks.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54819
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)

brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:

>You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make 
>sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.

>Say U.S.C. 922 :

>(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
>any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

> Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person" 
>might also be an artificial entity that is created by government 
>and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I 
>don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on 
>an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
>me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law 
>does not make it LAW. Everyone knows that laws are constitional
>until it goes to court. So, has it ever gone to court, not
>just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"

>Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
>by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?



>-- 
>Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
>Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'    	 
>Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
>brians@atlastele.com           U

I'm not a lawyer but to the best of my understanding, the Congress has no
more rights than what is enumerated in the constitution.  That is the 
prime reason why the National Firearms Act is based on collecting revenue.
Since the Congress has the authority to levy taxes, the NFA is a tax act and
the registration requirement within it is to assist in that tax collection.
U.S.C 922, in order to be constitutional, must have a basis on a particular
authority granted to the Congress by the Constitution.  Congress can not
arbitrarily ban a substance or product.  That is why prohibition came into
effect, only by passing an ammendment.   What you said about constitutionality
of law needs to be clarified.  I believe that an unconstitutional law was 
never constitutional.  When a law is determined by the Supreme Court, to be
unconstitutional, that law was never really a law.  The very nature of the law
being unconstitutional invalidates the law at it's inception.  Please correct
me if I'm wrong, but when a law is deemed to be unconstitutional, anyone
convicted of breaking that law is absolved.
   I don't believe U.S.C 922 has ever been challenged in court.  NFA has been
invalidated in two Federal District Court cases( one may have been appellate
level{ U.S. vs Rock Island Armory  and U.S. vs Dalton}).


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54820
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>Perhaps you consider that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust 
>since the allies could have done more to stop him?

Attention please!

According to the rules of usenet flame wars, once a discussion degenerates
to the point where Hitler is mentioned, that flame war may be declared
ended.  I would like to take this opportunity to do that now.  Clearly
further discussion is not useful with the current set of facts, and the
current name calling and invocation of Hitler's name is not productive even
by the standards of usenet talk groups.

If you must continue, please don't discuss this in misc.legal.  It's not
about the law.  If you would like to discuss the law as it applies to the
Waco incident, please ask questions of the form: "if the FBI started the
fire accidentally, who would be legally responsible for the deaths".

Note that followups are set not to include misc.legal.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54821
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Has the Pronpane Tank Been Found?

Much of the dispute about the origin of the fire that destroyed the
BD compound could be settled by examining the propane tank supposedly
crushed by one of the army tanks when they breached the walls of the
compound. If the the propane tank is flattened and has tread marks on it,
then the BD's version of the cause of the fire would seem to be
verified.

-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54822
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1993Apr23.162517.14029@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:

>That's another sad thing.  I'd expect this sort of shit from the BATF.
>But I'm goddamn disappointed in the FBI.  They used to be professionals.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the history of the FBI. You might
try looking up articles from the 70's on the FBI's Cointelpro
operation for starters.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54823
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Waco Questions

16. What is the condition of the propane tank mentioned by the BD
survivors? I.e. is it crushed and does it have tread marks on it?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54824
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: What if the Dividians were black?

In article <C5yEAB.HAC@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)  
writes:
> In article <1993Apr9.134525.21567@medtron.medtronic.com>  
rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls) writes:
> >Kenneth D. Whitehead (kdw@icd.ab.com) wrote:
> >: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
> >
> >: > Questions for the media and the politically correct:
> >: > 
>   [...]
> >: > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits
> 
> Some of the Davidians *are* black.
> 
> Next question?
> 

Still thinking you have all the answers, eh?

> 
> -- 
> 

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54825
From: ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

Lord, I hope you don't Hoover was a pro! He was monstrous.

Dan

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54826
From: dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer)
Subject: Re: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

Rick Bressler (bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com) wrote:
<forgot to leave in his quote source>
: >What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
: >had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
: >compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
The BATF is a part of the dept. of treasury, not justice.  If they needed
to assault a place they could just do like the IRS does...call in the
federal marshalls service, their fugitive collection teams do similar type
assaults all the time.  And they are very, very good about it, in both the
tactical and legal parts of it.  But I suspect that the marshalls would
not have touched it, because the search warrant (which is still sealed I
believe) was so bogus.  

Besides the BATF also could have gotton SWAT teams from: federal marshalls
service; FBI; secret service; national park service; texas rangers; nearby
large city police forces; the military.  But they had to use their own
guys, nobody elses SWAT team was good enough for the holy cause of gun
control.   

	I also find the timing of the raid to be extremely interesting. 
Initial raid: two days before the NJ senate was going to overturn their
"assault weapon" confiscation law; a couple weeks before the BATF's budget
was going to come up in congress for review;  shortly after Reno got
confirmed as AG (I don't need to remind you about her anti-gun line);
right around the presidents 100th day in office.   As a wise man once
said: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy
action.    I don't believe that these four things are conincidental.  Do
you?  


food for thought...

--Dale Farmer


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54827
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull) writes:

>Mr. Nice Guy (rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start
>: violence.
>:  
>: When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back.
>: But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for
>: their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It
>: is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical
>: attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.

>  This is the first I've heard of the BD capturing and releasing ATF agents.
>Is there any more info about this?

>Rob P.
           
It was filmed the day of the first assault.  The BDs clearly allowed the
BATF agents who were shot and wounded to leave the compound.  The
lesson, I suppose is that you should keep shooting untill ALL the pigs
are dead and then get the fuck outa dodge. Never give a pig an even
break.  

Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   FUCK THE POLICE!!!!



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54828
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:

>Then post what the press has said, not what you wished they said.
>The Medical Examiner has refuted the FBI "facts" and if you don't
>believe someone who has a LOT more reason to be impartial then 
>what do you have to say for yourself.

In the interest of accuracy (seems a liitle late to start
that, I know) the medical examiner has *not* contradicted
the FBI.

The FBI said they found some folks who had been shot in
the head, and the medical examiner said "we have not seen
evidence of this".

At the time the medical examiner said that, they were dealing
with charred bodies in the compound - this sounds like
typical medical examiner not releasing details until
a thorough investigation.  The medical examiner saying
he hasn't seen something is *not* the same thing as saying
that it isn't there.

While it might end up being true that the FBI had spoken
falsely, it isn't clear yet that they have.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54829
From: allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !


jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:

   Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.  It would not
   be economic to smuggle them in.  All production would have to be
   local.  There are not all that many people who have both the skill
   AND motivation to assemble worthwhile firearms from scratch.
   High-ranking crime figures could obtain imported Uzis and such, but
   the average person, and average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun
   - and would pay through the nose for it.

Good point you make.  However, a zip gun, by definition, is a crude,
homemade gun--certainly not something capable of sustained, accurate
fire, but it would be useful as a means of getting a normal gun.  Recall
the tiny, single-shot pistols made by the Allies during World War II for
use by partisans.  They were essentially well-made zipguns, incapable of
effective fire beyond a few feet.  But they were useful as a means of
killing German soldiers for their guns.

Also note that the crowd-pleasin' favorite, the Sten gun, was
specifically designed to require as little machine work as possible.
The point's been made here that one could make a Sten clone with steel
tubing, hand tools and a welder.

I still think that while the point is good, I think there's a difference
between marijuana and firearms, in that quality marijuana can be grown
locally; there's no need to import the stuff.  If guns are banned, I
think the demand for "real" guns will be sufficient to make smuggling
economically feasible, thus rendering a ban moot.  In any case, the
result would be the same--people who aren't criminals won't have
firearms, and "bad guys" will continue to have access to them, one way
or another.  And I don't see that as a necessary situation.
-- 
Allan J. Heim   allanh@sco.COM   ...!uunet!sco!allanh   +1 408 427 7813

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54830
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

In article <C5L480.K7u@elite.intel.com> dgw@elite.intel.com (Dennis Willson)  
writes:
[..]
> 
> On February 28, 1993, the special agents attempting to serve the
> Federal search warrant were all dressed in apparel clearly identified
> with the letters "ATF" and a highly visible police-type badge.
> Additionally, the special agents announced who they were and their
> purpose for being at the compound.
> 
> Immediately following this announcement, gunfire erupted from the
> compound, resulting in the deaths of four ATF special agents and the
> wounding of several others.  Through no fault of ATF, the element of
> surprise was lost, which caused the tragedy.  

This statement simply amazes me!  "Through no fault of ATF, the element of  
surprise was lost"!  What element of surprise?  In the paragraph preceding this  
one, he said "... the special agents announced who they were and their purpose  
for being at the compound", which was to serve the federal warrant.  No element  
of surprise was even needed for that.  

No, the element of surprise that they lost was that needed for a preemptive  
first strike, without warning.  

> Inasmuch as the warrants
> remain sealed by a U.S. magistrate, and the investigation remains in an
> active ongoung status, we are prohibited from disclosing any further
> information at this time.
> 

Read: They need to wait until they see how it comes out before they fabricate  
anymore, which could get disproven.

> We hope we have been responsive to your letter.  Please let us know
> whenever we may be of service.
> 
>                           Sincerely yours,
> 
>                           Daniel M. H??l??tt  [can't make out signature]
>                           Deputy Director

As always, no facts, just my opinions/observations.

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54831
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Re: Need info on 43:1 and suicide for refutation

Entropic Destroyer (loki@acca.nmsu.edu) wrote:

: I have seen these numbers quoted before, and I have seen very specific
: refutation of them quoted as well.  If someone will be so kind as to
: email the relevant information, I will write a letter to the editor of
: the Co. Daily (which might get published) and send a copy to USN&WR as
: well.

Thanks to all who responded.  The letter has been written (making liberal
use of info provided by various net.folks) and handed to the paper.  I'll
post if it gets into the paper!

--Dan

--
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.1

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54832
From: guy@idacom.hp.com (Guy M. Trotter)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks


Hi,

In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a
small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is
that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the
National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances
of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions.

I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer
to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with
nature on it's own terms.

Guy

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54833
From: thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

In article <1993Apr23.181301.8500@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>Flash over is a frequent occurrence with indoor fires.  A fire will
>start small and in one location and heat the air.  The temperature in
>the room builds up and then everything inflammable in the room catches
>fire at once.
> 
>This may have occurred in the BD compound, I have heard reports that
>the windows were covered which would permit a fire to start unnoticed
>by those outside the compound.  When the fire got big enough, and
>broke through the walls, it appeared to be started in two places but
>was really one big fire.

The Houston Chronicle last Thursday (maybe Wednesday) said that
the interior of walls had been covered with hay bales to help
protect against bullets.  Many of you know how fast dry hay
burns.

>Because of the large quantities of tear gas inserted into the building
>it is possible that many of the women and children were in a room free
>of tear gas they would try to seal the door to keep out the tear gas.
>When they learned that a fire had broken out it was too late for them
>to escape.  They were trapped by the flames in their safe room.

In addition, the gas is specifically designed to force eyes
closed and the victim to vomit.  How fast could you leave your
burning office or home if your eyes were closed and you were
retching violently?

>I find it hard to believe that the FBI was not recording the final
>assault.  I think that they would have wanted to have tapes to show
>their agents of the the FBI overcoming the "forces of evil", aka
>the Branch Davidians.  The tapes would also allow the FBI to prove
>that they were not using excessive force.


-- 

thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
Candidate for MISD (Magnolia, Texas) School Board Seat 5, May 1, 1993

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54834
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Quotes requested

I need quotes from Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, or any of the other founders,
that support the idea that the Second Amendment was written into the
Constitution so that the populace could protect itself it the government
began to degenerate into tyrrany. If you have any (with sources), please
mail them to me. Thanks.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Finger for PGP 2.2 key   | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54835
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BATF initiating violence sources?

In article <1r49aj$98c@hpchase.rose.hp.com> k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:

>I've long since lost any newspaper or magazine article that mentions how
>the BATF said they tossed a grenade instead of knocked on the door to
>serve the search warrant on the BD compound.  Does anyone have any
>references?  I'm just looking for periodicals/newspapers and dates.  A
>copy of the article is not needed, but I wouldn't mind seeing it.
>Posting here or e-mail is fine.

       The Associated Press had an article on Monday March 1, I believe,
which quoted witnesses as describing BATF agents throwing grenades prior
to any gunfire on the part of the Davidians.

       It was among the first of a crop of different, mutually exclusive
descriptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54836
From: cknox@sedona.intel.com (Christopher W. Knox~)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)


Has anyone considered how to prosecute a city holding a "no
questions asked" buy-back for receiving stolen property?
-- 
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54837
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

>>We all know what a quisling is, right?
>Obviously we don't.....
>Vidkun Quisling is known to be a traitor in Norway, not a 'censor'.
>If I have betrayed my country (Norway) bescause I implied that som of 
>you jumped to conclusions/sound a little paranoid then I think there
>is a LOT of quislings in Norway.......

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.  I was NOT accusing YOU of being
a quisling.  The quislings are in our own U.S. government, throwing
away the people's right to keep and bear arms -- at least, that's
where the ones that I INTENDED to refer to are.  I figured that people
on this newsgroup would interpret that as intended, but obviously
something of my intent got lost.
	-Steve

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54838
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

In article <1993Apr21.223541.2353@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have
>become that way because WE have desired them to be so. We get to
>vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. 
	I keep hearing people say this.  It assumes that we, at some point,
	had a choice at the ballot box: "Vote yes or no I want the FBI
	and BATF to become latter-day Gestapos".  That just isn't so.
	The process is far more complex.  We do not have direct control over
	the bureaucracy.  When we evaluate our representatives we don't often
	know what their contribution is to the wayward direction of the
	federal law enforcement bureacracy.  To assert that we got what
	we wanted is absurd.  

>Waco was an encapsulation of the All-American experience - religious
>fanaticism, militaristic thinking and overwhelming violence. Don't
>blame it on 'them', the FBI and BATF. They were just acting within
>the parameters we have set over the years. We made 'them'. We ARE 'them'.
	Oh, good I feel much better now. ;-)  

	By the way do you have a plan for getting us out of this mess we
	are in?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54839
From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr23.194834.24072@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes...
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't 
>>	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?

>From what I saw of the videotape, there was an explosion which looked
>more like one due to propane rather than (official version)
>ammunition.

	I would agree that a propane explosion is as likely as an
	ammunition/explosives blast. My question was directed to the
	person who claimed that the propane tank was likely ruptured
	by the tank before, or just as, the fire started. If that were 
	true, shouldn't the explosion have happened very soon after 
	the fires started?	


>>	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know
>>	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until
>>	the hard evidence is released. What about you?

>If only we could be certain that the hard evidence will be released.

	The FBI has made such a fuss over the videotapes and other
	evidence that they have to release something sooner or
	later. It's going to happen, and we'll get to see for
	ourselves.

	Often law enforcement agencies will withold evidence from
	public view until the investigation is over.  

                  _____  _____
                  \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
    \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
                \_ / /__________/
                 \/____/\\\\\\
 			 \\\\\\
			  ------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54840
Subject: New Hampshire and Maine non-resident carry permit application
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)


for those who live near or plan to vacation in New Hampshire
and Maine, I am posting the basic info of how to
apply for a LTC (CCW) in those states for non-residents.

post will be in rec.guns
-J. Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54841
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: AP rifles?

I just read a clari article about how, among the other weapons
the BD had purched, they had two "Barrett 50-caliber armor-piercing
rifles."  How the hell do you use an armor-piercing rifle?  Run
up to a tank and try to stab it?

Once again, ignorance prevails amongst the media . . .

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54842
From: tip@lead.tmc.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Subject: Slick Rushie tries to have it both ways, again


Today Rush was criticizing Clinton for not claiming responsibility for the
actions and decisions of Janet Reno and the  FBI  early enough to suit
Rush.

About 2 months ago Rush was chortling over the fact that Reagan has stumped
"special persecutor Walsh" with his croaking of "I don't remember" when
asked about Ollie North.

If Rush's criticism of Clinton were to be applied to Reagan and North... 
Reagan would have been impeached while North was convicted (and overturned on
a technicality).

Gosh, Rush sure wants to have it both ways... Clinton MUST be held 
responsible, but Reagan was clever by using the "amnesia defense".

Maybe that's waht Clinton should say about campaign promises and such
"Well, there you go again Rush...  but to tell the truth, I wasn't in the
loop and I just don't remember."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54843
Subject: Waco headlines and editorial in Boston Globe
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)


Boston Globe, Wednesday April 21 1993

col. 4  "Bodies found in ruins as FBI defends raid on cult ranch"
col. 5 "Clinton blames Koresh, orders probe of siege"
col. 2 "The children: panws in a horrifying game"

pg. 18, col. 1, Editorial page  
	"Judgment at Waco"

	Now the scientific and political scrutiny of the
horror show in Waco begins, though nothing can
undo the tragedy that might have been prevented 
there.
	Forensic experts will study the rubble and
ashes of the Branch Davidian compound, where at
least 85 people, including 24 children, perished in
smoke and fire caused by theapocalyptic visions of
a manipulative madman AND A STUNNING LAPSE IN
JUDGMENT BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
   [emphasis added by me]
	Investigators will re-create conditions at the
compound and identify accelerants and other fac-
tors fueling the inferno.  That is their strong suit.
	But the public must question why agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation lacked the oper-
ational skill and teh behavioral insight to resolve
the 51-day standoff free of flames and fury.
	The loss of life most clearly reflects the demen-
tia of cult leader David Koresh, whose personal
delusiosn are now seared on the public conscious-
ness.  His assembly of Davidians had stockpiles of
arms--and had used them.  LIttle in the way of
rationality could be expected from Koresh, a self-
confsesed "sinner without equal."
	What continues to mystify are th eactions of
federal agents, who bungled the case from the
start.  The misadventure began on Feb. 28 when
100 agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, To-
bacco and Firearms storemd the compound, intent
on seizing Koresh and a cache of automatic weap-
ons.  Four agents and an estimated  six cult mem-
bers died inteh ensuing gun battle.  Earlier
oppor-tunities to isolate and arrest Koresh outside the
complex had not been adequately explored.
	Authorities prepared a siege and resolved that
those deaths would be the last.  Fifty-one days into 
the siege there was no public outcry to storm the
compound.
	It had been correctly perceived that the chil-
dren inside "Rancho Apocalypse" were essentially 
hostages.  With their lives at stake, there was no
reason for the government to be impatient.  The
government's superior firepower, control of water
and utilities and freedom of movement created the
conditions for a belated but bloodless resolution.
	Neither Attorney General Janet Reno nor the
FBI has provided a sigle compelling reason for
abandondoning the course of patience.
	If intelligence was accurate and Koresh was
growing increasingly violent and bizarre, it is diffi-
cult to see how a tear-gas attack launched by an
M-60 combat vehicle would clear his mind.  If re-
ports of escalating child abuse were accurate, they
would have to be weighted against the potential for
eve ngreated hamr.


etc etc tec....
[paragraphs, 2.5 paragraphs deleted]

But some of the responsibility rests with Clinton,
and inexperienced president who did not pay
enough attention to the life-and -death decisions
being made on WAco.
	If Reno is to be faulted for anything, ti would
be for her overreliance on the judgment of law en-
forcement officers--a common problem among
prosecutors.
	Full investigations into th eWaco tragedy must
be conducted by both the executive and legislative
branches.  The first step is to verify how the blaze 
started.  Though apportioning blame will play a 
role, it is of greater importnace to find strategies
to elude the fire next time.

[end of editorial]
-J. Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54845
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
>>burning building?
>
>Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about
>by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good)
>perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the
>fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and
>rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses)
>overcame and enveloped them?

>In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?

Wait a minute.  The story being pushed here is that the fire started
in ONE PLACE.  This is not consistent with the story that they were
TRAPPED by the fire (particularly in a building that all of a sudden
had many more exits).

Choose one, please.

>Does that sound plausable?  Not as dramatic as Korash forcing them to
>stay, or shooting them (no shot victims found yet), but plausable...

Well, for everyone besides Koresh and his blood children, we can 
assume independent choice: Ah, they chose to stay in the face of
an assault which clearly endangered their lives.  Or, alternatively,
they were not permitted to leave.  Choose one.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54846
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Waco "Inside Story" (AP) (Was Re: ATF BURNS....)

fbrown@seaway.ssd.kodak.com (Frank Brown 726-0415) writes:
>This is the AP story from Fri morning.
>
>As the walls came tumbling down and tear gas filled the air, cult leader
>David Koresh sprang into action. He left his third-floor bedroom and began
>looking around the house, making sure women and children were secure and 
>checking that everyone had their gas masks on properly. Within hours, the    
>compound became an inferno. Nine Branch Davidians excaped.
>   This is their story, gleaned from lawyers who spoke with six of them
>who are jailed on charges that include conspiracy and murder. That day the 
>six said a portable radio offered the only contact with the outside world    
>since Koresh's right-hand man, Steve Schneider, ripped out the compounds's 
>phone line after FBI agents called before dawn Monday saying this was the
>cults last chance: Come out or prepare to get forced out.

Aw, gee, and whose fault is THAT?

>    They kept their word. By dawn, tanks were battering the Mount Carmel
>compound, punching for hours to creat holes for tear gas to enter. The BD
>meanwhile proceeded with their daily routines. Strapped into gas masks, the
>women did laundry. Others read Bibles in their rooms. The 17 children, all
>under 10, remained by their mothers' sides. Still, it was hard to ignore 
>what was happening around them. Each time a tank rammed the 
>poorly-constructed building it shook violently. Cult members dodges 
>falling gypsum wallboard and doors.

Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.

>Hundreds of gas canisters hurled in from the armored vehicles were filling
>the air with noxious fumes. The flying canisters were more frightening than
>the tanks. At least one man was hit in the face.

Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.

 The gas began filling the air,
>driven by heavy gusts of wind coming through windows and the holes the tanks
>made. 

It couldn't have gotten too heavy with all that wind blowing through.

Scattered throughout the house, the cult members made no efforts to
>gather. Then the FBI sent in its biggest weapon -- a massive armored vehicle
>headed for a chamber, lined with cinder blocks, where authorities hoped to 
>find Koresh and Schneider and fire tear gas directly at them.
>  Here the cult members' story diverges from the government's version. The
>FBI says cult members set fires in three places. But each of the six cult
>members, in separate discussions with lawyers, consistently gave versions
>at odds with the FBI's account. They say the tank flattened a barrel of 
>propane, spilling its contents. And as the tank thundered through the house,
>it tipped over lit lanterns, spitting flames that ignited the propane and
>other flammables. The home of used lumber, plywood, and wallboard tacked 
>together with tar paper was vulnerable. The building erupted. Nine BD's
>escaped jumping through windows and dashing through other openings. Others
>died groping in the blackness.

Sad, but they COULD HAVE COME OUT.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54847
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Take the WACO QUIZ!  Impress your friends!  Win valuable cash prizes!

The Waco Quiz

What would you do in the following hypothetical situations?

You have committed no crime.  The BATF conducts a "no-knock" raid.
a) Hands in air. Say "Do you have a warrant?" Think of hefty suit settlement.
b) Say "You have 1 second to identify yourself as a cop or I shoot."
c) Shoot.  Heck, at least in federal prison you might get to have sex.

You have killed federal agents. They blast strange music at you.
a) Come out with hands up. "I wish to turn state's evidence." Hope deal's good.
b) Wait, figuring other federal agents will get bored and go on vacation.
c) Wait. If they come after you there will be a chance to kill MORE g-men.

The FBI has you surrounded, asks you to come out immediately.
a) Come out, figuring long prison term is chance to catch up on some writing.
b) Stall. You just can't concentrate when you're on trial for some reason.
c) Decide to write novel-length prophecy now while ideas are fresh in mind.

FBI calls and says they will use tear gas if you don't come out.
a) Come out with hands up. Your radical bro-in-law hated getting gassed at UC.
b) Get out your gas mask. Really, these feds will have to give up eventually.
c) Shoot at vehicles delivering tear gas. It's rude to break down a man's door!

FBI calls and says they will use tanks to break down your walls.
a) Come out with your hands up. Flimsy cardboard construction won't last long.
b) With presence of mind, move flammable devices away from tinder-dry haybales.
c) Spread some kerosene around and hit a match. Big Schwarzenegger ending.

Points are awarded in the following manner: 0 points for every (a) answer,
-1 points for every (b) answer, and -2 points for every (c) answer.
Count 'em up and compare with your friends!

If you answered (a) all the time, you are probably in jail, but alive.
If you answered (b) all the time, you may still be holed up in your compound.
If you answered (c) all the time, you are probably dead.

(Feel free to copy this and distribute to your friends.)

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54848
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Nothing could at this point.  What WOULD have gone a long way toward 
>convincing me would have been media video, particularly from diverse
>sources.  IMHO, if the government didn't have anything to hide, they
>would have allowed cameras near the compound from the beginning.

I agree, I saw no reason they could not have had "close in" pool
cameras manned by volunteers and protected by sandbags or whatever.

[Points made by Dick DeGueran, Koresh's lawyer]
>*	The tanks were NOT pumping CS gas but were ejecting exploding 
>	canisters from the tank booms that penetrated multiple walls
>	before exploding.

Okay, their word against the FBI's at this point.  See ya in court!

>*	The tanks were collapsing interior walls and ceilings putting people
>	at great risk.

Dear, dear. They could have COME OUT.

>*	The construction of the coupound used almost all used materials that
>	were very dry and bails of hay were stacked against the walls as 
>	shields against the government's bullets.

Okay, they were living in a fire hazard. That they built.

>*	Said that previous to the invasion there were no military drills
>	and that the supplies they had on hand were for survival.

No crime, irrelevant either way.

>*	Their gas masks worked so well that many members were having bible
>	study and some were sleeping when the fire was set.

Ah yes, that is exactly what I would do.  Hold Bible study. Take a nap.
Always a wise course of action when you're being gassed.

>*	There was no group instruction of any kind from Koresh or his 
>	aids after the tank invasion (referring to any kind of suicide
>	pact or counter-assault efforts.)

I don't believe there was a "suicide pact".  I believe that Koresh
wanted a fiery conflagration ... which he may not have told his followers.
In fact, this hypothesis is CONFIRMED by the survivors' stories.

>*	Everyone had moved to the center of the compound in order to escape
>	the falling debris from the tank invasion when the fire was set. 

Yes, that's right.  And once the whole compound was demolished, where
did they expect to go?

>*	Women and children who has sought shelter on the second floor from
>	the tanks were trapped by doors jammed by the tanks ramming the 
>	building and distorting the frames.

The building is being RAMMED and they are going UPSTAIRS?  That's almost
as bad as running into a fire.

>*	Hallways ran the length of the buildings that acted as conduits for
>	the fire and trapped almost everyone in place.  His experts have told
>	him that this horizonal chimney effect is what made the fire appear
>	to have started at several places at once.

Hm, an interesting notion.  We'll see.

>*	Koresh was not seen the last hour before the fire and was assumed to
>	be in his 4th floor room with some of his children.

More Bible study, no doubt.  Hey, it's a *priority*.

>*	The texas medical examiner has stated flatly that none of the bodies
>	recovered so far had bullet wounds, directly contradicting the FBI's
>	lies.

Actually, on Friday he stated that there was no evidence either way and
he could not flatly contradict the federal agents' claims.  We'll know
more later.  In any event, it's irrelevant.

>*	The survivors unanimously stated that if the victims could have gotten
>	out they would have, that they were trapped by the tank-destroyed 
>	building and the speed of the fire.

For six hours they were trapped?  The building was not "destroyed" 
immediately.  They COULD HAVE LEFT AT ANY TIME.

>*	The underground bunker cited by the FBI as the place Koresh could have
>	put the children had he not been a cold blooded killer had been blocked
>	by the tanks crashing down debris on top of the access door.

Six hours to move it away.  Or COME OUT.

>*	Dick said that he had sat in Koresh's bedroom talking to him and 
>	had observed that his room was furnished like all the rest and without
>	air condition or other luxuries, directly contradicting the FBI's claim 
>	that he lived in splendor.

Irrelevant, anyway.  PR one way or the other, but no crime or innocence
indicated.

>*	Dick saw bullet holes in Koresh's room made from the outside-in
>	which indicates the BATF was indiscriminately shooting down through
>	the roof.  

No word on whether they were being fired back at, which is an operative
question here.

>*  The fire was probably started by the tanks knocking over Coleman Lanterns 
>	that were lit and sitting on a piano next to the wall the tanks busted 
>	through, though none of the survivors saw the fire start.

Right.  For six hours you know that a tank could come thru the wall at 
any point, and you leave a COLEMAN LANTERN BURNING.  Near BALES OF HAY.

>*	Every one of the survivors strongly denies ever saying anything to the 
>	FBI about starting the fire, hearing someone say the fire was lit
>	or any of the other stuff attributed to them by the FBI.

It's ultimately irrelevant who "lit" the fire.  They had ample opportunity
to LEAVE.

>*	He said when he first met Koresh in the compound he expected to find 
>	a raving lunatic but instead found a rational, charming and intelligent 
>	young man and was very surprised by that fact.  

Most charismatic leaders are extremely intelligent, actually.  They tend
to be excellent actors and skilled manipulators.  (Ex.: Ted Bundy.)

>*	Koresh had no drugs stronger than aspirin to use against pain.

Medical assistance was jsut a phone call away.  Gee, all he had to do
was COME OUT.

>*	Women with children had their own bedrooms for them and their kids
>	that were appointed as nicely as Koresh's.

Not relevant to any crimes.

>*	Dick said he saw signs of home schooling for the kids and at no time 
>	did he ever see any signs of abuse.

While he was there.  Anyway, outsiders RARELY see abuse.  It's a secretive
thing.  All we have to go on are the court documents in the Jewell case
and the mistrial in California.

>*	No one was ever held against their wills and could have left at any
>	time.  The people who were murdered in the fire were there by their
>	own choices.

EXACTLY.  By their OWN CHOICE.

>*	He called for an independent prosecutor.  If ever there were a need
>	for one, this is it.

Looks like there will be several investigations, starting with Congressional
committee hearings next week....

>His closing comments were "They don't look upon themselves as a cult.
>They view themselves as highly religious people.  They sincerely believe
>what they believe.  And who am you or I to judge that as wrong?"
>
>His last sentence says it all.  Who the hell ARE we (or the government)
>to judge their religion as wrong.  This event, I hope, will be recorded
>in history as the American Holocaust.  These people were murdered 
>by the US government just as surely as the jews were by the Nazis.
>I hang my head in shame for what I've allowed my government to become.

I have NEVER judged them by their religion, but by their ACTIONS.

If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

Just as we don't blame a cop who shoots a kid who had pointed a toy
weapon at him, I don't think the FBI deserves blame in this case.

-- 
 | The Koresh cult standoff is over ... may his victims Recquiescat in Pace |
 |                                                                          |
 |                    (the above is a net.moment of silence)                |
 Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54849
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption

In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

> Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
> a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
> in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Though David Sternlight pushes the envelope of credibility by claiming that
talk.politics.guns is not the place to discuss guns, or the meaning of the
Second Amendment, it seems he would rather post to millions of people out 
of relative ignorance of the subject than to follow the currently active 
threads discussing EXACTLY this topic which at least explore the fallacies 
of his erroneous claim, and at most explode them.

Basic fact #1, Mr. Sternlight:  The RIGHT described is a "right of the people
to keep and bear arms;" not a "right of the people to form a militia," a
"right of a militia to keep and bear arms," or a "right of well-regulated
people to keep and bear arms."  This should be apparent from a simple
reading of the sentence.

For the other arguments, I suggest you check out the thread, "Some more
about gun control," playing now in an alt.politics.usa.constitution
near you.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54850
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:01:03 GMT, Larry Cipriani (lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com) wrote:
> According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
> gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
> They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
> some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
> media-event brought to you by HCI.

> Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
> to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
> tacky, but hey, whatever works.

How about a gun buy-back/charity?  Get some sponsors to fund the
purchase of used firearms, have a gunsmith check them over, and give
or sell them at a low price to poor persons wishing to own firearms. ;-)
[OK, you guys can work out the details of who is "needy", etc...]

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54852
From: gdnikoli@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will
>not fall again!

     These zealots. Holy fuck.

     Israel. Armenia. Turkey. Greece. Croatia. Serbia. Bosnia. Russia. Germany.
Iran. The Arab World.

     War.


-- 
     "Please allow me to introduce myself.               SYMPATHY 
      I'm a man of wealth and taste.                   FOR THE DEVIL
      I've been around for long, long years.            the Laibach  
      Stolen many a man's soul, and faith."               remixes

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54853
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco

OK... quick scenario... you're at home, not bothering anybody... next thing you
know, somebody comes crashing in the upstairs window and you hear an explosion.
You see that this individual has a submachinegun, and that more similarly armed
individuals are rushing your front door.  Will you a) defend yourself and family
against this attack b) realize "oh, only the BATF would enter like that, so I 
better surrender" or c) roll over and let whoever is attacking your home do
what they would like?  You have chosen a), and discover that the people you 
defended yourself against are federal agents, who now are camped outside your
door waiting for you to surrender.  You have learned that they intend to 
charge you with murder, and are further defaming your name, while claiming that
you can safely surrender at any time.  Then they start using psychological 
warfare techniques against you, while still claiming that you can safely give up
and will receive a fair trial.  Some weeks into this standoff, you are still
holding out, when they begin a new ploy to induce your surrender, namely using
tear gas to annoy you, and ramming your home with tanks.  Yet they claim that
you can safely surrender at any time.  While you patiently wait out this latest
round of attacks, your house catches fire and the bales of hay you were using as
cover spread the fire rapidly through the house, and you try to escape through
the fortifications you had raised for your own defense and the rubble created
by the tanks.  Only 9 of your followers make it.

I am not claiming that the above scenario is accurate.  I am disagreeing with
the notion that it is their own fault for dying because they refused to 
surrender to agents of the Federal government after another federal agency
committed an armed assault of their home on the basis of a flimsily concocted
search warrant.  

Look at how the Texas Rangers view the BATF.  Look at the FBI statements
regarding the BATF actions.  From all apparent sources, the FBI blundered
trying to clean up the mess made by the BATF, resulting in an accidental fire
which killed most of the BD's who were still in the compound, and are now 
playing CYA.  The BATF committed an illegal assault, obtained the use of 
Texas NG resources with fabricated allegations, and compounded their abuses
by accusing the BD's of crimes outside their jurisdiction once they had been
held off in their assault.

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54854
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <C59BIE.4zL@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr8.193321.12753@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|> 
|> >They were driving down a heavily used street in the middle of the day,
|> >when a car with 5 young black males pulled up behind them, and one
|> >of the occupants fired 8 9mm rounds into the rear of their truck. Both
|> >the man and his fiancee pulled their pistols and returned fire, driving
|> >off the attackers. Their child suffered a flesh wound to his arm, and
|> >the parents sustained grazes from the incident.
|> 
|> What a beautiful country you people have built for yourselves.  Enjoy it.
==========================================================================
  Yes, we do have a beautiful country. And I enjoy it.  Most of all, I
  enjoy the thought that I have the means and can exercise my rights
  to defend me and mine. 
 
  And I want to thank all of you good folks, like Prescod, who remind me
  of what I have.  Along this line, I watched a documentary on one of the
  Nazi concentration camps.  Stacks and stacks of bodies.  There were scenes
  of Hitler speechifying, and what struck me, was the reverence and adoration
  on the faces of the people in the crowds.  I guess they were happy that
  Hitler had implemented full gun control and was taking care of the Jewish
  problem all at the same time.

---lee  

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54855
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C603oD.AvC@chinet.chi.il.us>, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> >>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
> >>burning building?
> >
> >Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about
> >by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good)
> >perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the
> >fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and
> >rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses)
> >overcame and enveloped them?
> 
> >In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?
> 
> Wait a minute.  The story being pushed here is that the fire started
> in ONE PLACE.  This is not consistent with the story that they were
> TRAPPED by the fire (particularly in a building that all of a sudden
> had many more exits).
> 
> Choose one, please.
> 

What if.......

What if the FBI thought that tear gas would force the Davidians out;
at least the mothers and the children, so they (the FBI) did not
bother to think about the effect of tear gas on young children......

What if the FBI knew they killed several of the children by using
tear gas......(let`s assume the FBI knew via their listening devices)

What if the FBI saw fire accidently break out at one end of the
building, e.g. by an upset oil lamp.......

What if the FBI thought they could finally force the rest of the
Davidians out AND also destroy the evidence that they (the FBI) had
killed the children by starting a fire at the other end......

What if the FBI miscalculated and not many of the rest of the Davidians
made it out.......?????

Answer:  What happened.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54856
From: diederic@spot.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Diederich)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

In article (Dan Hartung) writes:

  <Endless remarks of how the Davidians could have surrendered deleted.>
 
>If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
>have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
>of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
>IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
>shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

  If they had been quiet there would have been no deaths??  I thought thier
neighbors said that the Davidians never bothered them.  Oh, well, that couldn't
have been your point, then.  

  If they hadn't been stockpiling weapons, then the ATF wouldn't have felt 
threatened and had to move in.  Here's a newsflash:  It isn't illegal to
own more than one firearm.  It isn't even illegal to own *lots* of firearms.
 
  They shot federales?  The feds shot them, too.  

  How about that staying inside thing?  Here's another newsflash:  sometimes
the government does nasty things to you that you don't deserve.  Since
they were so nice to the Davidians the first time round, I can see why
the Davidians didn't surrender so easily, especially because they were
expecting the end of the world.

-- 
Andrew Diederich                    diederic@spot.colorado.edu

These opinions are only mine when they wave that watch infront of my eyes.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54857
From: jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1


In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu>, blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:
> >In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> >>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
> >>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
> >>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
> >>shoot-to-kill directives.
> >
> >You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.
> >
> >-- 
> >                            REMEMBER WACO!
> >     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you?
> >[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]
> 
> Well, it seems we don't learn the lessons of history do we?
> 
> I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.
> 

Hmm... For more recent lesson what about that little square in China?

Another lesson might be the one repeated every year in Tibet...

And of course there's always El Salvador...

And the beat goes on and on...     :^(

MESSAGES FROM GOD:  GET OFF YOUR ASS!  DON'T TRUST THE
GOVERNMENT!  AT ANY TIME!  FOR ANY REASON!  -THE SCREAMING MAN
     
CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!!!  Ministry, TV Song

-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54858
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Raid justification was: Blast them next time

dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer) writes:

>Rick Bressler (bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com) wrote:
><forgot to leave in his quote source>
>: >What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
>: >had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
>: >compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.
>The BATF is a part of the dept. of treasury, not justice.  If they needed
>to assault a place they could just do like the IRS does...call in the
>federal marshalls service,

The IRS doesn't need to rely on the Federal Marshall's Services; the
IRS has its own Swat teams. I saw a picture of one in an article on
the IRS in some magazine or other.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54859
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks


In a previous article,  () says:

>"Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
>arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
>as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.


        Interesting that Janet Reno has publically announced that
        we need steal ourselves for more Wacos.  I wonder if I can
        get the gasoline concession.


>I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
>he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
>supporters helped inflate his ego.


     Yup.  Kill that bastard!

>
>This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound



     Ah, yes.  The ILLEGAL helicopter, searchign for the non-existent
     PCP lab.  I remember it well, even if the media ( and y'all ) tell
     me I don't.  Call me Winston.

>that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
>There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the


      Ahhh, yes.  The "non-existent" canisters.  Call me Winston again.


>stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
>but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
>expected this to happen.

     I did too, but for different reasons.  The FBI has a habit of burning
     up people in fortified areas.


>Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
>coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
>the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
>to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
>to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
>attract some of the more rootless members of our society.


      Yup.  Good.  Dead.  YEAH!   Maybe Janet will do some more, just
      like she's promis, er, WARNED us about.

      Like I told y'all before.  I would SERIOUSLY consider the following:

        Get your passport in order now.
        Consider overseas options for your savings.

 




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54860
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Waco "Inside Story" (AP) (Was Re: ATF BURNS....)


In a previous article, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) says:

>
>Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.


     So could the defenders in the Alamo.  You're clearly missing the
     point here.  Typically, I might add.

     If it were me, I doubt that *I* would have come out.

     BATF show up, start shooting at me, etc.  Then they paint me
     a child-molesting murdering fanatic, call up TANKS, hundreds
     of automatic-armed goons.  Restrict press access to two miles
     away.  

     Come on.  If I can watch pictures of burned women and children
     in Bosnia on CNN, why am I being limited to a two-mile-away
     replay of a fire in Waco?  Huh?  Answer me that.





Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54861
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker bashes tpgers (was Re: Welcome to Police State USA)

In article <C5yypo.EI2@dscomsa.desy.de>
hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
 
>In article <1993Apr22.041542.11054@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>
>|>From article <C5t9IA.6F9@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
>|>Just what the hell do you base that ludicrous claim on?  There are
>|>*plenty* of fine, decent people people who read/post to t.p.g.  If
>|>any of these people are paranoid it is because of people like you.
>
>Hey dude you are making me paranoid! What an argument!!!
 
 
       While I wouldn't be too terribly impressed with anybody who got
to be paranoid based on either Usenet in general or Phill Hallam-Baker's
comments in general, you'd be surprised.
 
       For most people, if you accuse them of something long enough and
loud enough, to enough people, they start to ask why they're bothering
to fight it.
 
       If nothing you do will be considered right, why bother to do right?
It's pretty basic human nature.
 
>|>I'd have a spot of tea with them. :)  You probably gave up on arguing the
>|>case for arms control directly long ago because posters who *know*
>|>what they are talking about (e.g., Frank Crary) disproved all your
>|>arguments for why more gun control is needed.  So, you gave up because
>|>you know they are right and you couldn't refute their answers.
>
>No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people
>are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners.
 
       What an amazing thing.  I didn't realize that over a hundred million
gun owners all posted to tpg.
 
       Even if *all* the posts in talk.politics.guns illustrated what
you say they illustrate, it would still only reflect the written
personas (which is often different from face-to-face) of a very, very
small and select group.
 
       Anybody who seriously generalizes any attitudes or positions on
Usenet to the general population of any country either doesn't care
about accuracy or needs to have a few realities explained to them.
 
>USEnet as a whole
>disproves it of humanity as a whole.
 
        Speaking of which...
 
      Most of the "readership" posts I've seen put the most read
newsgroups at about 160,000 readers, a number I have a feeling is
fairly inflated.  The posters, rare and regular, are themseleves a
very tiny minority of that group.  And the whole of Usenet readers
are themselves a very distorted sample of humanity.
 
       If anything, the only real thing you can get out of the relative
sample of Usenet readers is that we've got too much equipment and too
much time available to us.
 
>We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of
>guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn
>down your house.
 
        Proof that guns don't make you safer is that if you buy one the
government will show up and kill you?
 
        Tell me, if the government took away the voting rights of
everybody who exercised their free speech, would that then be proof
that free speech squelches political activity?
 
        You are equating two things with each other that don't.
 
>See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons
>to support gun control.
 
        Phill, if you really believe that the various posts on
computer nets represents *either* most of the poster's in person
personalities *or* the general public's general opinions, then
I have some serious reservations about your grasp on reality.
 
        But don't expect you really do believe that.  It's simply
a convenient way to make your point, and hopefully make those
people you don't like look bad.
 
>Cuddles 'n kisses
>
>Phill
 
        Have a nice day, Phill.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54863
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: RE: the truth starts to come out

In article <C5uA7r.DAD@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>, pprun@august.it.uswc.uswest.com writes:
> 
> 
> I have just one thing to say about this: WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPERSON!
> The FBI and BATF storm troopers must not be allowed to get away with
> this.  Demand a full investigation of the Waco survivor's story of
> the lantern being knocked over by the tank.  We can't bring anybody
> back from the dead, but we may be able to send a few of them to
> political hell.

I heard over NPR yesterday morning that Arlan Specter, Senator from
Pennsylvania, has already called for a Congressional investigation.
The problem is that Specter was one of the key government attorneys several
years ago who did what he could to coverup facts in the assassinations
of JFK and others.  That is to say, the Chief Fox wants to check out
the hen house.  Writing your representatives is a great idea.  When
you do ask that they keep Specter and his cronies far away from 
any investigation.
> 
> Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and 
> Senate so that we can all write letters?
-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
 Red-neck and proud of it.   |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
                             |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
					Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54864
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"

In article <66767@mimsy.umd.edu>, tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
|> johnston@cyberia.win.net (Robert Johnston) writes:
|> >>
|> >>How 'bout we embed the `card` in the forhead of everyones skull ? 
|> >>Can't lose it without being already dead (ergo, no need for treatment).
|> >>
|> >Close, at birth we implant a smart chip just behind the ear under the skin but
|> >above the skull.  We incase it in a hypo-allergenic high carbon content
|> >glass.  This chip would be reprogrammed as we age with the pertinent
|> >medical, correctional, taxational data.  Behave yourself or we'll 
|> >input it into your permenant record.
|> 
|>      You forgot the part about encasing it in a small shaped charge so that
|> if anyone tries to tamper with it, it explodes and kills you.
|> 
|>      Oh, and the shaped charge can be set off by remote control...but only
|> if you get out of line. Properly patriotic citizens have nothing to fear.

At Algor's insistance, the shaped charge will automatically detonate after
thirty years, a la "Logan's Run," in order to maintain population control.

--
// John Townsend                 Reduce,           Reuse Engineering & Modeling
// Mead Data Central             Reuse,                ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// 9595 Springboro Pike          Recycle...                  johnt@meaddata.com
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            software!                    (513) 865-7250 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54865
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1


In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>shoot-to-kill directives.

And done in SECRET ... :-)

Did anybody notice it is the TREASURY DEPT (The FBI and BATF, in other words)
that Clinton wants to do the investigation?  In other words, investigating
themselves?

He sure didn't seem very enthusiastic about Congress doing the investigation,
I notice:  "... well, they can do what they want..."  (Probably insert
a pout here...)

Does anybody smell the attempt for a WHITEWASH?  Betcha the Justice
Dept investigation will, AT MOST say "Possible Poor Judjement.  Too bad..."

Grrr.

>-- 
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
>
>I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
>to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
>federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.


-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54866
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Civil Rights Violations


I'm putting together a list of the civil rights violations perpetrated against
the Davidians by the FBI/BATF. Here is what I've got so far. Care to add
any or provide more backup info?

First Amendment:
1) FBI/BATF violated Davidians right to free exercise of religion from the 
	start. We now have a de facto precident against any minority religion.
2) FBI/BATF violated BD right to free speach by:
	a> preventing them to speak to media
	b> preventing them from practicing their beliefs
3) FBI/BATF violated the freedom of the press by:
	a> keeping them 2 miles from the Davidians
	b> preventing the media to cover the FBI/BATF actions close-up
	c> censoring media reports
4) FBI/BATF violated the BD's right to peaceable assemble
	a> proven by initial baseless assault

Second Amendment:
1) The BATF went after them because they had too many guns and guns that the
	FBI/BATF didn't approve of. 'Nuff Said.

Fourth Amendment:
1) The right of the BD's to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
   effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" was violated by:
	a> Initial baseless assault

Fifth Amendment:
1) The Davidians were "held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous
   crime" without a "presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury."
2) The Davidians were "deprived of life, liberty, and property without due 
   process of law.

Sixth Amendment:
1) The accused were denied the right to "a speedy and public trial by an
   impartial jury" when the FBI became judge, jury and executioner.
2) The BD's were never informed of the specific "nature anad cause of the
   accusation."

Eighth Amendment:
1) The Davidians suffered cruel and unusual punishment when:
	a> The FBI cut off the water to the ranch
	b> The FBI used Psy-War (loudspeakers broacasting the screams of
	   dying rabbits and Tibetian Chants)
	c> The FBI prevented family members from contacting their family
	   inside the ranch.
	d> The FBI used tear-gas against them (especially the children)
	e> The FBI burned the ranch down.
	f> Thoes who escaped were imprisoned without bail without a hearing.

Anything I miss?

--PV

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54868
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr23.143857.5484@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

	[...deleted...]
> 
> Hear, hear! I'd also like to see the autopsy reports confirm news reports
> that multiple victims were found shot (in the head), and in positions
> inconsistent with fire victims. It is simply too early to draw conclusions
> either way about this nasty incident, but I tend to believe the government
> side.                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^
> -- 

At least you're consistent.  I'm sure the highly propagandized Germans
tended to believe their government's version too in the thirties and
forties as those "different" highly demonized Jewish "cultists" met
their fate.  Always trust your government.

> The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher 
>      (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
>   Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island  
> with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac

-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54869
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1ra073INNcgu@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
> 
> I tend to agree, but I would like a better explanation of why the FBI stopped  
> the firetrucks at the gate.  I saw this in realtime.  It concerns me that the  
> FBI "appeared" to not be too interested in stopping the fire after it started,  
> and actually started flying hueys around the compound, which had to add in some  
> small part to the winds driving the fire.
> 
> Jim
> --
I understand fire trucks had been at the site for several weeks but were
sent home three or four days before the assault.  Can anyone confirm this?

-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54870
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:

> > Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.
> > You sick bastard.

> Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said 
> that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  

Let's go to the videotape.  Here's exactly what you posted:

> > THIS IS MURDER!
> > ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!

> Flame on!!
> Is this guy serious????
> If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media
>    for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts 
>    are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe). 
>    Any ways one of Koresh's DEVOTED followers that DID I REPEAT DID survive this
>    "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine 
>    survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David
> -> was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of 
> -> these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
> -> this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also
>    someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat
>    then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)

So if you weren't saying that the deaths of "bastard children of a sacreligious
zealot" was no big thing (and I know I am not the only one who read it that
way), just what the hell WERE you saying?

> However it was the Branch
> Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior" 
> (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that 
> what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their
> lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
> who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and
> for many of the rest of the U.S. 

So who brainwashed YOU into believing that whatever the government says it
the truth?  Or that Koresh was any actual threat to you and the rest of the 
US?  Haven't you ever stopped to wonder WHY the government raided this farm?
This raid was NOT ABOUT RELIGION, SEX, OR CHILD ABUSE.  To the best available
evidence at the moment, this raid, psychological torture, and group death was 
about Koresh's failure to PAY A $200 TAX on ONE grenade launcher that he may 
or may not even have had!  That's why it was the BATF doing the raiding in the
first place.

Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
torture, and a holocaust?

> I am however sad to hear of the death of any 
> child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.

Then think before you post.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54871
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article <1993Apr21.021301.25113@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from the White House.

>      Number one, that there was a limit to how long the
> federal authorities could maintain with their limited resources the
> quality and intensity of coverage by experts there.  

Lucky they brought the situation to a prompt resolution before they had to 
turn things over to the amateurs.

> They might be needed in other parts of the country.

God help us all.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54872
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr21.045548.17418@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>
>Y'know, when the right to bear arms was "invented", 

It wasn't "invented", but was supposed by the writers of the Constitution
to be a universal, pre-existing right. Howsomever...

>all we had to worry about was the shotgun and pistol. 

Hmmm.  You need to spend some time in a library, son.

When the Bill of Rights was written, in addition to the (muzzleloading)
shotgun and pistol you mention we had:

 - rifles in calibers ranging from around .30 to .69 caliber and up.
 - cannon with various different projectiles to choose from (and owned
   by civilians).
 - breech-loading rifles

In addition, semiautomatic and full-automatic firearms had been patented
and/or demonstrated by several people in various places during the preceding
century or so.

>Now, we have to worry about drive-bys
>with Uzis sparaying the entire neighborhood with bullets.

Sounds good.  Any refererences to this actually happening, or is it
just exaggeration for effect following one or more incidents of someone
firing a handful of shots from something that may or may not be an
Uzi, semi- or full-auto?

>Just because someting was good once, does not mean it will be forever.

Until the root conditions that justified it go away (criminal behavior,
either private or government, which should be defended against), there's
no reason it should go away.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54873
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas
>in 1991 that was caused by guns.....

That includes suicides.  Since it has been shown in other countries that
suicide rates are pretty much independent of the means available for
doing oneself in (studies include some done/published in Japan, Canada,
Austria, Norway), suicides ought not be included in the count.

If this is done, the number of vehicle-related deaths greatly exceeds that
of firearms-related deaths in Texas.

>*I* should not suffer because of others....

Certainly not.

>We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor
>we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').

Why?  Unless it's doing something that directly hurts someone else, what's
the point?  (Otherwise, you'd better stop operating all motor vehicles, since
the price of operating them *greatly* exceeds the cost in lives of firearms.

>One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could
>only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....

WEll, it's been done at least twice.  South (North?) Carolina did it a few
years back...and watched its crime rate relative to the rest of the country
rise quite a bit.

Virginia just passed the law...no word yet on what the results will be, but
I'd be willing ot bet that a reduction in crime rates won't be one of them.

>I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on
>other people.

Self-defense doesn't "inflict" on other people (except perhaps the criminal
who's tried to do you damage, and maybe indirectly on future potential victims
who might not become victims).



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54874
From: chuan@stein.u.washington.edu (Chuan "infamous" Lee)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tKI1.C8s@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes:
>Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have
>done their job well.

Just want to make a comment on this.  If you live in this country long
enough, you should realize the media is no friend of the govt.  I am
only concerned about fact that the media like to jump to conclusion
before the facts.  But I am sure they are good in digging dirt as
well; afterall, they like the controversial events, which of course
make news.

--Chuan.
*=========================================================================*
| Chuan "infamous" Lee                Email: chuan@stein.u.washington.edu |
| U of Washington, Seattle.                                               |
*=========================================================================*

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54875
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Waco aflame





		ABOLISH CULTS!

			START WITH THE F.B.I.


			

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54876
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:

>In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the
>>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type
>>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit
>>shoot-to-kill directives.

>You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.

Only because you are apparently easy to fool.  In other words, your
remark is obviously from someone who wouldn't know the difference.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54877
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: ATF, Not enought to do

The best reason to abolishing the ATF is that they don't have enough
to do.  If the organization were disbanded and its duties assigned to
the FBI (firearms) and IRS (tobacco and alcohol).  Both of these
organizations have enough to do.  The FBI is probably not going to try
to get a criminal charge of illegal machine gun for having a broken
gun.
 
There have been postings stating that law enforcement should be
divided and and weak.  But there is nothing more dangerous to
liberties than a law enforcement agency without enough criminals to
chase.  The ATF is one and look at the trouble it started in
Waco.
 

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO         | "I do not think the United States government
Boulder, CO                 | is responsible for the fact that a bunch of
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu      | fanatics decided to kill themselves"
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16   |        Slick Willie the Compassionate

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54878
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

On 21 Apr 93 05:06:08 GMT, Tim Smith (tzs@stein.u.washington.edu) wrote:
> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> >We have NO evidence that BATF & FBI would not have started shooting
> >when and if people had started coming out of the burning building.

> Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people
> leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the
> press first?

Oh, you mean something like moving the press back to a single
location, 2 miles away from the "compound"?  The press was allowing
into foxholes in Vietnam, but it's "too dangerous" to allow them near
the Branch Davidians?...  There's something skewed about the logic here. 

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54879
From: peten@iat.holonet.net (Pete Norton)
Subject: Re: Feds Caught in Another Lie

-- 
Pete Norton
peten@well.sf.ca.us
peten@holonet.net    
norton@hou.amoco.com          

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54880
From: pmgt1425@altair.selu.edu
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
> From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
> the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
> tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.
> 
> Medical Examiners have found no bullet wounds, as was stated by the
> FBI, on the corpses.
> 
> I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
> the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.  But then
> again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
> his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.
> If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they
> will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the
> Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation.

CNN reported tonight that some bodies were found with bullet holes in their
heads.  However, I have no information on the possible causes.

This is not to say that Government stories are to be taken at the face value in
this case, but to jump to conclusion at this stage may be the source of
embarrassment in the future.  Let's be paranoic, this may be a ploy to smoke
out the opposition and decredit them.  :-)

Comparison of this incidence to Tienanmen Square is made in soc.culture.china. 
Just in case you need more ammunition to shoot at each other.  :-)

No matter which side you are on this Waco issue, are you ready to die defending
your cause?

Peace be with you.

Pete

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54882
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5t14M.Ku2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>	Well, this is still the land of the free for the time being. Individuals
>are supposed be able to do what they please unless it infringes upon the rights
>of someone else. Owning FULLY automatic machine guns is also permitted by
>law if you have a CLASS III FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE and have paid the transfer
>tax. If you are refering to the .50 cal the feds claim the BD to have had, 
>I have used .50 cal for 3000 yard target shooting. It a legitimate and 
>challenging sport. 

I'm getting tired of these wimpy Liberals whining about gun control,
too!  Ya know, the Second Amendment says

	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
	free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
	shall not be infringed.

Now, notice, it says *arms*.  Not guns.  Arms.

The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate
possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just
as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as
any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos.

Support your right to keep and bear short range nuclear weapons.  It's
a legitimate and challenging sport.

And screw the limit.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"My other car is a car, too."
                 - Bumper strip seen on I-805

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54883
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Denver Post yanks 'Assault Ads'


The Denver Post (supposed voice of the supposed Rocky Mountain Empire)
ran the following in the 'Firearms, Supplies' classified heading on 
Friday, 23 April 1993.  If you have an opinion about their new found
wisdom, I am told that the person to speak with is one Mr. Walters,
(303)820-1267.

	Notice

	The Denver Post will no longer 
	knowingly accept any advertise-
	ment to buy or sell assault weap-
	ons.  The Denver Post finds that 
	the use of assault weapons poses
	a threat to the health, safety, and
	security of its readers.

Let 'em know what you think...

--Dan
--
Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54884
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

After seeing William Sessions on television, explaining the great lengths
to which the FBI went to determine the suicidal tendancies of David Koresh, 
I got the very unpleasent feeling that Koresh had manipulated the FBI's 
perceptions much the way he manipulated his own followers.

Maybe I was manipulated by the news story.

David McGaughey
Texas Tech University

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54885
From: gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU (BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r4ef7$408@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
>with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
>torture, and a holocaust?

I doubt if Koresh had let the BATF have a look inside his place as they 
intended to do, "orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and
a holocaust" would never have come to pass.

The BD's killed members of the BATF on the first day. "Orchestrated character
assassination and noise torture" seem like a small retribution.  The use
of tanks is quesionable however.



--Abhijit
-- 
BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5311b
Internet: gt5311b@prism.gatech.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54886
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735383339.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> I'm NOT trying to censor this or any newsgroup, I'm just trying to
> give some hints about OTHER newsgroups.
> Doesn't this belong to alt.conspiracy ??

Drop three billiard balls on a ramp, and they all roll in the same
direction.  Pour some blood into the sea, and sharks will converge
from miles around.  Throw a pebble at one starling, and all 200 will
depart.

Natural processes can mimic the outward results of conspiracy when no
actual conspiracy is required.

Put a government functionary in an embarrassing situation, and he
quickly covers his ass.

This, too, is completely natural.

> About Waco
> It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this.

It looks that way to me, too.  But you have to understand that it's NOT 
the first time they have instigated raids like these.  The most recent
one ALSO ended up in a long standoff, but it wasn't quite as public
as this one, and they didn't kill quite as many people.  Maybe this 
screwup will make them think long and hard about raiding any more 
residences in this manner.  But probably not.

> The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house
> in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)

I assume you're talking about Philadelphia.

> It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???

If you're a fan of conspiracies, the time to make that batch of
popcorn is AFTER the screwup, when it's time for the coverup.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54887
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: news says BATF indictment/warrant unsealed...

In article <1993Apr21.051417.23137@husc3.harvard.edu>, kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:

> Other News:
> Sniper injures 9 outside MCA buildling in L.A.  Man arrested--suspect
> was disgruntled employee of Universal Studios, which
> is a division of M.C.A.

Shooting those .44 cal. blanks, I suspect.  Them movie guys is dangerous.

> QUESTION:
> What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald
> denny trial?

Practice with them, I hope.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54888
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption


For those who didn't figure it out, the below message was a reply to another
in sci.crypt, for which the poster put t.p.g. in the Followup-To line. I
didn't notice that. Apologies to those who were confused.

The substance makes little sense unless one reads the prior messages.

However, I don't wish to enter into this discussion here, as it will be yet
another rehearsal of a long-tired set of arguments. Suffice it to say that I
disagree both with the interpretation of "well-regulated" in the Second
Amendment offered by gun lovers, and what I think to be their distortion of
the same phrase in the associated Federalist papers. My Webster and my
reading of the language convinces me that the word meant both under control,
and disciplined, and not 'of good marksmanship'. I think the latter a
special interest pleading. No one has yet shown a contemporateous reference
in which "well regulated" unambiguously meant 'of good marksmanship', and
not under control/disciplined, etc.

Thus I continue to believe the Second Amendment is a militia clause and not
an 'arming everyone' clause. Others are welcome to disagree (as I know many
do) and little would be served by rehashing this topic in this particular
forum.

To avoid flames, or unproductive rehashings, I note that I've come in here
to post this one message, just to clarify the one below. I'm now outta here
again though I'm available via e-mail.

David

In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David
Sternlight) writes:

>
>Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
>a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
>in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.
>
>David
>-- 
>David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of
>                         our information, errors and omissions excepted.  
>
>


-- 
David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of
                         our information, errors and omissions excepted.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54889
From: tedwards@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Need info on Waco, Machineguns

A really sad op-ed appeared in my school's newpaper today.  It
claimed that full-auto weapons are illegal in the U.S.
I understand that full-auto weapons made and registered before
May 19, 1986 are still legal in 40 of the 50 states.  Is
Texas one of those states?

Can anyone point me to a source for info on how many people have been 
killed by legal full-auto weapons in the U.S.?

And finally, I think it would be great if anyone was keeping a digest
of facts on the Waco incident.  In particular, I would like a source
for the FBI/BATF mentioning the supposed methamphetamine lab, and
information on the beginning of the raid, specifically BATF
lies.

I am also interested in past BATF no-knock warrents which have lead
to personal and property damage against innocent citizens.

I intend to put together a reply to this op-ed very soon.  The author
of the piece states he wants to work for the BATF.  gack!  

-Thomas


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54890
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> > :> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day
> > :> in Texas. 

> > :Do YOU eat all your food cold?
> 
>   Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
> not break out for several hours.  I find it highly unlikely that the BD would
> be cooking lunch while armored vehicles punch holes in their house and are
> pumping in tear gas. 

Look, I don't want to bore everybody here with the physics of woodstoves,
but they're not anything like your Caloric gas range.  It takes about
three hours for a woodstove to get hot enough to cook on, and afterwards 
you can't just "shut it off" -- it will contain hot embers for over 24 
hours even after you choke it COMPLETELY.

So it ain't exactly "light up the stove and cook me a batch of them 
pancakes, Aunt J..."  If you use a woodstove for cooking, or even for
heating your house at night, you will have it lit to SOME extent all 
the time.  Trust me on this one, I speak from experience.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54891
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)

In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) [me! :-] writes:
>                                     A BILL 
>   
> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.

... in response to which ...

In article <1qkeo9$drg@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
[ ... ]
>So, you have the right unless the Federal Government says you don't.
>I don't think I like this very much.

... and ...

In article <1qkshq$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
writes:
[ ... ]
>Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
>I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.

... and ...

In article <1ql3aiINN41c@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clement
s) writes:
[ ... ]
>right mentioned in the bill is already established under the Second
>Amendment; the bill should be reworded to reaffirm the Second Amendment


Hey, guys.  You're absolutely correct, and well on the way to winning
this battle ... and losing the war.  Yes, there are serious philosophical
flaws in HR 1276.  Technical ones, too -- how'd you like to sue the Feds,
lose, and have to pay _their_ "reasonable Attorney's fee" ... ?    :-)

Still, I have one basic question:  compared to what we've _got_ is HR 1276
(a) better, or (b) worse?  This one shouldn't even take you three guesses.

If there's a good enough show of support for HR 1276, maybe for a change
_we_ could be the ones saying "it's a reasonable first step" ...
--------
The 2nd Amendment is about sovereignty, not duck hunting

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54892
From: allanl@microsoft.com (Allan Lockridge)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

Count me in for $1000.00.  

Allan Lockridge

My Opinions are my own and are not for sale.
-- 
Allan Lockridge -- Allanl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54893
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>  Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
>not break out for several hours.  
	Minor quibble back at you.  I am in the same general area as
	the Koresh compound and I can tell you that the air was quite
	chilly that morning, especially with the high winds that
	were blowing. (Of course the swiss cheese walls made it
	even worse. ;-)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54894
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Cost/Benefit Analysis (was FBI Director's Statement...)

In article <93111.094609MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
> Has anyone noticed or commented on the fact that so many of those who
> were willing, nay demanding, that we wait forever for Mr Hussein and
> Iraq, that we use tremendously costly "sanctions", to avoid a loss
> of life, are now at the fore front of those clammoring that we should
> have smashed those "religious radicals" and we were wasting money allowing
> this stand off to go on  ? 

No.  I see many of the same groups protesting both.  I also know people
who feel exactly the opposite (i.e., treat citizens better than Saddam).

> How the worm turns when the sect changes.

Hey!  Sect changes are still illegal in Texas!
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54895
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Subject: Re: Janet Reno on Nightline


It's worse than you show it.....look for Janet REno and others to
link the words "child abuse" and "p[rivate stores of guns" from
now on out.
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54896
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...


In article <1r1die$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:
>
>> Yet, the FBI mouthpiece at this afternoon's press conference characterized
>> the quantity of CS gas pumped into the building as "massive", and speculated
>> that after a few hours of exposure any Davidian gas masks would become
>> useless.
>> 
>> Does this sound "not harmful" to you?
>
>Hm.  A previous poster argued that the fact that the BD's did not rush to
>escape the burning building indicated that it was they, and not any of the
>government actions, that started the fire.  On the other hand, I wonder if,
>with a face full of "massive amounts of CS," *I* would be able to escape
>a burning tinder-box like that ranch house assuming my best efforts.

Imagine, you have been under seige for almost two months by an enemy which you
believe wants to kill you.  Suddenly, they pump tear gas into your building and
punch holes in it with tanks.  Then a fire breaks out.  Do you run outside to
be slaughtered, or stay and face your fate.

Check Ethiopia vs. Italy in WWII for some answers to that question.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54897
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

In <C601ED.CD6@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com sez:
>
>The Houston Chronicle last Thursday (maybe Wednesday) said that
>the interior of walls had been covered with hay bales to help
>protect against bullets.  Many of you know how fast dry hay
>burns.

This is all terribly interesting, but it doesn't belong in misc.legal.
Take it elsewhere, please.

-- 
        Have you hugged your common nucleus of operative fact today?

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54898
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:

>Could y'all PLEASE stop posting this stuff to tx.general.  tx.politics
>is sufficient and is where this stuff belongs.  Thanks.

>	Cathy
>-- 
>Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu

WHY??????????




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54899
From: fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks)
Subject: Two found shot inside compound.

Today the Texas ME found two people, a man and a woman shot in the head
inside the burned compound. But these were not the people that the FBI
described a few days before. The FBI said that the person found in front of
the compound had been shot and several children were also. The two people
found today were on top of the main inside concrete bunker that provided
the most protection during the fire. So the comment that children were
shot is still not proved.

-- 
Defend your 2nd amendment rights. 
NRA ACLU VFW
Fred Brooks   			        Portland Oregon

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54900
From: jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman)
Subject: More on stupid media

I just heard on CNN that the Texas Rangers found an M60 machine gun
in the BD compound Rubble.  The newscaster called this a new hi-tech
military weapon!  HA HA!!  I would bet that it is that Rock Armory
M60 semi-auto, or that it was leagally owned and the tax was paid.

What year was the M60 patented?

Just showing you how the media is twisting the facts,
Josh


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54903
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Who do I write to now?

Okay.  I have my copies of all relevant gun-control bills.  I'm mad as hell.
I want to get involved.  I want to join the battle to protect our Second
Amendment Rights.

Who do I write?

Who should I concentrate on writing my comments to?  The actual author of the
bill?  The supporters of the bill?  My Congressman?  My Senator?  Newspapers?
Magazines?  All of the above?

I don't believe that I will change the world, but at least I am going to throw
a few punches.  Can any of you offer any advice or suggestions to me as I now
begin to get involved here?

Thanks for replying directly to me via e-mail.

pnesbitt@mcimail.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54904
From: turmoil@halcyon.com (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>In <C601ED.CD6@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com sez:
>>
>>The Houston Chronicle last Thursday (maybe Wednesday) said that
>>the interior of walls had been covered with hay bales to help
>>protect against bullets.  Many of you know how fast dry hay
>>burns.

>This is all terribly interesting, but it doesn't belong in misc.legal.
>Take it elsewhere, please.


But of course it does.   It's certainly a legal matter.  If it's not a
legal matter that interest *you* you may simply put it in your kill
file. 

Seeeeee Ya  turmoil@halcyon.com   FUCK THE POLICE!!!!



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54905
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <CMM.0.90.2.735413309.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> I`m NOT saying you should ban guns, OR that you should take them away
> from responsible owners.

But this is all gun control laws end up doing.  Politicians can never
manage to get a handle on those who obtain arms illegally, so all their
laws can ever do is further restrict people who obtain them legally.

Karen McNutt, a local attorney, states that there are about two MILLION
licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.  In the past year, the number of
licensed gun owners involved in gun crimes was something like SIX.
Yet, there were a large number of gun crimes in the state last year.

Does passing laws that will further restricting only those people ALREADY
obeying laws pay any dividents?

> All I`m saing is that guns should be treated with respect from owners, sellers
> AND legislators. 

So far, I've seen them treated with the least respect by legislators.

> I believe guns are a problem in many countries and that crime rates
> WOULD fell if they were more restricted.

See, this is what I call the "argument from religion:" "I believe."  Don't
believe -- it's not NECESSARY to take this on faith.  Go look at the history
of countries that passed gun restrictions.  Pay particular attention to
whether or not violent crime was HIGHER before the restrictions and LOWER
after.  (Don't look at "violent gun crimes," that's begging the question.)
You may be very surprised.

> If ALL crimes done with guns stopped AND all accidents also stopped or
> was reduced to a minimum THEN I would consider lifting all gun control.

You have this absolutely backwards.  If crime stopped in the presence of
strict gun control, there is NO WAY I would consider lifting any of it.
However, if gun control made absolutely NO IMPROVEMENT in the violent 
crime rate, THAT'S when I would have it lifted.  Think about it.

So far, none of the stats show any improvement...

> Likevise if car-accidents fell to a minimum in europe, I (and probably
> most people I know) would demand easier drivers-tests.
> (ca. 20 hours and more than 2500$ today....)

Do you really think driver's tests are any indication of your propensity
for having accidents?  

I've never known anybody stupid enough to take a driving test while 
drunk; after having been up all night; with two fighting kids in the 
back seat; with a hot cup of coffee on their lap; or while putting on 
makeup, reading the newspaper, or talking on their cellular phone.  
But that's what they're doing when they have those accidents.

> In other words -We should have legislation because it`s neccacery !!

How can anything that has no positive effect at all ever be "necessary?"

> The one gun/month case in Virginia:
> I was thinking about the reactions on the proposal...
> Loud screeming about civil rights and 2. amendment.

And it didn't help, any of it.

> Winnie the Poh:
> Do you want peace or weapons Winnie?
> -Yes please!

I'm sorry, I don't remember any story where Winnie the Pooh was
offered weapons.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54906
From: bbowen@megatest.com (Bruce Bowen)
Subject: Re: text of White House announcement and Q&As on clipper chip encryption

From article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>, by strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight):
> 
> Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that
> a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated"
> in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.


"Well Regulated", at the time of its writing and in the context of the Second Amendment,
means "Properly trained and equipped."

It modern language it would read:

	A properly trained and equipped militia, being necessary to the security of
	a free state <note the word "free", it doesn't say "police"), the right of
	the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

-Bruce

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54907
Subject: Re: Waco headlines and editorial in Boston Globe
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)

John Kim (kim39@scws8.harvard.edu) writes:

> Boston Globe, Wednesday April 21 1993
..
> LIttle in the way of rationality could be expected from Koresh, a 
> self-confessed "sinner without equal."

funny, if Koresh did say that, he was quoting St. Paul. of course, 
the early Christians were persecuted too. if Koresh is a loony 
because he quotes the Bible, how long is it before mainstream 
Christians become the target of the FBI's loving care and attention?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`                "Get off the cross. We need the wood."               `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54908
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:

>In article <C5t14M.Ku2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>
>Now, notice, it says *arms*.  Not guns.  Arms.
>
>The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate
>possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just
>as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as
>any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos.
>
>Support your right to keep and bear short range nuclear weapons.  It's
>a legitimate and challenging sport.

     Good. Another liberal converted by Waco!  If Dave had had something
     realistic, there would have been none of this "Bradley" vehicle
     crap.

        Somebody in talk.politics.guns was offering free NRA
        memberships.  Hurry up.




Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54909
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1993Apr21.091130.17788@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
> In article <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

> >I'll give
> >you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
> >road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, 

> Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.

Ironic, since it's pretty much what was used to blow up the World Trade
Center...
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54910
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5v15A.7oo@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
[... snip ...]

>|>>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
>|>>spin-doctors censoring such information?
>|>>
>|>>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
>|>>were british citizens.
> 
>The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found
>with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot
>attempting to leave the compound during the fire.
> 
>There is a possibility that these are the bodies of people killed during
>the initial shootout.
> 
>Phill Hallam-Baker

Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every
where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
went up. A Texas ranger does not a pathologist make, so I'll wait for an
autopsy to determine if they were shot first. 

Either way, they're all dead and the FBI & Atty. Gen. Vampria are still
responable.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54911
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

>>>>> On 21 Apr 93 11:28:57 -0800, yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com said:

> Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
> to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
> while watching the TV coverage.
> 
> Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
> 
> Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
> a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
> 
> 
> 
yodicet>
yodicet>
yodicet>

Hmm. You don't say..

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54912
From: sparker@tuba.calpoly.edu (Sean Lawrence Parker)
Subject: NRA commercial


Just saw a new commercial(?) by the NRA. It starts out with a 
bunch of politicians talking about how to get rid of crime.
They finally realize that they need to put criminals away
longer but there isn't enough jail space so they decide on another gun
law.( During this whole seen there quoteing various statistics on how
easy criminals get off ) 
In the next seen the politician is announceing on tv how this gun law 
will get rid of crime and there is this grungy looking guy (criminal)
watching him on tv just laughing his ass off.
Classic.

Sean


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54913
From: djh4484@rigel.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>, Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes...
>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>the people on the net.
> 
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  What kind
>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>saw you and you were caught?
> 
>Anyone?
> 
> 
>Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu


If in said situation. I would, reviewing other cases I've seen reported
on in the articles I've read etc.., suggest the safest legal course of action
is as follows. Warn your assailant loudly and in clear tones that you have a 
weapon(Yes!Even though it's blatantly obvious now that you have it out!)
and that you will shoot him if he advances/does not cease whatever hostile 
action he is currently involved in.( ie: Drop the knife or I'll shoot!)
Repeat this process three times,if you can!(not if he's pointing a freaking
gun at you himself!That's kinda impractical.) (There are variables here and
I will try to address them in turn) After said warning (considering it's
 ignored) Aim center mass and fire until he drops! This is not sadism, it's
practicality.If he hasn't gone down he's still a threat!(Why I support .45)
IF HE TURNS AND RUNS DO NOT PURSUE OR FIRE AT HIS BACK! SHOT'S FIRED IN ANGER
WILL BURN YOU LATER! (Though in some cases the I can see where that might not
bother me all that much!) If you do drop him! REMAIN WHERE YOU ARE! Have a
Bystander or witness(Or Create one by yelling at the top of your lungs!)
call the police, and wait! Reholster your weapon VISIBLY! Or place it on 
the ground nearby. Do not attempt to recollect your brass.The police will
use it's location to piece together the scene along with your testimony and
that of any witnesses. Mentally mark witnesses! If the police say that none
came forward let them know who you saw! Attempt to keep your weapon loaded
with the minimum required(how the hell can I phrase this?) Try to avoid special
purpose ammunition. Hollow points and Hydrashock rounds give the opposing
lawyer the type of loaded phrasing he will need to sawy the jury that you
fully intended to kill someone! The only special purpose rounds that I can
think of that would actually help your case (as it has in several) is the
Glaser Safety Slug (oh what a lovely name SAFETY SLUG) The stated purpose
and stated design parameters of the round are life savers in court.
(ie. Attempting to create a bullet which will not overpenetrate, not 
ricochette, and which is designed to STOP (Not Kill (Gee, to bad the two often
cross, damn I'm real sorry that rapist is dead! NOT!) an assailant with
one shot. This, again, can be a real life saver in a hostile court.
Be as cooperative with the police as possible! Show them where you were.
Repeat your information as often as requested. They will often ask you the
same questions over and over to verify facts, and ,unfortunately, to see
if your lying. Fill out all statements and show all required identification
and weapon permits (BOOO! Down with registered citizens!Register your
 politicians as deadly tax weapons needing to be confiscated!) If they are
required in your state. Contact a lawyer immediately if they decide to
hold you or that further questioning is needed. If you cannot afford one,
contact the NRA. They have a legal assistance fund.(Or at least they used to)
I DO HOPE YOUR A MEMBER! (Not my business either way though..) If I was
vague on anything, or I left some questions unanswered, you can E-MAIL
me or post here. (Preferebly E-MAIL. I don't have a load of time to review
the news)
								Kane

******************************************************************************
*A truely representative government need never fear it's armed citizens!     *
*Disband the BATF!                             Bankrupt Ted Turner and HCI!  *
*I will give up my gun when they pry it out of my cold,dead hand!            *
*DEATH TO TYRANTS!                       [THIS SPACE FOR RENT!]              *
*                                                                            *
*                                        Kane DJH4484@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU         *
******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54914
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Larry King Interview with Koresh's Lawyer

from alt.law-enforcement

In article <1993Apr20.212245.3186@msus1.msus.edu>, hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu (Robert A. Hayden) writes:
> I only caught about the last 15 minutes of this show (I hope to see it
> when it repeats later), but did manage to catch the summary.

> According to Koresh's lawyer and some other guy (who I am not sure who he
> is), The Davidians _DID_NOT_ start the fire and apparently made several
> attempts at escaping but were blocked by smoke, fire, and FBI tanks.

> He states this after interviews with thoses 9 Davidians that escaped. 
> They indicated that their was no suicide pact and that the fire was set by
> the FBI (I got that impression, not sure about that).

> Something about this whole mess just doesn't smell right.  It didn't Feb.
> 28th and is doesn't now.

> -- 
> [> Robert Hayden                   ____   <]  Black Holes result from God 
> [>                                 \  /__ <]  dividing the universe by zero. 
> [> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu  \/  / <]  
> [> aq650@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu            \/  <]  # include std_disclaimer.h

-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54915
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Change of name ??

Post all you want, foreigner.  We'd rather hear from you
than those "I'll support the fascist who writes the
hecks for my salary" .edu site types!

Should you expect the Police to come in and
assault you, lay siege and refuse to help when they
(yes, let's give them the benefit of the doubt)
accidently burn down your ranch home?  Even though
ey have emergency vehicles nearby?

Is this a proper response when you just keep to yourself?
Even if you DON'T hurt anyone?  And you
're cooperative with cops when you occasionally come out?

I hope not.
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu
.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54916
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <94102@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU  
(BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT) writes:
> In article <1r4ef7$408@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.  
Tavares) writes:
> 
> >Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
> >with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
> >torture, and a holocaust?
> 
> I doubt if Koresh had let the BATF have a look inside his place as they 
> intended to do, "orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and
> a holocaust" would never have come to pass.
> 
> The BD's killed members of the BATF on the first day. "Orchestrated character
> assassination and noise torture" seem like a small retribution.  

Does the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" have ANY meaning anymore?

> The use
> of tanks is quesionable however.
> 
> 
> 
> --Abhijit
> -- 
> BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT
> Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
> uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5311b
> Internet: gt5311b@prism.gatech.edu

--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54917
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

speaking of the sick bastard, i noticed he attends Kent State University.
 
i guess we have come full circle here. Someone from Kent favoring excessive
force by the govenment to subdue polically incorrect thinking.

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54918
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!


| Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government
| with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise
| torture, and a holocaust?

Shit, i'm going to be a lot more carefull filling by income tax!   

jim shirreffs

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54919
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

Let's discuss Reno's taking full responciblity. Is everyone happy with the 
outcome? Did the FBI pursue the correct course of action? was justice done?
If Reno really meant what she said she would resign! She is just grand
standing, period. What did those people do wrong in the first place? that is
what i can't figure out. sure they were crazy, no dought about it, but what did 
they do wrong? someone please help me out on this.

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54920
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

|>      If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
|> burning building?
|> 
|> James Dusek
 
James, it could be that they were determined to stay together in the compound
no matter what happened. Perhaps the fire was accidental, and the DB simply
refused to leave the compod. Perhap they died fighting the fire? who knows.
we will have to wait and see. i persaonlly find it hard to believe that they 
would all agree to burn themselves up! what a horrible way to go.

jim shirreffs

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54921
From: info@ccsvax.sfasu.edu (SFASU Anonymous account)
Subject: WACO: suicide?

Those of us who questioned the mass suicide line may still have 
wondered, "If it wasn't suicide, why did so few get out?"  The 
answer is now available - the gas the government had been pouring
in on them is so disabling that its use in wartime is banned by the
chemical weapons treaty.

The U.S. had agreed not to use this gas against enemy soldiers in
wartime, but used it in peacetime against civilians, including 
nnocent children.

For confirmation see Friday's CLINTON:AM press briefing by George
Stephanopoulous, posted in alt.news-media and other locations.
(When questioned about it, his reply was that the treaty did
not forbid its internal use by law enforcement agencies.
  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting from Stephen F. Austin State University's ANONYMOUS account.

Please report abuses to newsmgr@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54943
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Subject: Re: Andy:  how do we stop people with a gun?

In article <1993Apr7.141930.29582@freenet.carleton.ca>
ac002@Freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) writes:
>Come on.   A gun kills people.  

Rather, people kill people with guns.  The sad truth is: sometimes that is
good, or at least, better than the alternative.

>But let's ignore guns for defence and/or crime and look at gun accidents.

Ok.  There are about 1400 fatal firearm accidents per year [1], and the
number has been in decline since early this century [2].  Most of these
accidents involve rifles or shot guns, not handguns.

...
>But seriously: a gun is designed to fire a bullet.   This is not so you
>can shoot cardboard cut outs down at the range.

In fact there are both guns and bullets designed specifically for that. 
The idea that my Ruger Mark II Bull Barrel (a semi-auto 0.22 caliber
handgun) was designed to kill or hurt people, even for self defense,
would, I'm sure, come as a surprise to its designer.  It certainly isn't
why I have it.  It certainly would hurt someone if you shot them with it,
and might even kill them, but it is simply wrong to say it was designed to
kill people.

>This is not designed to act as a tool for home  defence where you show
>someone  that you have a gun and they go "Gee, perhaps I should leave".

In fact, that is what happens most of the time.  Most self defensive uses
of firearms don't involve firing any shots.  Most criminals would prefer
not to be shot, and will go to some effort not to be, including doing what
you say when you point a gun at them.

If you were called on to design a tool, that could be easily carried, to
immediately stop someone attacking you, what would it be?  A handgun is
about the best anyone has come up with and experience shows it does work
the best.[3]

>No, you see the gun was designed to fire that little bullet into a human
>body and hurt them.  Not a tough concept to swallow, for most.

Certainly, no one argues that handguns (of the type we are discussing)
aren't deadly weapons.  However, it simply isn't true to say that all of
them were designed to kill people.  Moreover, what exactly is wrong with
having deadly weapons?  There are times when it is perfectly legitimate to
use deadly force, e.g. in self defense.  I consider it not just my right,
but my duty to defend myself and my family, and that includes having and
knowing how to use the tools to do that.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."
	- T. Jefferson.

I think what Jefferson said is still true.

>And the trouble with having such an item is often the little bullet goes
>off into the wrong fleshy target.

Not very often compared to other use.[3]

>Or else Uncle Frank gets pissed and blows  away his wife.

This isn't that common either, at least when compared to other uses.  It is
very rare that a non-violent person will suddenly "get-pissed" and kill
someone, gun or not.  In most cases, the people who murder have long
histories of violence.  If you have good reason to believe that these
people wouldn't kill if they didn't have a gun, feel free to present it.

>Having a thing  specificly designed to kill means it is much easier to
>kill things.  Right?

Right, but there are times when killing things is called for.  I hope I
never have to shoot a person, but I've had to kill a number of animals from
rodents to cows, and when I do, I don't want them to suffer any more than
is necessary.  I prefer they die instantly, but failing that, I want them
to drop so I can quickly finish them with the next shot, and failing that,
I don't want them to go fast or far.  I try to choose the best weapon and
ammunition I have to try to achieve that goal for the size of animal I'm
after, but it doesn't always work as I plan.  Without belaboring the point,
people who are overly impressed with the killing or shopping power of guns,
particularly handguns, haven't used them much for that purpose.


[1] Accidental deaths in 1988:
	48700 deaths by auto
	11300 deaths by fall
	 5300 deaths by drowning
	 4800 deaths by fire
	 4400 deaths by poison
	 3200 deaths by food
	 1400 deaths by firearm

     Source: Statistics Department, National Safety Council.
     "Accidents Facts 1988 Edition". National Safety Council.
    444 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago IL  606111  (800) 621-7619


[2] RKBA.002 - Declining trend of accidental deaths by firearms
           Version 1.1 (last changed on 90/04/23 at 22:28:19)

DESCRIPTION
===========
The accidental deaths by firearm per capita has been declining steadily 
for almost sixty years. In 1932, the accidental deaths by firearm per 
1,000,000 people was 24.03. In 1987, it was 5.74. The decline has been 
steady, consistent, and a fairly straight line when plotted. At the rate 
of the last sixty years, it will reach zero sometime around 2025 AD.

CONCLUSION
==========
Firearms have been a declining factor in accidental deaths for over 
sixty years, despite rising per-capita gun ownership.



[1] = Year.
[2] = Population.
[3] = Accidental deaths.
[4] = Accidental deaths per 1,000,000.


[1]   [2]          [3]    [4]       [1]   [2]          [3]    [4]   
1932  124,840,000  3,000  24.03     1961  183,691,000  2,204  12.00
1933  125,579,000  3,014  24.00     1962  186,538,000  2,092  11.21     
1934  126,374,000  3,033  24.00     1963  189,242,000  2,263  11.96     
1935  127,250,000  2,799  22.00     1964  191,889,000  2,275  11.86     
1936  128,053,000  2,817  22.00     1965  194,303,000  2,344  12.06     
1937  128,825,000  2,576  20.00     1966  196,560,000  2,558  13.01     
1938  129,825,000  2,726  21.00     1967  198,712,000  2,896  14.57     
1939  130,880,000  2,618  20.00     1968  200,706,000  2,394  11.93     
1940  132,122,000  2,375  17.98     1969  202,677,000  2,309  11.39     
1941  133,402,000  2,396  17.96     1970  204,879,000  2,406  11.74     
1942  134,860,000  2,678  19.86     1971  207,661,000  2,360  11.36     
1943  136,739,000  2,282  16.69     1972  209,896,000  2,442  11.63    
1944  138,397,000  2,392  17.28     1973  211,909,000  2,618  12.35    
1945  139,928,000  2,385  17.04     1974  213,854,000  2,613  12.22    
1946  141,389,000  2,801  19.81     1975  215,854,000  2,380  11.03    
1947  144,126,000  2,439  16.92     1976  218,035,000  2,059   9.44    
1948  146,631,000  2,191  14.94     1977  220,239,000  1,982   9.00    
1949  149,188,000  2,330  15.62     1978  222,585,000  1,806   8.11    
1950  151,684,000  2,174  14.33     1979  225,055,000  2,004   8.90
1951  154,287,000  2,247  14.56     1980  227,757,000  1,955   8.58    
1952  156,954,000  2,210  14.08     1981  230,138,000  1,871   8.13
1953  159,565,000  2,277  14.27     1982  232,520,000  1,756   7.55    
1954  162,391,000  2,271  13.98     1983  234,799,000  1,695   7.22    
1955  165,275,000  2,120  12.83     1984  237,001,000  1,668   7.04    
1956  168,221,000  2,202  13.09     1985  239,279,000  1,649   6.89    
1957  171,274,000  2,369  13.83     1986  241,613,000  1,600   6.62    
1958  174,141,000  2,172  12.47     1987  243,915,000  1,400   5.74    
1959  177,073,000  2,258  12.75           
1960  180,671,000  2,334  12.92

Sources: 
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 
Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 2, Washington, DC, 1975.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 
1982-83. (103th edition.) Washington, DC, 1982 [sic]..

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 
1989 (109th edition.)  Washington, DC, 1989.


[3] Kleck, Gary.  "Guns and Self-Defense: Crime Control through the Use of
Force in the Private Sector."  __Social Problems__ 35(1988):4, pp. 7-9.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .       The only fair tax is no tax!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54944
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Statement to everyone on t.p.g

Ok, here goes.  Yes folks, I realize I have stuck my foot in my mouth
quite a few times already so please let me make some clarifications.  My
inaccurate information in my posts was due to lack of knowledge.  Thanks
to you kind (and some not so kind) people I am learning.   Some people
have given me several good points to ponder and I see how I was wrong.
In no way was this inaccurate information supposed to be trying to
further the anti-gun cause.  I have said several times before (but
nobody seemed to be listening) that I am pro-gun and anti-gun-control.

As far as the race can of worms that I have opened up I have only one
thing to say - I am in no way prejudiced.  Some of the things I have
stated were said to demonstrate that I am not prejudiced and/or a racist
but I have been accused of being too aware of race and prejudiced.  I will not
say anymore about that subject because no matter what I say it will be the
wrong thing.

Boy, what a start to being on a new group.  Oh well, things have been
worse in my life.

I hope this clears things up but I guess that will remain to be seen.

By for now,

Jason

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54947
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Waco fire

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

>Of course, true or no, this is a clever attempt to make them seem harmless
>folk minding their own business.

Nice touch - using the word *seem*.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
elimination of personal freedom.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54948
From: v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <1r4r01INN4v6@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes...
>In article <C5uyG1.7q9@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu  
>(P.VASILION) writes:
>> In article <C5v15A.7oo@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>> [... snip ...]
>> 
>> >|>>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government
>> >|>>spin-doctors censoring such information?
>> >|>>
>> >|>>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died
>> >|>>were british citizens.
>> > 
>> >The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found
>> >with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot
>> >attempting to leave the compound during the fire.
>> > 
>> >There is a possibility that these are the bodies of people killed during
>> >the initial shootout.
>> > 
>> >Phill Hallam-Baker
>> 
>> Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying  
>every
>> where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>> went up. A Texas ranger does not a pathologist make, so I'll wait for an
>> autopsy to determine if they were shot first. 
>> 
> 
>I would doubt bullets would go flying.  There is no particular force to make  
>the bullet leave the scene of a cartridge going off outside of a barrel.  The  
>brass shell would burst too soon to give the bullet any real velocity.  I  
>wouldn't want to be near it, but I do not think bullet wounds would result.   
>Shrapnel wounds would be more likely
> 
>At least this is my understanding.

Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due
to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate.
In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of
meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up
such scenes. 

As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a
magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and
thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the
time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the
evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists. 


> 
>> Either way, they're all dead and the FBI & Atty. Gen. Vampria are still
>> responsable.
> 
>Yep, at least in large part.
> 
>jmd@handheld.com

P.Vasilion

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54949
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: THE LIES OF TEXAS -- L. Neil Smith

Posted for L. Neil Smith by Cathy Smith


                         THE LIES OF TEXAS

Okay, what have we learned?

For reasons still being kept secret, a federal agency already known 
-- well enough to be examined and rebuked by several legislative 
committees over the years -- for a longstanding, violent disregard
of the law, invades the home of a man whose religious beliefs and 
personal habits they abominate, violating his rights under the 
First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to 
the Constitution. 

The man and his followers fight back, killing four of the outlaw 
agency's minions, wounding many more, and suffering their own 
losses in the process. The agency responds by cutting off his 
electricity, water, and especially his contact with the outside 
world. They are then free to say anything at all about him -- in 
pronouncements that contradict one another daily as the agency 
finds itself locked in a bitter power struggle with another outfit 
eager to gain credit for "straightening out the mess" -- and, more 
importantly, to script his side of the subsequent "negotiations" 
any way they please. 

The impasse lasts almost two months, ironically, at the same time 
four L.A. cops are being given a second trial for brutalizing a 
single individual, sparking one of the ugliest riots in history. 
Armored vehicles surround the house, already ringed with snipers 
using scoped, high-powered rifles. Loudspeakers playing obnoxious 
records at the highest possible volume, and searchlights, deprive 
those in the house of sleep (in the aftermath, nobody in authority 
will mention the effect this technique, originated by North Korean 
Communists as a battle tactic, may have had on their judgment). 

Finally -- another irony -- on the 50th anniversary of the rising 
of the Warsaw Ghetto, some of the armor punches holes in the house 
and gas of some kind is injected. The house bursts into flame and 
is reduced to ashes in less than an hour. At least 80 lives, 
including those of more than a dozen children, are snuffed out. 

Spokesmen for the outlaw agencies, the Attorney General, and the 
President all hold press conferences to articulate a common theme: 
blame the victim. 

He had illegal weapons -- as soon as they can be prepared in a 
secret government workshop and planted among the cinders being 
"examined" by the agency that created them. He was abusing children 
-- the tapes will be stored with the data on the JFK assassination. 
He set the fire -- our snipers saw him doing it. Film at 11 -- in 
3000 A.D. He shot his followers who tried to escape -- or was that 
Jim Jones? Best of all, he's dead -- he can't say a damn thing to 
embarrass us, any more than when his contact with the world was 
severed at the start of the whole travesty. 

A leading national paper claims 93% of the American people believe 
that a man who resisted a savage attack on his home is somehow 
responsible for everything that resulted. But when did you ever 
know 93% of Americans to agree on anything -- doesn't this sound 
more like the outcome of a Soviet election than an opinion poll? 

Very well, what can we infer from the above? For starters, never 
forget that, although Democratic careers are on the line (and 
rightfully so) over this fiasco, by the outlaw agency's admission, 
it was planned and rehearsed by a Republican administration. Which 
may explain why Paul Harvey, who evidently used up all his courage 
and integrity changing his mind (at about the same time I did) 
about the war in Viet Nam -- has been acting as little more than a 
mouthpiece for a state that has no regard for the Bill of Rights. 

More importantly, when Rush Limbaugh, who's been a quivering tower 
of Jello during the whole thing, takes essentially the same stance 
as Bill Clinton, it's time for fundamental changes, if not in the 
system, then at least within yourself. 

On March 5, back at the beginning, Mary Gingell, national chair of 
the Libertarian Party, issued a press release condemning the outlaw 
agency and calling for its abolition. In fact, the LP has promised 
in its platform since 1977, for at least 16 years, to abolish both 
agencies involved in Waco. I'm proud to say I was there and helped 
to write that plank. 

True, the LP is tiny and insignificant (although less so than in 
1977 -- ask the Democrats in Georgia if you doubt it). But, alone 
in a howling wilderness of fascists scrambling now to cover their 
behinds with phony polls and Big Lies, the LP is right about what 
happened in Waco. And if their advice had been followed in 1977, 
Waco never would have happened. 

Think about it. And think about the fact that, if you've had enough 
of political parties more interested in collecting and holding 
power -- at whatever cost to the Bill of Rights, let alone human 
life -- than in defending and expanding individual liberty, maybe 
the change it's time for within yourself is to make the LP less 
tiny and insignificant by a single voice and a single vote.

Think about it.

L. Neil Smith
Author: THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN, 
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
Editor: LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54950
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: NO SURRENDER -- Lenda Jackson

NO SURRENDER!
Delivered by Lenda Jackson at the RKBA Rally in Denver, April 18, 1993

It is a fact of modern life that urban residents, particularly women, feel
threatened. A certain number of them actually are threatened. There are
immediate threats, the things that women will tell you they're afraid
of. The noise downstairs at night. The lonely walk to the car. The
stranger at the door. The abusive husband, finally kicked out of the
house as he threatens to hurt her and their children. The burglar... The
mugger...the rapist. 

And what are we told is the solution? Move. Get a dog. Keep the door
locked. Call the police. as a next-to-last resort, learn martial arts. and
always, there's the implied question "what's a pretty little thing like
you doing without a husband around to protect you?

But what if you don't like dogs? Like living alone? Don't have 10
years to devote learning judo?

What if, after examining the facts, a woman learns that "rape victims
using armed resistance were less likely to have the rape completed -
and were less likely to be injured(Kleck,124) than those using any
other form of resistance (Kleck,126) (also true for
robbery/assault)(Kleck,123) 

What if, to our horror and despair, we find that citizens cannot depend
on the police for effective protection - they usually respond after a
crime has been committed. In truth, the Supreme Court has held that
the police are not responsible for protecting any individual, only the
whole community.

As a society, are we going to ask women, once again, to sacrifice
themselves? Are we going to continue to deny women the ability to
help themselves?

Here's a thought. Neil Smith, in his book The Probability Broach, says
"no 220 pound thug can threaten the well being or dignity of a 110-
pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out." But if
a woman decides to protect herself, with the easiest, most efficient
means possible, people - especially other women - are horrified.
"Eughh, how could you? I'd be terrified!" they ask. How could you
hurt someone? They'll repeat the lie: it'll just get taken away from
you. In truth, 1% of "defensive gun uses" result in the offender taking
the gun away from the victim.(122,Kleck)

Well, despite the lies, and the social pressure, some of us have already
made that hard choice. We've decided that we are not going to be
victimized by the muggers, burglars or rapists. We're buying more
guns than every before. We're learning how to use them - and teaching
others, women and men, how to use them. Most importantly, we are
preparing ourselves mentally to use our firearms for our own defense.
We're taking our own security, literally, into our own hands. We're
going to stop begging and pleading and marching and WHAT WE
INTEND IS TO REALLY TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.

But there's another threat, more insatiable than any mugger, more
secretive than any burglar, more soul-destroying than any rapist.

That menace is government, and it threatens us all. We know that
governments, throughout time, have suppressed rights and oppressed
people. It's the way they survive.

In our names and with our money, it interferes with innocent people
both at home and abroad. It lies to us, cheats us, steals from us and
threatens us with violence. No one knows exactly what it'll do next -
what freedom we will lose because some government goon decides
"it's for your own safety" or "we know best". Any person who acted
like government does would be psychoanalyzed within an inch of his
life and locked up as a habitual offender.

But this monster called government persists, and grows. And we, who
should be its masters, have become its unwilling slaves. Do you doubt
me? Then why did you file your income tax? 

Like any reasonable person, I believe that being afraid of something
that can hurt you is smart, and that paranoia isn't crazy if someone's
really after you. And make no mistake, they're after you and they're
after me. Their names are familiar: Brady and Reynolds, Groff,
Metzenbahm, Moynihan, and Clinton. If we're lucky, they'll settle for
our assault rifles, our shotguns, our handguns and our ammunition. 

As citizens, we have only two choices. They are the same two choices
given to women: to surrender or to fight. 

Surrender leads to the gulag, to the genocide of Pol Pot, to the
disappearances, to Dachau. I do not intend to surrender. 

A battle can be philosophical or political: in the main, the people keep
the government honest by threatening to vote it out of office. But if
they have to, they will keep in mind the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"the tree of liberty must be well watered with the blood of patriots."

As a patriot, I will point out the error in the government's ways. I will
do my best to vote the villains out of office. I will protest, and write,
and speak, and teach our children justice, honor and truth. And always
remember that Rebellion can lead to Bunker Hill and Saratoga......or it
can lead to Tiananmen Square. 

When the time comes to stand up, if I have to give my life to keep
them from going too far, if there is a Tiananmen Square in our future,
I intend to be there. And no matter what lies they tell and no matter
what laws they pass, I intend to meet them with something more
substantial in my hand than a brick. 

My opinions are, of course, my own.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54951
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Subject: Re: the truth starts to come out

>Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and 
>Senate so that we can all write letters?

US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

US Senate
Washington, DC 20510


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54952
From: kratz@cs.uiuc.edu (Jason Kratz)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns

In <1993Apr16.202441.16032@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear
>>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapons
>>that are being confiscated.

>Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16
>from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and
>a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various
>versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?

Well, let me see.  UZI, no.  M-11/9, no.  M-16/AR-15, maybe.  I remember there
being a selector swtich on the AR-15.  If I remember correctly (please correct
me if I'm wrong) the switch would set to an "off" position or an "on" position
because the gun (AR-15) is semi-automatic.  Wouldn't the M-16 have a position
for semi-auto fire and full-auto fire (or maybe 3 round bursts)?  If this is
correct wouldn't it be easy to distinguish each gun by this alone?  Of course
if the AR-15 were modified to full-auto fire I wouldn't think it would be that
easy but I'm talking about distinguishing between an unmodified AR-15 and M-16.
How about the other guns?  Do they also have selector switch to switch between
semi-auto and fully-auto fire?

>If so, I'd love to hear the details, if only because they'll demonstrate
>that Kratz is blowing smoke.

>Considering that one can design a gun so that it looks just like
>another gun, yet have very different properties, and that that's
>quite common....

>Most kids in my neighborhood were quite young when they figured out
>that my parents car wasn't much like Richard Petty's, even though it
>looked just like it (except for the paint job).  Things must have been
>different with Kratz.

Actually it was pretty hard for the kids in my neighborhood to figure that out
as Richard Petty lived in my neighborhood and left his stock car in the 
driveway. ;-)

>>Sure it's on TV but why does that make a difference?

>No, it doesn't, but that's irrelevant.  If visual inspection of the
>outside worked, TV would be acceptable, but since it doesn't, the fact
>that it's just as good as seeing in person doesn't mean much.

Well, what about what I said above?  If that is correct I guess TV would be
acceptable (if you had a good enough picture and a picture of the lower 
receiver of the AR-15/M-16).

>-andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private
>--
Jason Kratz <- didn't take andy's offer to back down in private

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54953
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
>
>Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
>latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
>themselves to death.

If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
of paranoia?

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54955
From: oaf@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Oded Feingold)
Subject: Dealing with cults - a few thoughts

In the wake of the Waco denouement, I had email discussions with
people from this group.  In particular, we discussed how cults
operate, why the FBI might be motivated to black out news or behave
the way it did, and what kinds of problems are involved in dealing
with cults and similar organizations.

I include an edited account of what I wrote.  The identity of my
correspondents have (I hope) been erased.  The editing process makes
the text choppy - sorry about that.  I've tried to retain the
information content.

Ellipses (...) indicate where text was removed.  A few of the comments
in parentheses are new, intended to make it easier for outsiders to
understand.

These notes are preliminary - feel free to criticize.

Cheers(?),
Oded

------------------------ (begin included text) -----------------------

I took a course called the MADNESS OF CROWDS, ...  The course included
cults and briefly mentioned/analyzed Jonestown.  (Did some external
reading too).

William Adorno ... edited a series of books on the psychology of
"evil" mass movements...  starting with THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY,
University of Chicago Press, 1948 ... an attempt to figure out what
would motivate people to support fascism or be the bad guys in WWII,
and by extension in other wars, in racial lynchings ...  I don't think
the books are perfect, and the study of psychopathology has advanced
..., but you can elicit Koresh types from even the first volume.  So I
think they're onto something.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
		How cult psychology works...
	[I'm an amateur.  Hope I'm not hopelessly naive.]

So long as Koresh could "own" his people, he made sure they didn't
believe there was any life out there for them, away from him.
Otherwise, he'd (Koresh) be nothing.  During the siege, ex-Davidians
recounted how he convinced the people in the compound they survived
only through his intercession with God to spare their worthless souls.
Absolutely classic brainwashing technique. ...  As long as they
believed him, they'd ignore BATF/FBI/Child Protective Services or even
the Red Cross asking them to come out.  After all, if they ever left
him, God would catapult them straight to Hell, and the combined forces
of the US gummint, with all the goodwill in the world (doubtful)
couldn't save them for a second.  If I believed it, I'd stay and die
too, like the folks in Jonestown.

For a prosaic analogy, replace a cult leader with an estranged wife
(or husband), and notice how many folks show up, kill the ex and then
themselves.  That's the consequence of shattered "cultism."  It really
does happen all the time.  [By the way, the treasured ideal in such
cases, without which life is meaningless, is the relationship, no
matter how abusive, rather than the individual's partner.]

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Why No News, Don't The Feds Owe The World An Explanation?]

I agree that official explanations are in order.  I can also see good
(?)  reasons for news blackouts.

>	The only fact available is that had the FBI not acted  
>	yesterday, those people would be alive today.

 ... that no matter what, those people would have died, because Koresh
made sure they believed they had no lives outside his influence.
Hence it would make little difference when or how the FBI acted.  He
held them hostage, as his trump against going to jail, but nothing
would really stop him from offing them.  Even if the FBI went away!

Look at history.  Rep Leo Ryan (and some staffers) visited Jonestown,
at the request of constituents who had relatives there.  Once
Jonestown was discovered, and even though they killed Ryan and his
entourage ... they all killed themselves, because Jim Jones knew he'd
be busted.  Internal arguments asking to spare the children, brought
up by some of the women in the cult, were shouted down.  There are
tapes...  The "logic" of saying that no matter how bad the gummint is, it
wouldn't kill the kids, was shouted down as blasphemy, and the people
who brought it up were threatened with ostracism by people who by
THEIR OWN AVOWAL would be dead within the hour.  I suspect it's the
same with the Branch Davidians.
(There's a book on Jonestown by James Reston Jr., titled OUR FATHER
WHO ART IN HELL.  I don't know whether it's good - never read it.)

...
The only way to prevent such a problem would be never to investigate
reports of child abuse or sexual mistreatment, or organizations buying
full-auto conversion kits or shipping hand grenades via UPS, on the
off chance of stumbling across cults that would kill themselves. ...

So, the only way the BATF/FBI could "save" those people, and future
cults, is by ignoring such signs.

I suppose there's another way - outsmarting Koresh and tricking him
into letting them go, or somehow influencing "his" people to abandon
him while he owns most of their means of communication with the world.
... a mighty tough row to hoe. ...  I suspect the FBI tried to do that
with blackouts, noise and other sensory insults.  However, maybe
they're not very sophisticated, or maybe the job is impossible.  It's
certainly possible the guy running the show was a jerk.

...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
	[Why the FBI might want to blackout during and coverup after]

    ... - if they were doing a poor job of weaning the BD's from
Koresh, they'd want to keep it quiet so they wouldn't be embarrassed.

    ... - if they were trying to wean the BD's from Koresh, they'd
want to keep it quiet so he couldn't outflank them, or well-meaning
boneheads from ANY point of view wouldn't screw it up. ...  I _hate_
playing chess when the world screams in my face, especially if at
checkmate time people really die, and I could be blamed.

...

I don't think ignoring such incidents is a workable policy, unless you
deny the FBI, BATF, Child Protective Services (of whatever stripe) and
the rest of the gummint should exist at all. 

		(the end)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

			  Okay, have at it.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54956
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:


> I will add my voice to the (hopefully) growing multitudes.

> I hereby pledge $1000.00 towards the purchase of CNN, under the same conditions
> as already described.  I will also post this idea on the other nets I can 
> access (RIME and Libernet).

I'll go in for $1000 worth of CNN stock.  Is anyone from the NRA listening?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54957
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale; Influencing the coverage

In <1993Apr19.171602.27135@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.153444.28112@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>I'd be willing to go in as well. By the way, we wouldn't need to
>>buy the network wholesale. Simply owning a large number of shares
>>would still work (if 5% of the shareholders want pro-gun coverage
>>and the rest don't really care, they'll go along just to keep 
>>the 5% happy...)

>I'd go along with this plan as well.  Turner's stock is traded
>on the American exchange and has 3 classes (A, B, and C).  A and
>B stock is currently about 23 bucks a share; C stock is about 11
>bucks a share.  Does anybody have any idea how much stock TBS
>has issued?  What would it take to reach 5%, 51%, or even 100%?

Um, I sortof hesitate to bring this up, but owning even a single share
entitles you to attend the annual shareholders meeting, and under most
corporate charters to introduce topics to be discussed.  While I *don't*
suggest the tactic used by some in Japan (go to the shareholders meeting,
and disrupt the bejeezus out of everything), what about a well-worded
resolution complaining about "advocacy journalism"?


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54958
From: nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:
>What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I
>believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems
>with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as
>well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.

	My god, a sane person!  Somebody asking intelligent questions rather
than spouting of unsubstantiated drivel and making comparisons to Nazi
Germany.  I question, along with others, the initial raid by the ATF.
There are some definite questions needing answers.

>1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at
>some time before the Feb. 28th raid?

	Probably.  Which is why there are so many people angry at the
initial confrontation.  Why attack a compound with as many people in that
compound who are willing to die for their leader?  Further, they attacked
in the daylight hours without proper backup, medical support, etc.  That
was rather stupid...

>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

	This I doubt.  While I question the ATF's initial raid, I believe
that the remainder of the standoff was handled fairly well with the single
exception of the psychological "warfare" by blaring music, etc.  I think
that was uncalled for and probably hindered the outcome.

>3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?

	See above...

>And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in
>general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.

	Agreed.

>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

	Which is actually rather refreshing nowadays.  Most of the time, the
higher-ups claim "I don't remember..." or "I had no involvement..."  :-)

-- 
Michael G. Larish       | Amateur Radio Callsign:  KD6CTZ
nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu | Golden Empire Amateur Radio Society (GEARS) - W6RHC
California State        | Chico State Amateur Radio Society (CSARS)
University, Chico       | Butte County Sheriff's Search & Rescue - #317

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54959
From: ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu (Eli Brandt)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19

In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>More than someone who would not release children from the compound.

I suppose it's too late now, but the repeated use of the word
"release" is peculiar.  Let's say you and your family are besieged
in your home by some people with tanks, helicopters, and automatic
weapons.  They give you a break from the amplified sounds of dying
rabbits to blare, "You in there!  Release the children, and they'll
be perfectly all right."  Stipulate on top of that that you may not
have your epistemology entirely in order.  Is it entirely surprising
that the Branch Davidians were reluctant to "release" their children
into FBI custody?

	 PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail
   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 54960
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Photographers removed from compound

Relay of coverage seen:
----------------------
There was a press conference by authorities at the compound on CNN earlier 
today (Wednesday).  It was explained that two news photographers were found 
on the compound earlier this morning without permission.  It was explained 
to the press corps. that this is dangerous and that an unknown photographer 
turning around with a long lens camera could be mistaken for someone dangerous 
by a Texas Ranger surveying the site. (!)  

The two photographers were said to be currently in jail and 
the press were warned to follow the authorities' guidelines.  
It was also emphasized that the survey of the "crime" scene at this 
point was crucial and that the press could not be allowed to interfere.
The press will not be allowed in until the bodies are removed and the 
site has been completely surveyed for evidence for a court case.  

That is the gist of the beginning of the conference to the best of my 
memory.  I bring this up because I haven't seen anyone else note it 
and I haven't seen the regular newscasts mention it.  It will 
probably be mentioned in the papers tomorrow.

My opinions:
-----------
I find this disturbing.  While I believe that Koresh is largely 
responsible for not ending this standoff in a peacable manner during the 
last 51 days of patient opportunity, I find the secrecy surrounding the 
aftermath more damaging to the authorities' position than they realize.

Since the vast majority of potential defendents in a court case are 
already dead, the emphasis on the importance of building the court 
case seems overblown to me.

It will be interesting to see the hearings on this affair.  I have also 
heard congressional calls for a review and possible overhaul of government 
enforcement agencies which you will recall I have stated would be a good 
idea in previous months.

Please also note that I by no means endorse  or agree with the many 
conspiracy-type theories I have read here and in other groups.  As usual, 
I am basing my opinions on info gathered from various media and filtered 
by my own common sense and consideration of plausibility, IMHO.  As such, 
my opinion is subject to change as more information is made available.


Scott Roby                                                Standard Disclaimer
-- 



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55036
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
 
>
>In a previous article, nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) says:
>
>>In article <1r00ug$d60@btr.btr.com> michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn  michaelh@btr.com) writes:
>>>A partial list of excellent socialist visionaries and the tolls they've
>>>taken of unpopular religious/ethnic/social groups.
>>>
>>>Mao Tse-Tung		Millions Killed
>>>J. Stalin			Millions Killed
>>>A. Hitler			Millions Killed
>>>Pol Pot				100,000s Killed?
>>>W. J. Clinton		~100 Killed, but relax-he's only had a hundred or so days.
>>
>>	You people are rather amusing in a perverse sort of way.  You take
>>a tragic/unpleasant situation that you feel is a terrible injustace, and
>>assign blame to anybody and everybody with or without a link to the incident
>>simply because they don't fit your extremely narrow definition of good.
>>
>>	How is Clinton responsible?  It was a law enforcement action.
>>Granted, it was a nationally covered incident but Clinton had no more to
>>do with the outcome than Fred Flintstone.
>>
>Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
>are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
>that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
>briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
>go ahead.
>
>Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?
>
>>--
The FBI, CIA, BATF, etc. ARE federal agencies, you are correct.  But to
think there is a visible and clear chain of command up to the Prez, and
that these agencies inform Reno who informs Clinton, etc. is naive.  These
agencies operate as distinct and seperate entities and while they have
ultimate accountability to the Prez, they make their own moves, and then
tell the Prez, who says, "I knew all along".  While this may not seem right,
or it may not fit our idealistic need to see a structured chain of command
leading to the White House, thats the way it is.  Bureaucracys are not, after
all, composed of 3 or 4 people who talk on a regular basis, have lunch, and
maybe golf together.  I do agree, the FBI, BATF messed up. I'm not sure if
they should have stormed the compound or not.  By the way, Jehova Witnesses
are a religious minority in this country.  Protestantism is a minority
religion in the World.  BDs were a cult by all definitions and history of
cults.  To say this is not to persecute a religious or ethnic enclave.
Koresh said he was the Messiah.  I was raised a Baptist, although I do
not practice the religion and do not think that the Big Guy upstairs is
digging the divisiveness, closemindedness, and right-wing morons that are
associated with the religion.  Anyway, the Messiah that I was taught about
would not be carrying a gun, let alone stockpiling weapons.  You can doubt
BATF reports all you want, David Koresh was not a poor soul who was
unjustly persecuted.  While some of the information coming from the U.S
government is being exagerated so as keep public opinion on their side, I
do believe that some of the things that former cult members have said
are true.  Anyway, this is just another excuse to try and blame President
Clinton for something.  People who attempt to do this for political motives
should be ashamed.  THEY are the ones who are keeping this country from
reaching its full potential.
 
 
 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55037
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In <1r600fINNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:

> In article 5589@news.eng.convex.com, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
> >In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >>  Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did
> >>not break out for several hours.  
> >	Minor quibble back at you.  I am in the same general area as
> >	the Koresh compound and I can tell you that the air was quite
> >	chilly that morning, especially with the high winds that
> >	were blowing. (Of course the swiss cheese walls made it
> >	even worse. ;-)

  You are correct WRT the idea of some heating being nice that morning.  But 
part of that line was also for the guy who said "minutes later, the fires
started".  I did forget how cool it was that day.

> Those choppers flying around didn't make the wind any more still, either.

  When you got 30-40 mph winds swinging across the Texas plain, a couple of
Hueys don't add one whole hell of a lot.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
 I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.     
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
 "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    
      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		              

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55038
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1r5a7jINN83g@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) writes:
>In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:

>>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.

>	This I doubt.  While I question the ATF's initial raid, I believe
>that the remainder of the standoff was handled fairly well with the single
>exception of the psychological "warfare" by blaring music, etc.  I think
>that was uncalled for and probably hindered the outcome.

  BUT...  Suppose they had waited.  The WORST outcome would have been the
one that actually did.  But with the FBI/ATF just standing there watching
instead of being a part of the problem.  It then would have been very clear
exactly who was at fault then, rather than the way it turned out.

  AND, that would have been the WORST case.  The best would have been, they
finally get hungry and come out.  Possible/likely?  Well, the alternative was
worse...

>>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the
>>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy
>>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.

>	Which is actually rather refreshing nowadays.  Most of the time, the
>higher-ups claim "I don't remember..." or "I had no involvement..."  :-)

  But what does it matter?  Why say "I don't remember...." when it doesn't
make any difference?  Altho the clintonettes have been pretty good at lying
when it wasn't necessary, they didn't do it this time.  But it wasn't 
necessary - claiming full responsibility is a totall meaningless gesture.
Symbolism over substance - again!  

  I've offered to take full responsibility.  When do they pay me the big
bucks the AG is making...????   ;^)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55039
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:    CRIMESTRIKE - Phoenix Gazette Editorial


    Editorial - A10, Saturday, April 24, 1993

    CRIMESTRIKE HITS TOWN

    With the chilling reality of crime at the hands of urban terrorists
    that were noted above (a high school student and gang article in the
    same column), we welcome into the ranks of those dedicated to re-
    moving criminals from the streets the National Rifle Association's
    new CrimeStrike project, engineered by Arizona's former chief assist-
    ant attorney general Steven J. Twist.

    CrimeStrike is working to reverse the disturbing trend of daily
    crime.  It is promoting solutions that can be applied nationally,
    including tough and honest sentencing of the sort that Arizona is
    applying with its Truth in Sentencing law; funding construction and
    staffing of appropriate prison space; ensuring that the system is
    primed to punish serious youthful offenders; strict attention to the
    rights of victims; and citizen and community involvement.

    Phoenix will be the home for this national organization.

    The Gazette has vigorously opposed many NRA policies on issues of gun
    control, and will be resolute in promoting prudent laws that seek
    reasonable regulation of firearms.

    But CrimeStrike is an appropriate creation, a response to a clear
    need for more robust vigilance in holding legislators and judges ac-
    countable when it comes to swiftly and surely punishing criminals.

    When an organization has an issue, it has an issue, and Crime-
    Strike has it - especially when it is willing to direct its dollars
    to getting criminals off the street.

    We say, welcome to town.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55040
From: s5uapw@odysseus (Aaron Walker)
Subject: A little question of  "blame" (was Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>,  
mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:
 
> However it was the Branch
> Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their  
"savior" 
> (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing  
that 
> what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up  
their
> lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  

Tolerent, aren't we?  Their's was hardly the first faith/sect/cult 
to espouse this type of belief.

> Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
> who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me  
and
> for many of the rest of the U.S. 

I keep hearing this, and while I'll agree that he "should" have come
out (legally, that was his best option), he didn't; and as far as I know,
there is no legal provision for "we're tired of this shit, lets just
kick some ass..."

So I have a question for you; here goes.

I come up to you and point a gun at you, saying "I'm going to count
to ten, if you aren't standing on your head by then, I'll kill you."
You believe that standing on your head is the road to damnation, so
you don't do it.
"1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10...BANG!"  You are now dead - Is it my
fault for shooting you, or you're fault for being shot?
Koresh wouldn't stand on his head.  

-Aaron

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55041
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

In article <C5uIHo.8LK@chinet.chi.il.us> dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
:gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
:>On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to
:
:You couldn't find a window after six hours?  
:
:-- 
: Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract

Have you ever been violently sick repeatedly?  I have, and it was difficult to 
drag myself back to my bed, much less move through a building full of smoke and
debris, especially when most likely already disoriented from lack of sleep and
constant psychological abuse...  Throw in the fact that the 'safety' outside
consists of people who have shot at me and thrown grenades at me, and are
currently knocking my house down with tanks, I could understand if the BD's
were inclined to stay put in the center of the building...



-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55048
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Starting my letter writing campaign

Okay, here is the result of my efforts.  I'm just getting started with this
type of activity, so please set your flame-thowers on low.

Comments, corrections, suggestions, welcomed.

****************************************************************************

Editor, 

I would like to ask you and your readers a few questions that are related to
the "right to keep and bear arms", and to a greater degree, the many other
"rights" that we take for granted on a daily basis. 

1.	You're sleeping at night, when you hear someone in your house.  You
call the police.  How will you defend yourself, should the need arise, while
you are waiting for the police to arive? 

2.	You are driving your family home when your car breaks down.  A "good
samaritan" stops to "help", when you find you and your family at gun-point or
knife-point.  How will you defend yourself?  And your Family? 

3.	You are a woman walking alone to your car or home.  A man appears
suddenly with the intent to rape you.  How will you defend yourself?  Are you
strong enough to fight off your attacker?  Are you willing to let this man rape
you in order to survive the attack? 

If the House and Senate have their way, we will soon not have the right to keep
and bear arms, as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A gun
may not be the answer to each and every dangerous situation, but are you going
to let the politicians decide what sort of force or weapon you may use to
defend yourself and your family? 

Many times a situation may be diffused by just brandishing your handgun.  If
certain members of the House and Senate have their way, .25, .32, and 9mm
ammunition will be banned for sale to anyone other than the military and law
enforcement departments.  Very soon, you may not be able to purchase ammunition
for use in your handgun. 

There is already a 15 day waiting period in California.  Do you really feel
that any law abiding citizen should be required to wait this amount of time for
the purchase of a handgun when his life or family members have been threatened?

Our local police do an excellent job, but they can not be there all the time,
or in a moments notice.  You should have the right to protect yourself   while
waiting for help to arrive. 

There is currently legislation circulating in Washington that would prohibit
the sale of certain types of ammuntion, handguns, rifles, and shot-guns.  One
elected official even wants to repeal the Second Amendment! 

I want to ask the readers of this paper what they would do if their elected
officials decided that they should only belong to a "certain church", or go to
church on a "partiular day"?  What if you were told that you could only read
certain books?  Write about certain subjects?  What if you no longer had the
right to a jury of your peers?  How about the right to assemble in a peaceful
manner? 

These are all rights that are provided by our Constitution and the Amendments.
If we give up one right, we may as well give them all up.  If you do not fight
for the right to keep and bear arms, what will you fight for?  When your life
is affected?  Write your law makers now!  Protect all of your rights by
defending your Second Amendment rights. 


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55049
From: djh4484@zeus.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale

In article <1qt8pt$ge4@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes...
>In article <93106.21394634AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>|In article <2001.150.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
>|says:
>|>
>|> Bill Vojak:
Hey! If you can get it together, I'm all for it! I too am one of the poor
(a college student) Get a bank account set aside, and set aside a big ass
data base and you will get my contribution. I'm setting aside as of now 10$ 
a month. Not a slew of cash to be sure, but it's the best I can do. Let me
know what you guys come up with. I'm sure as hell not going anywhere.

E-Mail to DJH4484@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU
Death to Tyrants!  
							Kane
Better ideas anyone? Haven't heard 'em yet!


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55050
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining
>>these weapons, 

>This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.

	Very narrow.  Very, very narrow.  If you'll recall, I was the
nut that advocated the possibility of tactical nukes being militia
weapons in certain situations.  How can you possibly define what is a
weapon and what isn't is only the start of this.

>>and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of
>>modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.  

>I would hope so.  Let's define a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon
>whose majority of energy comes from fission and/or fusion of atomic
>nuclei.

	And you've just described any civilian reactor because your
definition fails to note what energy is being considered.  Reactors
blow with a steam explosion, but the majority of energy still comes
from fission or fusion because that is what heated the coolant.  See
what a can of worms this is?  Last I heard, Ft. Calhoun station just
north of Omaha, Nebraska wasn't considered a weapon.  Given the
sodium-cooled breeder designs on the blocks now, I can easily envision
reactors being household appliances in under twenty years.  With the
PRISM design, there is *no* operator input needed on the reactor
itself, and it is not unreasonable to assume the secondary side can
be made equally as automatic in the future.  So your definition is
flawed in a few respects already.

>  Let's define a biological weapon as live organisms or viruses 
>in such state, quantity, and with such a vector that they could cause 
>death or serious disease [further defined] to a significant number of
>people if released in a city, similarly populated area, resevoir, or
>cropland.  

	Typhoid Mary would likely fit this bill if she sneezed.  If
you don't mind extrapolation, any HIV-positive person also fits this
bill if they interact with others in a way that stands any chance of
spreading the virus.  Finally, that manure pile I mention below fits
this definition, as does, say, releasing a pet rattlesnake to the wild.

>Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
>gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
>is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
>research purposes on such chemicals.

	And I can show where any such gas has other uses.  For example,
perhaps we would like to rid the hay field of gophers.  Calcium Carbide
is a rock that dissolves in water to produce aceteylne gas.  It can
be used for welding, in miners lamps, for gassing gophers, or for
making carbide bombs and doing some illicit fishing.  Toss some in a
toilet and leave a lighted cigarette on the seat and you'll see that
it can also be a weapon, just like any other flammable substance.
So, now my miners lamps won't work, I can't do any welding, and I
still have those pesky gophers.

>I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
>definitions.

	The basis for, but I'm sure you see that the problem is not
in writing a law, it is in writing a law that cannot be abused and
extended beyond the point where it does any good.

>>I'll give
>>you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the
>>road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, 

>Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.

	It is under your proposed law.  So is a silage pit if there
is run-off.  So are underground fuel tanks.

>>biological in
>>nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate
>>the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So,
>>where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that
>>a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?

>It is not defined as a weapon of mass destruction.  Many things are
>banned for other reasons.

	It meets all the criterion of a weapon.  It is an instrument that
can be used for fighting, even though that is not its intended purpose,
and despite there being better weapons around.  Given that the aquifers
supply a significant part of the country with drinking water, mass
destruction is rather a given.

	It's not that certain weapons aren't something I'd rather not
see a lot of people having.  The problem is that it is nearly
impossible to write a law such that it cannot be abused upon some
pretext or another.  The looser your definition, the more ripe for
abuse that law is.  Furthermore, if you get specific then the old
standby is to insert a clause allowing the list of banned things to
be added to, generally without going through the hassles of another
vote and public reading of the law.  Again, ripe for abuse.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55051
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CNN report: FBI/ATF killing ALL Americans

In article <1993Apr22.000020.23999@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower) writes:

> CNN just reported the ATF and the FBI have begun killing everyone in the
> United States. A press release stated this action was required because
> bugs had revealed that many people were doing something illegal in their
> homes, and statistical data indicated that those who weren't might someday
> do something illegal. An ATF spokesperson, just before he shot himself, stated
> that "this would clean up things once and for all".

For those of you still unsure whether this is satire, the jury is still out:

    "Also yesterday, even though the compound no longer exists, the
     US attorney's office here released formerly sealed documents,
     including a search warrant and related affidavits, that authorities
     planned to use when the siege was over.

    "These documents did not include the original warrants the Bureau of
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had in late February, which to this
     day have never been released.

    "...one of the documents indicated the agency planned to seek
     samples of Koresh's handwriting not only to verify that he had
     signed for some gun purchases, but also that he espoused
     'certain doctrines hostile to law enforcement and particularly
     the ATF.'"

So, one of the charges against Koresh seems to be Contempt of Cop -- he
expressed hostility to the BATF.  That chilly feeling in your gonads is 
perfectly normal, folks... it should go away in about 51 days.

        The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
        ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
        abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

That should save them the trouble of subpoena-ing samples.  Heavens knows 
I want to cooperate fully, meinherren.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55052
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Riddle me this...

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

>gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
>>On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to
>>tear gas, the first thing that came to mind was the location of the exit.  If
>>there had been anything in the way, corners to negotiate, doors to open, or 
>>any other obstacles to movement, I would have had a difficult time exiting

>You couldn't find a window after six hours?  

	I'd bet cash 90% of the people couldn't find the window after six
minutes!  Ask anybody who's taken basic training in the military.  It is
not at all uncommon for a few soldiers who have not properly attached
and cleared their masks to require assistance exiting the chamber.  Since
that chamber has a door, not just a window, it's likely a hell of a lot
easier to exit than a multi-room, damaged house.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55053
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Don Kates' talk on the Branch Davidians

This was posted by Lyn Bates to the firearms-politics mailing list:

I recently learned that Don Kates was going to be in Boston to give a talk
at the Harbard Law School about the Waco situation.  (Of course, this was
all set up after the incident started but long before its unhappy
conclusion.)  So, yesterday I went to hear him.  What follows is a rough
summary of what I think I heard him say, which should not be taken as
exactly what he actually said...

Kates started by saying that since he didn't know any more about the fire
than the audience did (it had just happened the day before), he would not
discuss that, but would concentrate on the original raid.

Koresh definitely was not playing with a full deck.  But so what?  This
isn't the first time that the leader of a new, small religious group has
been ridiculed by the public.  Extreme religious views nearly always fuel
hatred and mistrust.  The first amendment applies, maybe especially, to
people like Koresh.

Lengthy digression into the history of police organizations in the US.
There were none until about 1830, when they began in metropolitan areas.
Police originally were not armed; if they found a crime in progress, they
called local armed citizens to help.  Many began to carry arms for
protection despite regulations against them, eventually the laws were
changed to allow them to carry guns.  The original intent was to have many
small police departments, jealous of one another and competitive, but not
large enough to be a threat to liberty, hence the plethora of
organizations ranging from postal inspectors to the coast guard.  When the
FBI was started, agents did not have the authority oto carry guns (they
were to be, after all, a bureau of investigation, not a police force).
"All police agencies will be misused by anyone in power to maintain that
power."

The BATF started as a tax collection agency, whose primary job was to raid
illegal stills.  When the price of sugar went up so high that moonshiners
no longer found their trade no longer profitable, many illegal stills
disappeared, and the BATF needed something else to do to justify its
existence, so it turned to activities like phony raids on gun stores.
Around the time when the BATF's annual budget is under review, the media
is alerted by the BATF to come to such-and-such a place, where at a
pre-arranged time, a bunch of cars full of BATF agents roar up to the door
and the media get great pictures of the agents entering the premises of a
gun dealer suspected of not keeping books properly.  The media isn't
invited in for the boring hours of agents leafing through paperwork, but
if any irregularities are found, the media gets to cover the agents
removing armfuls of guns from the premises, and the luckless FFL in
chains.

The Waco incident happened a few weeks before BATF's budget was up for
review.

Kates' opinion is that it was a staged publicity stunt that went bad, and
that the BATF never thought for a moment that they would actually be shot
at, or they would have planned the raid differently (not sending 100
agents over open ground with no cover, for example), and would have had
some medical personnel on hand.

He confirmed that some years ago there was a warrant for Koresh's arrest
in connection with a murder charge, and the local sheriff called him on
the phone and explained about it.  Koresh sais, ok, come pick me up, and
the sheriff did, temporarily confiscating all the guns so that they could
be tested.  Koresh was later cleared, release, and presumably got his guns
back.  At least at that time, he was rational enough to be approached
rationally, and behaved in a reasonable manner.

The BATF didn't take into account that, unlike most of the FFL's they
audit, Koresh was actually paranoid, and fostered paranoia in his
followers.  Thus the pubicity stunt looked like a real attack to them, and
they reacted accordingly.

With respect to the original warrant, it had not been unsealed when Kates
was giving his talk, so he could not comment on it, except to mention that
the BATF has been known to not double-check the veractiy of their
informants, if they can manage to get a judge to issue a warrant.  He had
more to say about the way the warrant was served, which may have been
completely illegal.  Apparently the proper way to serve a warrant is to
knock on the door and announce that you're an officer with a warrant for
thus-and-so; if they don't open the door and the evidence is flushable,
then it is ok to break in the door.  But since it is hard to flush guns
down the toilet, there may have been no justification for the BATF
breaking in the way they did.  If the constitutional rights of the
Davidians were violated by an invalid warrant, or by an improperly served
warrant, then the Davidians may have been justified in their actons.  A
close look at one of the original films shows that one BATF agent _may_
have shot himself by accident when entering the building; if so, this was
the first shot fired!

The role of the media could have been a whole lot worse.  After an initial
position on the side of the BATF, the media began to come around to the
view that this might be a situation in which legally armed citizens held
off a bad, possibly illegal attack.  A real cynic might say that the FBI
went in when they did because it was clear that public opinion was
beginning to change sides, and the FBI wanted to act before they lost the
public's sympathy.

Should the BATF be abolished?  No.  Police agencies _should_ be numerous,
diverse, inefficient, decentralized, etc.  Better a few inept accidents
like this, than a move toward a single, large, well-organized,
well-trained, powerful, domestic police force, which would eventually have
even more tragic results.

   - Lyn Bates
     (bates@bbn.com)

PS Don Kates will be giving a shorter version of this talk at Boston
College Law School next Tuesday, April 27.  I don't know the exact time or
place, but presumably a phone call to the BC law school could elicit that
information.
-- 
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55054
From: jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas


In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the army
> saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been banned from
> military use.  Its use is also banned by a draft international
> agreement on the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
> 
> The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
> blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  
> Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results
> all the earlier.  

Interesting development.  Especially since the Feds (and the U.N.)
accused Saddam Hussein of using illegal chemicals on his own 
citizens as well.  Hmmm...  Republican Guard/Iraqu Army = FBI/BATF?  
You decide.
--
I hope very much that others who will be tempted to join cults
and to become involved with people like David Koresh will be
deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over the last 
seven weeks.  

           -President William Jefferson Clinton, April 20, 1993,
at a press conferance held the day after the Branch Davidians 
"compound" went up in flames while under attack by the FBI/ATF
near Waco, Texas.  Is your church U.S. Government approved?

CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!!!  Ministry, TV Song
-- 
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
    provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
    Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55055
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: "Women With Guns" on CBS

Catch tonight's (Thursday's) CBS Street Stories.  Covers, among others,
the work of AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment), a women's
empowerment and training group in Massachusetts.  They'll be interviewing
spokesperson Nancy Bittle, as well as some of her students.  (Assuming
all of the "interesting" stuff they taped makes the final cut.)

[If they show the ugly housebreaker in the toque and sunglasses, wave hi.]
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55056
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Janet Reno on Nightline

In article <FINN.93Apr20102525@dalek.ISI.EDU>, finn@ISI.EDU (Greg Finn) writes:
> 
> 	I am bothered by the suggestion of child abuse that Janet Reno
> used several times last night, both on and off Nightline as a de facto
> justification for approving the raid.  If that is to be used as a
> justification of potentially lethal force attack on the compound, and
> doing structural damage can fairly be called that, then that evidence
> had better be quite strong.  That seemed to be on Ted Kopel's mind
> last night.
> 
> 	Reno stated that they had evidence of child abuse.  She would
> not say what it was.  Koresh's now ex-lawyer was inside the compound
> repeatedly and told her to her face last night that he saw plenty of
> happy children playing with their mothers and no signs of child abuse
> whatsoever.  No brooding silent children, no apparent bruising, and so
> on.  Her reply to this was that child abuse is not always as evident
> as that.  True, but what better evidence could the FBI have had?  At
> this point it seems difficult to see how the FBI could have had better
> evidence than that seen by Koresh's lawyer who was an eye witness.
> 
> 	Having lived in LA and seen the media and authority feeding
> frenzy that accompanied the McMartin Preschool debacle, I have seen
> just how hot a button a child abuse charge can be.  Child abuse has
> been used before by authorities as a justification to discard prudence.
> 
> 	I find Janet Reno's repeated assertions of evidence of child
> abuse rather curious.  Wasn't the warrant issued for a supposed
> weapons violation?  That certainly had nothing to do with child abuse.
> Are we to assume therefore that new evidence of child abuse arose
> after the issuance of that warrant and the initial assault?  If so, I
> fail to see now how that new evidence was gathered, and how it could
> be better that on-site eye witness evidence.
> --
> Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
> Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

On TV news this morning it was reported that the local Texas authorities
who have reviewed the cases of the 21 children who were released
earlier in the siege have found no evidence of physical or sexual
abuse of any of the children.  I don't recall if this was on Good
Morning America or our local Texas TV station.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55057
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: FBI Director's Statement on Waco Standoff

ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> FBI Director's Statement On Waco Standoff
>   "I had hoped to be making a very different statement this evening.
>After very careful planning and extensive preparation we all thought
>that today's efforts by the FBI to bring the Branch Davidians out of
>their compound would result in the peaceful resolution of the
>stand-off or at least meaningful negotiation.
>   "Instead, we are faced with devastation and death.  However, I
>have no question that our plan was correct and was conducted with
>extreme professionalism and care.  I applaud the restraint shown by
>agents in the face of life-threatening gunfire, and I thank them for
>risking their lives to try to end this peacefully.  I have only the
>greatest admiration for the courage and professionalism of all
>involved."

      "I have no question that our plan was correct?"  Months to
get ready, unlimited funds, knowledge of a threatened mass suicide by fire,
and no fire trucks on hand?   This is "extreme professionalism and care?"

      I can understand the first screwed-up raid by the BATF.  They
underestimated the opposition, which happens.  But not this one.  
The FBI had their first team in place, massive resources, ample time 
for planning and bringing up any specialized equipment or people necessary.  
They still botched it.

      The FBI Director and the FBI SAC in overall charge should resign,
or be fired for incompetence.

      I don't blame Reno or Clinton.  They gave the FBI clear orders:
don't go in unless you can do it without casualties; if you can't do that,
wait it out.  Those were reasonable orders.  The FBI said they could
pull off a tactical solution, and they couldn't.

					John Nagle

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55058
From: lilak@peaks.enet.dec.com (Rod Lilak)
Subject: Re: Should Anybody be Permitted to Own a .50 BMG rifle?


In article <93111.141747JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!cunyvm!jcehc
Organization: City University of New York
Date: Wednesday, 21 Apr 1993 14:17:47 EDT
From: <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Message-ID: <93111.141747JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Should Anybody be Permitted to Own a .50 BMG rifle?
Lines: 26

   For the moment, forget about BATF incompetence or FBI hubris.  Did
anybody catch Rep. Charles Shumer on the news last night holding up
a .50 BMG cartridge and rhetorically asking if anybody should be allowed
to own one of these.  (I presume he meant the rifle for which it is chambered
and not the cartridge which you can get for a buck.)

  So what's your guess for the upcoming anti-gun agenda:

1.   A ban on heavy caliber rifles. (read .50 BMG)

2.   A ban on "sniper rifles"

3. A ban on "stockpiling" guns and ammunition.


BTW: Shumer is perhaps the most misinformed congressman I have seen on
     the news. I wonder how he finds the floor in the morning.
-------
MICHAEL F. GORDON
JCEHC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

"Vote as you shot."  (19th Cent Republican campaign slogan )


Shumer is not mis-informed, he knows full well what he is doing.

If you look at his other votes, and positions as an agent of redistribution
of wealth & property in this country, to him guns and personal freedom 
are incompatible with his obvious world-view. They are a threat to the
'order' he would impose.

	R

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come
close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell
after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The
savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
    -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55059
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Dealing with cults - a few thoughts

In article <OAF.93Apr21181038@klosters.ai.mit.edu>, oaf@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Oded Feingold) writes:

> Look at history.  Rep Leo Ryan (and some staffers) visited Jonestown,
> at the request of constituents who had relatives there.  Once
> Jonestown was discovered, and even though they killed Ryan and his
> entourage ... they all killed themselves, because Jim Jones knew he'd
> be busted...

> The only way to prevent such a problem would be never to investigate
> reports of child abuse or sexual mistreatment, or organizations buying
> full-auto conversion kits or shipping hand grenades via UPS, on the
> off chance of stumbling across cults that would kill themselves. ...
> 
> So, the only way the BATF/FBI could "save" those people, and future
> cults, is by ignoring such signs.

The paucity of this line of argument is that it is provably false.

Texas state officials COULD and DID investigate child abuse charges.
They COULD and DID apprehend Koresh peaceably.  The COULD and DID
impound his weapons for the duration.  And Koresh was NOT CONVICTED.

Note that child abuse and similar accusations are STATE matters, not
federal.  The state COULD and DID handle them properly and peaceably,
and furthermore violating no one's constitutional rights in the process.

So maybe the best way for BATF/FBI to save people is to mind their 
own fucking business.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55060
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
> In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
> >In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> >>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
> >
> >Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid 
> >latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned
> >themselves to death.
> 
> If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
> is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
> your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
> of paranoia?

Funny, Brent, but so far we have heard two versions of the "facts:"

1) What the government says.  This includes what the government says that
   two survivors have said.

2) What Koresh's lawyer (who was actually inside the compound) says,
   including what he says that most of the survivors have said.

Strange, but they seem to disagree in most important particulars.

If anyone has actually seen news reports of any of the survivors
speaking first-hand, feel free ot pitch in.  I may have missed it.
But my money is that their story will sound a hell of a lot like
case 2, and not at all like case 1.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55061
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Impeach Clinton, Reno

Few simple points:  Leadership: You are responsible for all that your 
                      subordinates do or fail to do.

                    Law: Any deaths that occur as a result or during the
                       commision of a crime are a felony against whoever dies
                       during the incident, and whoever committed the crime
                       establishing the incident is chargable for MURDER ONE.
                       This is how criminals are charged with murder for the
                       deaths of bystanders from police stray rounds and such.
                       Someone dying of a heart attack is also considered a
                       murder one, if it is in a situation caused by a crime.

-- 
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space 
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55062
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>

In article <1r2d2rINNa7e@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) says:
>
>NUT CASE PANICS!!!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF
>THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE
>MERCY ON HIM!!!!

I love a clown, even a school-yard one.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55063
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Flames on the net about flames in Waco

In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wa
yne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvin
e) writes:
>>
>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>of paranoia?
>
>Are you a moron or just illiterate?
> [...]
>Oh, I forgot, you're the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need
>electricity, never mind.

     And you're the guy that doesn't know that illiterate people can't write 
coherent sentences. Does that make you superior somehow?

                                        Steve
[]
-- 
   Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    "Across the page / across the ages / the moving hand of history [pleads]
     For a kinder eye to see us / not as we are / but as we dream"
                                                  -- Mark King

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55064
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu
(The Lawnmowerman) says:
>[deleted]
>lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's
>who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and
>for many of the rest of the U.S.  I am however sad to hear of the death of any
>child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.
>--
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              |
>| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    |
>| Kent State University | 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |                         |

How tragically ironic that a post like this should originate
from Kent State. Apparently the lessons of history have been
ignored there.






Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55065
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

In <1993Apr21.202659.28336@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>> Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>> to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>> tacky, but hey, whatever works.

>How about a gun buy-back/charity?  Get some sponsors to fund the
>purchase of used firearms, have a gunsmith check them over, and give
>or sell them at a low price to poor persons wishing to own firearms. ;-)

	Why sell them at a low price to poor people immediately?  The NRA
is an educational organization too, after all, and it would be a shame
to pay all that money for new guns when these cheap guns would allow a
lot of money thus saved to be used in opening more classes.  Mention
that the NRA trains our boys in blue and you've got the media between
a rock and a hard place.

	"City pays $50 per gun to reduce crime."
			or
	"NRA to pay $50 per gun to provide training guns for police
	 and citizens.  Classes expanded with money saved."

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55066
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:

>Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes?

	Generally the ship sinks (sorry, there's a picture of the
USS Iowa next to my desk).

> Bullets go flying every
>where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>went up.

	First, unless that round is chambered there is little threat of
penetration by the bullet, or the brass for that matter.  Unless that
expanding gas is held in an enclosed space you get a nice "pop" and not
enough threat for even firefighters to worry about.  Finally, it's
rather simple to tell if a person was shot prior to being burned to
a crisp.  See, by the time the ammunition went up those people were
quite dead.  Look for blood around the wound, particularly bruising.

	However, it's my contention that it makes little difference
whether they died from exploding ammunition or fire; the Feds seem
to have shared responsibility for both.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55067
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Waco survivors 1715 19 April

From article <C5sEGz.Mwr@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
> 
> In article <APM.93Apr20090558@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
> |>Path: dscomsa!dxcern!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!apm
> |>From: apm@hpopdlau.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
> 
> |>In article <1993Apr19.170353.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
[stuff about British cult members deleted]
> |>What exactly are you trying to say?  And why were there no fire-engines within
> |>a mile of the compound?
> 
> Because the Gun loonies were firing on vehicles with 50mm amunition that
> has a range of 3000 meters.

They were using 50 caliber ammunition not 50mm ammo.  50mm would be 5cm; a
shell of this size would be larger than a lot of cannon shells.

Snipers could have screened the people trying to put out the fire.  Besides,
the ranch house (not "fort apocalypse"; it was just a house despite what
the FBI and ATF says) was on *fire*.  The "Gun loonies" couldn't hardly
have been shooting at fire men while there house was engulfed in flames.
The FBI and ATF don't have any excuse for not having fire engines there
to put out the blaze.  The bastards waited until the fire was *well*
under way before they called the fire department in Waco.  They didn't
even tell the fire department to be on standby.  I sincerely hope that
the FBI, ATF, Attorney General Janet Reno, and all others involved in
this fiasco get the just punishment that they so richly deserve.
Someone should pay for this needless, tragic waste of human life.

Sadly, these evil SOBs will probably never face justice.  The media
and the government will just whitewash this incident and chalk it
up as being solely David Koresh's fault.  Sadder still, the American
people will probably believe them.

> Next question.
> 
> 
> The problem is of course the laws that allow a bunch of raving nutters
> to collect a huge stack of arms in the first place.

This is not the problem...the problem is that we have a government that
is becoming more tyrannical every day.  If people decide to own guns
*and* live in one place together then that is their prerogative.  On
the other hand, if the BDs were in posession of explosives and illegal
guns then the government did have the right to search their compound.
But, the allegations that the BDs were in posession of illegal weapons
hasn't been proven yet, so I'm not going to conclude that the BDs broke
any laws.  David Koresh was accused of abusing children, but if this
is his *only* crime then the presence of the ATF can't be justified.
The ATF is only supposed to deal with firearms, tobacco, and alcohol
violations.  ATF agents are basically cigarette cops...they should
stay out of other kinds of law-enforcement actions that are out of
their jurisdiction.  Better yet, they should be s**tcanned IMO.

> The sequence of events meant that there really was no option but to
> attempt some sort of breakthrough via an intervention. If the FBI had
> had the stomach for it they could have mounted a commando type
> raid and attempted to save the children by shooting all the adults.

Sounds like something the SS would do.  Human life---children and adults
alike---should be treated with respect---even if they are "heavily-armed
religious wackos".

David Koresh's lawyer seemed to think that everyone *would* come out
peacefully sooner or later.  The FBI and ATF had NOTHING BUT TIME ON
THEIR HANDS!  Why did they have to escalate the situation and cause
this senseless tragedy?  Their job is to protect the public and SAVE
LIVES NOT KILL PEOPLE for crying out loud.

> It really was a no win situation. Koresh had plenty of opportunity 
> to give up and stand trial for the murder of the 4 ATF officers. Instead
> he ordered the murder of the children.
 
Don't be so sure about that.  I read in a newspaper today that one of the
cult members said that when one of the tanks went through the wall that
it knocked over a lantern which caused the ranch house to be caught on
fire.  This cult member also said that David Koresh had *no* intentions
of committing mass suicide.  David Koresh's lawyer also confirms this.
Therefore, if this is true then this means that the FBI AND ATF MURDERED
EVERYONE IN THAT HOUSE!  Even if this is not true, the FBI and ATF still
don't get off the hook because they waited a damn long time to call the
Waco fire department.  Perhaps they wanted all these people to die.

> In order to reject the word of the FBI and BATF it is neccessary to beleive
> the words of a man who has just murdered 17 children and ordered the 
> suicide/murder of his other 80 followers. According to the account given
> the BATF attempted to serve a warrant upon Koresh at the ranch and were met
> by gunfire in a deliberate attempt to murder them. The Koresh/gun supporter
> claim that the BATF started shooting simply does not stand up. If the 
> AFT had gone there to start shooting they would have gone with heavier
> grade weaponry than standard issue handguns. For all practical purposes
> they were unarmed, the B-D followers had automatic weapons.
 
You're wrong on several accounts.  ATF agents were adequately armed.  They
had MP5s, AR-15s, and shotguns.  Some agents were armed with automatic
pistols but not all were.  The ATF's initial claim---which they later
retracted---that agents were underarmed is simply ludicrous.

> The B-D seige could not be allowed to go on indefinitely. The B-D were
> quite capable of commiting mass suicide and murdering the children at any
> time. A commando assault was the only other likely action that could have
> achieved that objective, that would have been very risky, orders of 
> magintude harder than Antebbe or the Iranian Embassy Seige. Airplanes
> and Embassies are not designed for defense against attack ranch 
> apocalypse was. 6 terrorists are far easier to disloge without casualties
> than 80.
> 
> Allowing the siege to go on was not an option either, besides the serious
> risk that Koresh would proclaim armageddon at any moment there was the 
> question of the difficulties of keeping the emmergency team on standby over
> a prolonged period. The longer the siege went on the more mentally prepared
> Koresh and his followers would be for a prolonged siege. Rather than go
> in prematurely the mistake was probably to go in too soon.
> 
> 
> Can you think of a better way of getting the children out?
> 
> A 100% certain way?
> 
> 
> The people who do not want gun control must obviously discount the entire
> government story. This is simply rationalisation. It is not enough for 
> them to simply dismiss the government as incompetent. That would require
> them to come up with a solution themselves. Instead they have to come
> up with a government conspiracy theory whereby the government decided to
> set out to murder 80 people just to set up some sort of scare to alow them
> to get gun control legislation through.

Gun control isn't the only issue here.  If the sick little monkeys in
Washington try to use the Waco incident as a reason to ban guns then
they will have demonstrated just how f***ed up they are.  What concerns
me much more than new gun control legislation is that the government
seems to be able to get away with s**t like they did in Waco...they are
becoming more and more callous about people's rights and the law.  This
greatly disturbs me and it should disturb you as well.

> This conspiracy theory assumes that the BATF deliberately got 4 of its
> agents killed and that the FBI etc actually enjoy sitting out in the
> middle of Texas being shot at by religious nutters.
> 
> Still the conspiracy theory is comforting, it allows them to pretend that
> WACO proves nothing except about how incompetent the government is in 
> resolving a hostage crisis. No govt in the world has ever faced a 
> comparable situation, quite probably there was no manner in which it
> could be peacefully resolved. The blame does not rest on the FBI, it
> rests on the fact that Koresh was allowed to get so far, in particular
> the person who tipped the B-D off in advance has the murder of 4 ATF
> agents and 17 children on his or her conscience.
> 
> 
> There are a large number of people in the US who predict the end of society
> preach salvation through armed security. The fact is that these are the
> very people who pose the threat to society in the first place. The next WACO
> may not be religious nutters but a political movement. A splinter group
> of the Klu Klux Klan taking over a schoolhouse in a black area for example
> and holding several hundred children hostage.
> 
> The only possible solution to such situations that can work is to prevent
> them arising. No other government in the world has faced such a situation. 
> this is because no other government has so carelessly allowed high power
> weaponry to become avaliable to any little Hitler or would be Messiah
> to set themselves up as dictator in their own little empire.
> 
> 
> Phill Hallam-Baker


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55068
From: johnm@karnak.lonestar.org (John Meaders)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:

>In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>   "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine 
>   survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David
>   was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of 
>   these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
>   this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also
>   someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat
>   then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)

I guess you need to be reminded of some things!  Have you ever heard of the
First Amendment?  I guess not.  It isn't a crime to be a religous (I know
you said "sacraligious", but it isn't your place to judge his religion)
zealot in this country.  REMEMBER we have freedom of religion in this country!
I guess you are selective in that respect!  So what if they were "bastard"
children.  They were CHILDREN!  Do you condone their deaths?  I pray for
your lack of a soul if you do!
-- 
John B. Meaders, Jr.	"Gun Control is being able to hit your target!"
8820 Southwestern Blvd. #1103, Dallas, TX  75206
VoiceMail:  214-750-0273	UUCPMail:  karnak!johnm
InterNet:  johnm@karnak.lonestar.org

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55069
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1r569aINN7ss@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) writes:

> 	How is Clinton responsible?  It was a law enforcement action.
> Granted, it was a nationally covered incident but Clinton had no more to
> do with the outcome than Fred Flintstone.

Do I think Clinton conceived of it?  No.
Do I think Clinton ordered it?  No.
Do I think Clinton was aware of it before it went down?  No.
Do I think Clinton was aware of it after it went down?  Of course; who wasn't?
Do I think Clinton prejudged these people to a certain extent because he
                   believed the BATF crap about child abuse and stockpiling
                   "evil semi-automatic weapons?"  Yes.
Do I think Clinton ever questioned federal jurisdiction in this matter?  No.
Do I think Clinton ever considered the civil rights of the victims?  No.

> 	As for the rest, I won't argue whether BATF handled the initial
> confrontation well (or as it should have).  But from day 2 on, I have no
> problem with the way the operation was handled or the decisions made.

Some of us suspect that ALL the unlawful mistakes made on Day 1 were made 
on the government's end.  That makes days 2-51 nothing but a macho 
alternative to delivering an apology.

> As
> for day 51, as long as the FBI and BATF didn't INTENTIONALLY set the fire
> then, while it is certainly tragic, the majority of Americans (according
> to a recent poll) have no problems with the operation itself. 

Who gives a good goddamn about some bullshit "opinion poll" of "most 
Americans?"  Most Americans swallow the government line that they're fed --
not because they're stupid, but because it's the only line they ever hear.

"Most Americans" thought the staff at the McMaster(?) school was guilty,
guilty, guilty.  Woops, turns out they weren't.  "Most Americans" once
thought that black slaves weren't human beings.  Woops, wrong again.
"Most Americans" thought Saddam Hussein was the Antichrist.  Oh dear,
he was a "special friend of the American government" until two years 
previously.  You know, maybe truth ISN'T determined by majority vote
of a half-informed public after all.

> In fact,
> most Americans (according to this poll) think it should have been
> resolved sooner...

You're just testy because of all those newsbreaks that were interrupting
"Roseanne."
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55071
From:  ()
Subject: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

"Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.

I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
supporters helped inflate his ego.

That doesn't change the fact that he was a loose fucking cannon with a
shitload of serious weapons. Or that he was banging thirteen year olds and
twisting their impressionable little minds.

This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the
stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
expected this to happen.

Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
attract some of the more rootless members of our society.

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55073
From: mroberts@ptdcs2.intel.com (Mark Roberts ~)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco

In article <1993Apr20.060635.26568@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <nagleC5n2sz.5IA@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>>      The San Francisco Examiner reports that Clinton has issued instructions
>>to federal law enforcement that they may not kill or injure anyone to 
>>resolve the Waco situation.  So they've built a fence around the compound,
>>and are now seriously considering building up the fence to prison-camp
>>levels, pulling out most of the manpower, and waiting however many months
>>it takes.
>
>Well either the Examiner was wrong (as usual) or Clinton lied *again*.

Or perhaps David Koresh didn't listen too well??  Just because mistakes
were made does not mean the President *lied*.

>
>Gary
>
>-- 
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary 
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 

** Mark


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55074
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas

In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the
>army saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been
>banned from military use.  Its use is also banned by a
...
>The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
>blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  
>Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the
>earlier.  

If we are indeed talking about CS, then this is not quite accurate. CS is
"just" tear gas--albeit the worst kind. It isn't a nausea gas, and doesn't
have direct CNS effects. However, it's quite bad--much worse than CN gas. I
was briefly exposed to it once (during an engagement in Berkeley circa 1968
8^) and it's not the kind of thing you forget. It seems to be
moisture-activated--it not only made my eyes sting and water, but attacked
my breathing passages and lungs. Breathing was painful, and my entire face
felt as if it was on fire. These effects persisted for hours after
exposure, and I was coughing for days afterwards.  If I was exposed to a
dense concentration of this stuff in a closed space for several hours, I
doubt whether I could find the exit. Indeed, I can't imagine living through
it.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55075
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Congress to review ATF's status

In article <C5vzHF.D5K@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

> 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- As part of its investigation of the deadly
> confrontation with a Texas cult, Congress will consider whether the
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be moved from the
> Treasury Department to the Justice Department, senators said Wednesday.
> 	The idea will be considered because of the violent and fatal events
> at the beginning and end of the agency's confrontation with the Branch
> Davidian cult.

Of course.  When the catbox begines to smell, simply transfer its
contents into the potted plant in the foyer.

"Why Hillary!  Your government smells so... FRESH!"
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55076
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
......
> 
> No Koresh is responsible.
> 
> If a murderer goes on the rampage it is the murderer who is responsible.
> The police may bear responsiblity for failing to stop him but the primary
> responsibility is with the murderer.
> 

When did Koresh go on a rampage?

What I saw was an unnecessary, unprovoked massive attack on Feb. 28th.

Probably even an illegal action by ATF, certainly way out of proportion
to anything reasonable.

And yet, according to a pole taken yesterday, 95% of the people poled
believe the government forces acted appropriately.  They don`t believe
Reno or the President have any guilt in ordering/allowing the attack.

I suppose they also believed things like:
"I would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget."
"We don`t need to lead with a tax increase...."
"It starts with a middle-class tax cut..."
"I`ll have the bills ready the day after I am inaugurated and we`ll
have a 100 day period....It will be the most productive in modern history."
"I will ask congress for a line item veto.."
"I will lift the social security earnings test.."

I personally prefer to disbelieve the government until they prove themselves
right, rather than the other way around.  That way I have a better than
50% chance of being right about my first guess!

Read the constitution sometime, it is supposed to protect the citizens
and their rights.  I am sick of the abuse of government power.

As Tom Jefferson said:
"When all government,..., shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of
all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government
on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government
from which we separated."  (1821)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55077
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
 
>
>In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
>>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
>>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
>>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
>>crime.
>
>What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
>any of these things?  Evidence, please?
>
> Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point tha
there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
of common incidents.
 
>If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps
>you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the
>rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps
>with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners
>spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death
>among children in the U.S. is a serious problem.
>
 Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
ages 14 and under.  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
 
>>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the
>>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good.
>
>Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
>
 My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
useful.
 
 
>>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or
>>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are
>>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often
>>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge.
>
>I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
>suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
>students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
>to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
>who carry a gun to school daily.
>
 Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see
that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
in 1990.  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
to guns in their home.  California schools reported a 200% increase in
student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".
 
 
 
>>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news
>>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours
>>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they
>>were in danger).
>
>"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the
>children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were
>outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door
>if you believed as they did?
>
 Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
would not let innocent children die.
If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.
 
Rodney

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55078
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

> No Koresh is responsible.
> 
> If a murderer goes on the rampage it is the murderer who is responsible.

ram.page, n.: To move about wildly or violently.  A course of frenzied,
violent action.

Who assaulted who here, Phill?  Do you remember exactly which side came 
out looking for trouble?

> The police may bear responsiblity for failing to stop him but the primary
> responsibility is with the murderer.

So if it turns out that the fire WAS caused by a tank knocking over a
Coleman lantern, you'll support punishing the "responsible" people, Phill?
Or will you find then find a different reason to hang it all on Koresh?
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55079
From: jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5zsyn.MtD@sugar.neosoft.com>, jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
|> |>      If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the
|> |> burning building?
|> |> 
|> |> James Dusek
|>  
|> James, it could be that they were determined to stay together in the compound
|> no matter what happened. Perhaps the fire was accidental, and the DB simply
|> refused to leave the compod. Perhap they died fighting the fire? who knows.
|> we will have to wait and see. i persaonlly find it hard to believe that they 
|> would all agree to burn themselves up! what a horrible way to go.
|> 
|> jim shirreffs

I seem to recall graphic news file of buddhist monks setting themselves on fire
in the streets of Saigon. Yes, its a horrible way to go, but apparently not
so horrible that someone with enough religious conviction might not be able to 
carry it through. And, since they've discovered bullet wounds in a couple of 
the bodies from the compound, there is the possiblity that those with the will power to self immolate also had the will power to take out the ones who had
less constitutional fortitude. Then again, maybe the FBI ran in while the fire
was raging, executed those two, and ran out again.

Jason Durbin
Oracle Europe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55080
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Photographers removed from compound

In article <C5vF59.83q@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

> two news photographers were found 
> on the compound earlier this morning without permission.  It was explained 
> to the press corps. that this is dangerous and that an unknown photographer 
> turning around with a long lens camera could be mistaken for someone dangerous 
> by a Texas Ranger surveying the site. (!)  

In other words, "Nice camera you got dere.  It would be a shame if somet'in
wuz ta happen to it..."

> The two photographers were said to be currently in jail 

> It was also emphasized that the survey of the "crime" scene at this 
> point was crucial and that the press could not be allowed to interfere.
> The press will not be allowed in until the bodies are removed and the 
> site has been completely surveyed for evidence for a court case.  

> My opinions:
> -----------
> I find this disturbing. 

Good.  Keep thinking critically.

> While I believe that Koresh is largely 
> responsible for not ending this standoff in a peacable manner during the 
> last 51 days of patient opportunity, I find the secrecy surrounding the 
> aftermath more damaging to the authorities' position than they realize.

What if the secrecy is actually LESS damaging than the alternative?

> I am basing my opinions on info gathered from various media and filtered 
> by my own common sense and consideration of plausibility, IMHO.  As such, 
> my opinion is subject to change as more information is made available.

> Please also note that I by no means endorse  or agree with the many 
> conspiracy-type theories I have read here and in other groups. 

Make your own bite-size pieces.  We'll wait.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55081
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <C5vB3E.Ev5@sugar.neosoft.com>, kunkee@NeoSoft.com (Randy Kunkee) writes:

> Perhaps we are a little off track.  The discussion was about rewording
> the 2nd amendment.  This specifically refers to the right to bear arms.
> "Bear" and "arms" are key words here, no?  Is it too simplistic to say
> that if you can't pick it up (ie. bear it), or if it is not a firearm
> then it can be restricted without amending the constitution.

Firearm?  Let's not even consider long knives (swords), which were also
common militia weapons in the 18th century, and which, if anything, are
often restricted more heavily than firearms.  Whatever sense gun control
makes, knife control makes even less.
-- 

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...


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55082
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: The Holocaust Revisited

mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell) babbles from Scotland, one of England's
last remaining colonies:

>Are you for real?

>People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's
>jesus deserve all they get

People who were dumb enough to believe Klinton was a moderate deserve what
they get too.  It's a real laugh to hear them try to justify this massacre
with bullsh*t about how concerned they were about how our tax money was
was being spent.  (Wasting money keeping Texans alive?  Hell no. let's
spend it to import Haitians with AIDS so we can treat them at taxpayer
expense.  %^P  )

>Anyway, he killed a few feds

So what?  The Feds killed 90+ civilians when they "ran out of patience", to use
their own phrase.  If the Feds hadn't attacked them, they'd all be home eating 
dinner with their families tonight.  Too bad, but they started it.  Maybe
next time they'll think twice.  That's worth 4 stormtroopers.

>He's not the goddam hero here

Nobody says he is.  What he was was a victim of a left-wing government,
that violated its pledge to protect and uphold the Constitution, run amok.  
Don't worry, though dweeb, we're gonna take it back.  (Hey, I'm a white guy,
but would it be OK if I quoted Malcolm X here, and said "by any means 
necessary"?  Nah, never mind.  We can do this legally...

>He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!

NO, you're just a brainless f*cking trogladyte.  Go beat up some soccer
fans.  Ignorance is bliss, so drool on with that stupid smile on your 
face when people die needlessly. I hope a badger climbs up your kilt.

(Don't expect these UKies to care about this, folks...  these bastards
never did like the idea that we Americans had the means to defend ourselves 
and wouldn't stand for tyranical governments, which is why we sent them packing 
back to their dreary little island with their tails between their legs twice.)




  **************************************************************************
*     I remember what I was doing         *    Bad boy, whatcha gonna do    * 
*  when I heard that JFK had been shot.   *        Whatcha gonna do         *
*  Will you remember the Battle of Waco?  *    when they come for you...    *
 ***************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55083
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1r6a50$ln4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton) writes:
>
>In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:
>
>>The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate
>             ^^^
>>possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just
>>as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as
>>any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos.
>
>Ah yes, yet another anti-semite anti-gunner blunders into tpg and makes
>an ass of himself.

satire \'sa-tir\ n [MF or L; MF, fr. L _satura_, _satira_, fr. (lanx)
satura full plate, medley, fr. fem. of _satur_ sated; akin to L
_satis_ enough - more at SAD](1509) 1: a literary work holding up
human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.  2: trenchent wit,
irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.  syn see
WIT.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"My other car is a car, too."
                 - Bumper strip seen on I-805

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55084
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 21-Apr-93 The Dayton Gun "Buy
Back" (.. by Larry Cipriani@cbnews.cb 
> Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
> to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
> tacky, but hey, whatever works.

Pro-gun people can take used pot-metal guns with sale values LESS THAN
$50.00 and turn them in, thus making a profit at the gun-grabbers
expense.

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55085
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: senate and house addresses

> In article <C5uA7r.DAD@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>,
pprun@august.it.uswc.uswe
> > 
> > Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and 
> > Senate so that we can all write letters?

Unites States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
           
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55086
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <16BB88F6D.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
> In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>  
> >
> >In a previous article, nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) says:
> >
> >>In article <1r00ug$d60@btr.btr.com> michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn   
michaelh@btr.com) writes:
> >>>A partial list of excellent socialist visionaries and the tolls they've
> >>>taken of unpopular religious/ethnic/social groups.
> >>>
> >>>Mao Tse-Tung		Millions Killed
> >>>J. Stalin			Millions Killed
> >>>A. Hitler			Millions Killed
> >>>Pol Pot				100,000s Killed?
> >>>W. J. Clinton		~100 Killed, but relax-he's only had a hundred  
or so days.
> >>
> >>	You people are rather amusing in a perverse sort of way.  You take
> >>a tragic/unpleasant situation that you feel is a terrible injustace, and
> >>assign blame to anybody and everybody with or without a link to the  
incident
> >>simply because they don't fit your extremely narrow definition of good.
> >>
> >>	How is Clinton responsible?  It was a law enforcement action.
> >>Granted, it was a nationally covered incident but Clinton had no more to
> >>do with the outcome than Fred Flintstone.
> >>
> >Perhaps you've been under a rock the last few days?  The BATF and the FBI
> >are both federal agencies.  Clinton has admitted in front of news cameras
> >that Janet Reno (the once and future Attorney General) gave him a full
> >briefing of what was planned *before* they did it, and he gave her the
> >go ahead.
> >
> >Maybe, just possibly, that makes him a *teensy* bit responsible?
> >
> >>--
> The FBI, CIA, BATF, etc. ARE federal agencies, you are correct.  But to
> think there is a visible and clear chain of command up to the Prez, and
> that these agencies inform Reno who informs Clinton, etc. is naive.  These
> agencies operate as distinct and seperate entities and while they have
> ultimate accountability to the Prez, they make their own moves, and then
> tell the Prez, who says, "I knew all along".  While this may not seem right,
> or it may not fit our idealistic need to see a structured chain of command
> leading to the White House, thats the way it is.  Bureaucracys are not, after
> all, composed of 3 or 4 people who talk on a regular basis, have lunch, and
> maybe golf together.  I do agree, the FBI, BATF messed up. I'm not sure if
> they should have stormed the compound or not.  By the way, Jehova Witnesses
> are a religious minority in this country.  Protestantism is a minority
> religion in the World.  BDs were a cult by all definitions and history of
> cults.  To say this is not to persecute a religious or ethnic enclave.
> Koresh said he was the Messiah.  I was raised a Baptist, although I do
> not practice the religion and do not think that the Big Guy upstairs is
> digging the divisiveness, closemindedness, and right-wing morons that are
> associated with the religion.  Anyway, the Messiah that I was taught about
> would not be carrying a gun, let alone stockpiling weapons.  You can doubt
> BATF reports all you want, David Koresh was not a poor soul who was
> unjustly persecuted.  While some of the information coming from the U.S
> government is being exagerated so as keep public opinion on their side, I
> do believe that some of the things that former cult members have said
> are true.  Anyway, this is just another excuse to try and blame President
> Clinton for something.  People who attempt to do this for political motives
> should be ashamed.  THEY are the ones who are keeping this country from
> reaching its full potential.
>  
>  
>  
You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal agencies  
you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from your  
Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious  
persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all?

Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion.

Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the dictionary  
of "cult".

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55087
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: WACO - Willie Authorizes Cook Out (was Re: FBI Director's Statement)

NOTE - local tx groups trimmed out of Newsgroups: line

In article <1r23a3$28a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> D.Nash@utexas.edu (Donald L. Nash) writes:
<
<In article <1r208f$bp2@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
<Tavares) writes:
<>No, you were right the first time.  Law enforcement agencies should keep
<>HIS opinions in mind before breaking into or assaulting ANYBODY'S house.
<
<OK, let me correct my unfortunate choice of words:  I just hope that the
<law enforcement agencies keep your attitude in mind the next time your
<wife is gang-raped by a bunch of juvenile, drug-dealing thugs while she
<was jogging in the park.  No, strike that... (etc.)
<
<>The BATF came out with horse trailers, 100 men, ninja uniforms, machine 
<>guns, and stun grenades, and used them before Koresh could even look 
<>at the warrant.  Koresh fought back, and people died.
<
<The key part of this sentense is "Koresh fought back."  This was his big
<mistake.  When the police decide to exert their authority over you, you
<don't fight back unless you want people to get hurt.  You cease all
<resistance and signal your submission to their authority.  The cops

They are the BOSS.  You are the SUBJECT.  The concept of defense against
illegal action under color of law is kaput.  No longer is it government
of the people by the people, its government of the people by the biggest
guns.  The idea of 'sorting it out in court later' is fine, but one
has to GET TO COURT IN ONE PIECE to do that.  Korash had good reason
to think that he was not going to get that chance.  (see below).

<aren't in it to beat up and kill people, in spite of the actions of a
<few bad apples.  If you quit resisting, they quit hitting.  Perhaps the
<BATF did over react to the threat posed by Koresh.  Perhaps they did use
<too much force.  OK, fine.  I'm willing to concede to that point if
<sufficient proof is produced (and I admit that there is some evidence to
<indicate this).  However, resisting the BATF is the worst thing Koresh
<could have done.  If they hadn't resisted, there is a good chance that
<no one would have been hurt.  Remeber, they were using stun grenades,
<not anti-personnel grenades.  If the BDs were not in violation of any

Rember, Korash didn't get to sort this all out, serenely typing at his
keyboard.  He heard SOME KIND OF EXPLOSIVES go off, he saw he was being
ATTACKED with no overt action from him (yet).  He could no more say 'oh,
its ok, its only stun grenades' anymore than I could.  He slammed the door at
that point and proceeded to repel the attackers.  He felt in genuine fear
of his life - I know I would be in fear of MY life at that point.  Have
you ever been shot at?  How clear and logically could you think, under
that pressure, when you MIGHT have ALL OF 1 or 2 SECONDS to evaluate
what is going on?  And, it would not be the first time that 'law
enforcements' intended to bring in their suspect horizontally.  For
all we know, he was informed by someone saying something like "Hey,
guy, the BATF is coming like gangbusters, and they mean to WASTE you..."

According to the latest news, the released warrant (so we are told) said
the reason for this WW III raid was that Korash's group had spent around
$200,000.00 on firearms and related stuff (over an undetermined period).
Now, even assuming that the figure isn't calculated like the Feds do a
drug siezure, for 90 people, that isn't really all that much (you priced
decent guns lately?).  Hell, I can think of a person right now that probably
has that much for ONE INDIVIDUAL, mostly machineguns!!!  Sure, he is
an avid collector, but unless a new law has been passed, it is NOT illegal,
nor an indication of anything illegal, to have a lot of guns.  Also note
that the warrant had NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT MACHINE GUNS.  So, what
is the justification of this cowboy raid, other than a romp gone bad
for some anti-gun media hype, to support Clinton's push for disarming
the unconnected citizen of any and all effective defensive weapons?
This administration has only one thing in mind.  CONTROL.  PEOPLE CONTROL.
Whether it is gun control, Clinton Cripple Chip, National smart ID cards,
it all boils down to PEOPLE CONTROL.  Can you say 1984, only 10 years late?
I knew you could...  :-)

<laws, they would have been released as they had been before.  If this
<had happened and it turned out that the BATF had used too much force,
<then the BDs would have grounds for a law suit and for federal charges
<of civil rights violations (Sounds a lot like LA, huh?  Don't take that
<wrong, I'm not commenting one way or the other about the Rodney King
<case).  But that's not what they wanted.  They got tipped off that the
<BATF was on the way in, and rather than adopting a non-violent,
<non-threatening posture to greet the BATF, they decided to fight.

And BATF knew the BDs were expecting them (via 60 minutes report).  But
they decided they were so big, so bad, they would have a cakewalk at
the BDs expense, for a nice media show anyway.  But it all turned to
shit, and the FBI taking over to manage things, we see it all turned to
shit, too.  Clinton says 'I am taking full responsibility'...  BAH.
Responsibility means to take the repercussions if it goes wrong.  Bet
you NOBODY pays any serious repercussions.  'Responsibility' only has
meaning as media PR, or as a means to corner the average Joe Schmoe.
Figure it out... Clinton, Reno, the FBI and BATF, will all be IMMUNE.
Can you say WHITEWASH?

<I've said enough of this issue.  I'm probably not going to convince any
<of you folks and you're certainly not going to convince me.  I've got
<work to do.
<
<				++Don

Be VERY afraid of our government.  In the land of the free...
And if you decide all this is acceptable, get even MORE afraid... especially
when it is YOU they decide, for some reason, they dislike...
When they no longer feel the need to confine their cowboy tactics to
'kooks', or 'wierdos'...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55088
From: mlh@austin.ibm.com (Sewer Snake)
Subject: Re: BATF Acronym



	B urn
	A ll
	T he
	F uckers

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55089
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:
>>
>>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day  
>>> in Texas. 
>>
>>Do YOU eat all your food cold?
>
>Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular.
>Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.


Not when the power has been cut off for weeks on end.  Any generators are
no doubt out of fuel, too.  So all they would have is wood stoves and
kerosene lanters (maybe).  It is alleged that the tanks pushing in the
walls knocked over the lanters, starting the fire.  Remember, the FBI
had bugs which they even used (illegally) to eavesdrop on private
conversations with the lawyers.  If a suicide order were given they
WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT IN TIME.  If the Feds had been concerned they would
have had emergency equipment ready.  Not an hour or so later, not
leaving the water THEY TURNED OFF, off.  They could have turned it back
on.  They just didn't wanna.  Scores to settle...


-- 
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
         If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
         and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55091
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Flames on the net about flames in Waco

In article <1993Apr22.173240.29129@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
>In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wa
>yne J. Warf) writes:
>>In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvin
>e) writes:
>>>
>>>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press
>>>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base
>>>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose
>>>of paranoia?
>>
>>Are you a moron or just illiterate?
>> [...]
>>Oh, I forgot, you're the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need
>>electricity, never mind.
>
>     And you're the guy that doesn't know that illiterate people can't write 
>coherent sentences. Does that make you superior somehow?
>

Oh my god, I made a typo AND used the word "god". Come burn my house
down, I must deserve it.

>    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
>    "Across the page / across the ages / the moving hand of history [pleads]
>     For a kinder eye to see us / not as we are / but as we dream"
>                                                  -- Mark King


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55092
From: t-chipsw@microsoft.com (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <LARRY.93Apr21174441@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu wrote:
> >>>>> On 21 Apr 93 11:28:57 -0800, yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com said:
> 
> > Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork
> > to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves
> > while watching the TV coverage.
> > 
> > Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
> > 
> > Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are
> > a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> yodicet>
> yodicet>
> yodicet>
> 
> Hmm. You don't say..
> 

 No, it appears he didn't. Well, I think he's on to something here. I
mean the post he responded to (not) did pretty much speak for itself.

-- 
Chip Switzer				"A witty saying proves nothing."
t-chipsw@microsoft.com 	 		        -Voltaire

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55093
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: H.R. 711

In article <C5qEpL.1nu@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
[Posting the text of H.R. 711 ...]
[ ... ]
>To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that handguns are available
>only to persons with demonstrated knowledge and skill in their safe use,
>maintenance, and storage.
[ ... ]
>8         "(1)(1)(A) An individual who is not licensed under
>9   this section may not possess a handgun on or after the
>10  date final regulations are prescribed pursuant to para-
>11  graph (2) unless the individual has been issued a handgun
>12  permit under paragraph (2).

Note that this is a "licensing bill," pretending to be a "training bill."
--------
Gridlock, the only mechanism ever to succeed in
slowing down the growth rate of Big Government.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55094
From: mac@cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun)
Subject: Re: Medical Examiner Says No Evidence for Bullet Wounds EITHER WAY

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>Apparently needing to clarify his comments from Thursday, Dr. Nizam
>Plawaby (spelling?), the Medical Examiner for Tarrant County, Texas,
>who has authority in the Waco deaths, stated that since no autopsies
>had been performed, there is no evidence for bullet wounds, or 
>evidence against bullet wounds.

>Janet Reno also stated that she had never been told of bullet wounds
>by anyone in the Justice Department.  

On the news from radio station KANU (Lawrence, KS) about 6:15 this Monday
morning, I heard someone with a nasal-sounding voice (supposedly the Waco
coroner?) claim that he had found TWO persons killed with a single shot
to the forehead.
--Myron.
-- 
# We preserve our freedoms using four boxes:  soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.
# Myron A. Calhoun, PhD EE; Assoc. Professor  (913) 539-4448 home
# INTERNET: mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.5)          532-6350 work, 532-7353 fax
#     UUCP: ...rutgers!depot!mac     Packet-BBS: W0PBV @ K0VAY.#NEKS.KS.USA.NAOM

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55095
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:    Children/Firearm, etc. Injury Articles Wanted



 One of our ASU students needs data and or a copy or an article regarding
 accidents, injury or death to "children" (articles which state the age
 limits of "children") relating to firearms for a sociology report.

 We have a copy of the long Edgar A. Suter, M.D. article and but we can't find
 the Paul Blackman (NRA) "expose'".

 Any articles (or sections thereof) which deal with comparisons over time,
 locations, age groups, other reasons for accidents, injury or death, with
 percentages would be welcome.

 Please send same to our I.D. and node.

 Thanks in advance !
 -Tom Crise


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55096
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <16BB8B194.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.134330.9761@rti.rti.org>
> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>  
> >
> >In article <16BB7BA6A.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu  
writes:
> >>...Gun buyback programs will hopefully
> >>have an impact on accidental shootings (especially youths), domestic
> >>disputes where a gun is available in the heat of emotion and anger, and
> >>maybe keep a few guns from being stolen and later used in street-level
> >>crime.
> >
> >What gives you the idea that gun "buyback" programs will have an impact on
> >any of these things?  Evidence, please?
> >
> > Please don't misinterret  what I was saying Joe.  I was making the point  
tha
> there is NO evidence of effect of gun buyback programs but hopefully if
> there is any effect it may prevent injuries or deaths in one of these types
> of common incidents.
>  
> >If you're a "Research Associate" in "Urban Child Research," then perhaps
> >you can comment for us on the ratio of the accidental gun death rate to the
> >rate of accidental death from other single causes?  Follow that perhaps
> >with some sort of justification for the amount of effort that anti-gunners
> >spend trying to convince the country that accidental gun-related death
> >among children in the U.S. is a serious problem.
> >
>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
> ages 14 and under.  I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
> I am not trying to use accidental gun-related deaths among children as a
> justification for gun control.  Who needs to be convinced that accidental
> gun deaths of children is a serious problem?  I assumed that any humane
> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
>  

Any death is serious.  Wanna discuss match control?  Firearms related  
unintentional deaths among children ages 14 and under are the fault of one or  
more negligent persons, not the gun.

> >>More than anything, gun buyback programs are symbolic offerings to the
> >>community.  In that sense, I think they might do a little good.
> >
> >Please explain why you think "symbolic offerings" do good.
> >
>  My point was, gun buyback programs which are almost always run by police
> departments MIGHT (I stress might) do a LITTLE (I stress little) good by
> giving people the impression that the police are attempting to respond
> to interpersonal gun violence in a unique way.  Overall, I thought that I
> had made it clear that I did not think that gun buyback programs were
> useful.
>  

Providing false hope, then, is the intent?

>  
> >>I do know that the vast majority of guns that are used by youths or
> >>brought to school by youths on a daily basis (about 135,000 youths) are
> >>obtained easily and quickly, through a personal friend, or more often
> >>"borrowed" from a parent without their knowledge.
> >
> >I suggest you go back and look at wherever you saw these "statistics" - I
> >suspect you'll find if you look carefully that 135,000 is the number of
> >students *estimated* to have carried *a weapon* (not necessarily a gun)
> >to school at least once in the past year, and not the number of students
> >who carry a gun to school daily.
> >
>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
> or the Centers for Disease Control.  If YOU look carefully you will see
> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.  The CDC estimates
> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
> in 1990.  The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
> to guns in their home.  California schools reported a 200% increase in
> student gun confiscations between 1986 and 1990, and a 40% increase between
> 1988 and 1990.  Florida reported a 61% percent increase in gun incidents in
> schools between 1986/87 amd 1987/88.  These are the "statistics".
>  

200% increase in California schools, eh?  Gun control is working fine, there!
>  
>  
> >>thus willing to follow a man who claimed to be the Messiah (Got news
> >>for you folks, if the Big Cheese was on this crazy planet of ours
> >>presently, he would NOT be carrying a gun or holding children when they
> >>were in danger).
> >
> >"Holding kids?"  Time for a reality check, son.  These kids were the
> >children of the people inside who believed that the forces of evil were
> >outside waiting to kill them.  Would you send *your* children out the door
> >if you believed as they did?
> >
>  Okay, maybe I worded it wrong...DAD.  I meant that to put children in a
> situation (fortified compound) where harm could come to them is not the
> act of a Messiah in my opinion.  I'm not saying that Koresh had control over
> these children directly, but I would hope that whatever Messiah there is
> would not let innocent children die.
> If as he claimed he was the Messiah and people followed him as such, why
> did he not tell their parents to free the children instead of letting them
> burn alive?  Thanks for the reality check Joe, its been real.
> 
So your religion is different.  Does that make it his wrong?  Even assuming  
Koresh actually made that decision, and the verdict is still out on that.

 
> Rodney

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55097
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr22.175410.23214@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> "Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
> arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
> as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.
> 
> I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
> he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
> supporters helped inflate his ego.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that he was a loose fucking cannon with a
> shitload of serious weapons. Or that he was banging thirteen year olds and
> twisting their impressionable little minds.
> 
> This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
> that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
> There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the
> stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
> but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
> expected this to happen.
> 
> Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
> coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
> the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
> to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
> to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
> attract some of the more rootless members of our society.
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of  
devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that  
government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier  
own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken.

Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it?

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55098
From: scatt@apg.andersen.com (Scott Cattanach)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>>The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
>>blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  
>>Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the
>>earlier.  

>If we are indeed talking about CS, then this is not quite accurate. CS is
>"just" tear gas--albeit the worst kind. It isn't a nausea gas, and doesn't
>have direct CNS effects. However, it's quite bad--much worse than CN gas. I

Has anyone publically considered the possibility that the fires were set
for defence instead of suicide and the destruction and confusion caused
by the tanks and gas caused things to get out of the BDs control?

--
"Spending programs are now 'investments,' taxes are 'contributions,' and 
these are the same people who say _I_ need a dictionary?"  - Dan Quayle 2/19/93

My employer is not responsible for ANYTHING that may appear above.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55099
From: jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart)
Subject: Cult practices of the FBI

Broadcasting amplified sounds of tortured rabbits?

Burning alive men, women, and children?

We have on our hands here some truly sick puppies.


Jim Hart
jhart@agora.rain.com
Arlen Specter for President in '96

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55101
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Ammo in a fire (was Re: WACO burning)

bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

>Small arms rounds set off outside of a firearm pose little risk except
>possibly eye injuries and minor wounds.  

True.

>Large concentrations of ammo,
>or 'magazines' (not the type you insert into your semi auto) probably
>pose a larger risk, but mostly from heat and flame.  (This is also
>covered in the above reference.)

No more risk than smaller stashes unless the stash is somehow confined so
the heat from early ignitions could somehow bulk-heat the remainder.

Two  years ago this month my house and office burned.  In my office was my
reloading bench.  On the top shelf next to the wooden ceiling was 
about 100 lbs of smokeless powder, 5 lbs of black powder, several thousand
primers and a couple thousand loaded rounds, primarily in .45ACP, .30-20
and .308.  The fire was extinguished before the area containing the 
reloading supplies were fully involved.  There was about 1/2" of char on
the joists, subsequently removed by sandblasting.  Lots of heat in other
words.

None of the powder kegs ignited.  One 1lb can of pistol powder ignited.
No explosion, as the can opened at the seam as it was designed to do.
The black powder cans were charred and got so hot the plastic lids
completely melted and ran down inside.  The smokless powder was
contained mostly in 8 lb cardboard or metal kegs.  The kegs were charred
badly enough that the paper labels burned completely off and in the case
of the metal cans, the plastic lids melted completely away.

Many of the rounds cooked off.  They were in close proximity to wood
on all sides so the effects were easy to observe.  In most cases with the
rifle ammo, the cartridge cases ruptured in the middle.  Many bullets were
found still in the neck.  Small shards of brass were lightly stuck into 
the wood.  Lightly enough that brushing them with a fingertip would usually
dislodge them.  Primers generally popped out of the primer pockets.
The .45ACP rounds that cooked off left empty cases and bullets laying around.
No dents were observed above the storage area, indicating the bullets
left the cases slowly enough not to be a hazard.

Ordinary small arms ammo is NOT a hazard when cooking off regardless
of what the FBI says.  

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Lee Harvey Oswald: Where are ya when we need ya?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55102
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

[massive dan blather mercifully deleted.]

>>His last sentence says it all.  Who the hell ARE we (or the government)
>>to judge their religion as wrong.  This event, I hope, will be recorded
>>in history as the American Holocaust.  These people were murdered 
>>by the US government just as surely as the jews were by the Nazis.
>>I hang my head in shame for what I've allowed my government to become.

>I have NEVER judged them by their religion, but by their ACTIONS.

>If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
>have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
>of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
>IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
>shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

Last time I checked, "amassing an arsenal" and practicing any kind of
religion were mentioned in passing in the Bill of Rights.  Guess it's
OK with you if we just brush 'em aside in order to justify killing
a bunch of religious nutcakes, eh?

Of all the idiots I run into in daily life, Dan, your type scare me the
most.  You'll accept expediency and a coward's safety over any belief
just as long as the government tells you to.  You assume that anyone who
doesn't comform to your beliefs and ways of thinking are wrong and
therefore bad.  Worse, you seem to accept without question what the
government says is wrong to be wrong.

David Koresh's religion was not mine but then again, neither are the baptists,
methodists, catholics or any of the rest of the corporate religions.  BUT
even though Koresh's, the Baptists, the methodists, etc, don't believe
the same way I do, I recognize that their religions are equally valid
to mine and more importantly are equally protected under the 1st Amendment.
You see, I'm not that much different than Koresh and I suspect many others
fit the same catagory.  I read the Bible many times and as I learned 
from it, I discovered that a lot of what corporate religions practice
just isn't justified by MY interpretation of the Bible.  Therefore I go
my own way.  So did Koresh.  And neither you nor I nor anyone else,
either individually or collectively as the great socialist "we" has ANY 
RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell me or you or Koresh that our religions are wrong.

You seem to think that it would have been oh so easy for the Davidians to
just forsake everything they believed in and walk out of their compound
in order to "save themselves".  Think (if you're capable) for a moment
about some belief you hold dearest.  Would you abandon that belief if
suddenly told to do so by the government?  If you would do so you are
beneath contempt.  Let's assume you have a belief that you hold dear
enough to commit your life to.  Do you think it would be the correct
course of action for your government to initiate actions specifically
designed to force you to make that "forsake or die" decision?

The "forsake or die" option is exactly what the government forced on the
Davidians the day the first wave of black-clad stormtroopers fired that
first shot and tossed that first grenade.  The FBI clenched it on Day 51
when they sent in heavy armor against 80-some-odd men, women and
children holed up in a rickety old building and armed with small arms.  The
people who stayed, who held to their beliefs over personal safety, whose
individual personal honors demanded they die rather than submit, who
believed that the Bill of Rights meant exactly what it says, to those
people go my deepest respect, regardless of their religion.  People like
you who blithely blow off the murder of 80 people with "well they could
have come out" get my most scornful contempt.  I'd spit in your face
were there not a network between us.  You're not worth the ashes of
those people who burned.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Lee Harvey Oswald: Where are ya when we need ya?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55103
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article 7205@dazixco.ingr.com, crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips) writes:
>In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>|> Thank you for remembering Matzada.  Matzada was not an insane act. It was
>|> a sanctification of G_D's name and the most extreme denial of tyranny
>|> possible. To this day the officers of the Tzahal (Isreal Defense Force)
>|> take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will
>|> not fall again!
>|> 
>
>Not anymore!  Recent archaeological inspection of the site presents pretty
>compelling evidence that the "mass suicide" at Masada never occured.  This
>evidence was so compelling tha the Tzahal no long hold their secret ceremony
>at the fortress.
>
>
>-- 
>**************************************************************
>* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
>* Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
>* Intergraph Electronics                                     *
>* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
>* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
>**************************************************************


First I've heard of this... could yo please elaborate a little?



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55104
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1

In article 3890@rpp386, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu> blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes:
>>I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.
>>
>>Apparently not.
>>
>>Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.
>
>That's right.  Despite claims that someone at Kent State fire a shotgun
>at the the soldiers, the only projectiles that anyone can prove where
>sent in the direction of the soldiers were rocks.
>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org



No firearms were ever ever shot at the National Guard at Kent State.

At the time of the shooting, no rocks were being thrown at all.  The squad was
slowly proceeding up a knoll, away from the body of students.  Some students
were taunting them, and photographs of the incident show at most one or two
students who were following and taunting.

The series of photographs show the squad slowly proceeding up the hill, while
occasionally their NCO, .45 in hand turned back to look at where they came from.
All at once, as if on command, the entire squad turned and fired their M1
Garands, firing 30.06 rounds into the crowd (the NCO can be shown with this
45 at full recoil).  At least two of the students shot had nothing to do with
the taunters... they were only passing through, and were not participants in
the confrontation.

There is some dispute whether the Guard was even legally on Campus... apparently
they had not been invited onto the state school by the president, who had
conveniently flown the coop, so as not to be around.  The governor of Ohio,
James Rhodes, had just embarked on a senate campaign, and wanted it to be known
that he was tough on peaceniks, so had ordered the guard in.

The matter was quickly covered up.  Some years later, wounded survivors launched
a civil lawsuit against those responsible... a settlement was made, and under the
terms, the plaintiffs could not discuss much, and guilty individuals were not
identified (in fact, those shooters in the squad have been identified).

It was a tragic incident, but it was not provoked by the students, or apparently
by General DelCorso or any of his command.  From studying the incident & the 
photos, IMO it looks like it was an independent action by a small squad of soldiers.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55105
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Blast them next time

From article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham):
> What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of
> had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the
> compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.

They did have the proper equipment.  The problem is that they went about
things the wrong way.  The ATF should have served the warrant in a
peacable manner instead of going in there like a bunch of Rambos with
guns blazing.  I'm not trying to excuse what David Koresh did.  I'm
just saying that the ATF (henceforth to be known as the cigarette cops :-)
went about the "raid" in an improper manner.

> The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored
> transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use
> more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to
> do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they
> must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.

Let the FBI, Customs, and local police officers do the ATF's job.  WE
DON'T NEED THEM ANYMORE!!!  The cigarette cops are just leftovers
from Prohibition days.  They are an anachronism!

> With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed
> more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is
> the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look
> at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country
> of ours.

Including you?  What if the cigarette cops kicked down your door and
cut you in half with a machine gun?  THIS COULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
Maybe they get the wrong address and then raid *your* home, for example.
It's happened before and it can happen *again*.  I have heard of more
than one instance of a no-knock raid going sour.  Just recently I
heard about a case in which police raided this guy's home because they
thought he had dope or something.  The guy blew both of the officers
away and he didn't go to jail for it.  The judge hearing the case
ruled that the man was acting in self-defense.

> With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with
> mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few
> women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn
> to death 51 days later.

Are you sure that that would have been the way to go?  Surely the FBI
and ATF could have handled this fiasco better.  They didn't have to
massacre all those people.  As Stimpy said in "Fake Dad", "Shame, shame,
double shame!"  The FBI and ATF should be ashamed of theirselves. 


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55106
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

From article <93859@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone):
> In <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> 
>>Anybody for impeachment?
> 
> Yeah, me.  Both the Slickmeister and Hillary's buddy Janet say
> they're responsible... I want both their resignations on my desk 
> yesterday.  I also want both thier butts up on federal civil rights
> violations.... something which carries life in prison as a penalty.
> 
> Oh, and I'll contribute $20 to Arlen Specter's presidential campaign
> for having the 'nads to launch the Senate investigation.

I second that motion wholeheartedly.  Also, how about s**tcanning the
cigarette cops (a.k.a. as the ATF).  Comments anyone?

> -- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)       ==================
> America in Distress                             ==================
> (flag upside down = SOS)                        *******===========
> Save your Republic before                       *******===========
> it no longer exists.                            *******===========


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55107
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody

>Be as cooperative with the police as possible! Show them where you were.
>Repeat your information as often as requested. They will often ask you the
>same questions over and over to verify facts, and ,unfortunately, to see
>if your lying. Fill out all statements and show all required identification
>and weapon permits (BOOO! Down with registered citizens!Register your
 >politicians as deadly tax weapons needing to be confiscated!) If they are
>required in your state. Contact a lawyer immediately if they decide to
>

This would have to be a call.  You are not required to say anything until you
have a lawyer present, and not saying anything until such time is not to be
construed as derogatory to your cause.  Anything you DO say can later be used
against you.  You will be talking to the police, the same people who will be
gathering evidence for the prosecutor to use against you.  


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55108
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Denver Post yanks 'Assault Ads'

In article 1rco2qINN91q@dns1.NMSU.Edu, loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:
>
>The Denver Post (supposed voice of the supposed Rocky Mountain Empire)
>ran the following in the 'Firearms, Supplies' classified heading on 
>Friday, 23 April 1993.  If you have an opinion about their new found
>wisdom, I am told that the person to speak with is one Mr. Walters,
>(303)820-1267.
>
>	Notice
>
>	The Denver Post will no longer 
>	knowingly accept any advertise-
>	ment to buy or sell assault weap-
>	ons.  The Denver Post finds that 
>	the use of assault weapons poses
>	a threat to the health, safety, and
>	security of its readers.
>
>Let 'em know what you think...
>
>--Dan
>--
>Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
>  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu 
>                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
>-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>Version: 2.2
>
>mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
>1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
>itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
>tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
>=S5ib
>-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----



I've seen lots of notes like these in various newspaper classified sections.  But then
under Hunting or Sporting Goods or Outdoor or Collector's classifications, you
see things like, Colt AR15 .223 hunting rifle,  or Galil .223 sporting arm...
stuff like that.  The newspaper gets to make its editorial statement, plus they
get the revenue anyway... 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55109
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:


>If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are
>true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for
>the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the
>US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no
>exceptions. 

>Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive
>in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?


Jason - I've heard the people who are talking about this dismissed as
conspiracy nuts, but nobody seems to be talking about a conspiracy, at
least at the beginning.  There were a lot of bad decisions that went into
this tragedy, and some people may now be taking some serious evasive
action to avoid being held responsible for the unexpected results of
those bad decisions.  Actually, the only ones I see that are tied into
a conspiracy theory are the ones raving about deranged cultists with
stockpiles of weapons and suicide pacts.


>Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather
>than stupidity?

I think there are a lot of us that have been following this pretty closely
from the beginning, and we woud probably agree that this tragedy was more
the result of stupidity than malice.






Jason Durbin
Oracle Europe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55110
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

From article <1r0mhtINNa59@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, by dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard):
>>Does that include the right to murder little children?  How about killing
>>ATF officers?  I do not know much about the gun laws in Texas, but 
>>Koresh's folks claimed to have grenades, grenade launchers, and rocket
>>launchers.  I am not sure that the NRA feels that this falls under 
>>"right to bear arms."
>  
> If the waco wackos truly had grenade launchers and rocket launchers, why
> weren't they used against the armored vehicles that attacked their house?
> All the media stated was that small arms (ie, ineffective) fire was used
> against them.

I noticed that too.  Special agent (asshole actually) Ricks stated that
David Koresh had "explosives that could blow up an armored vehicle 40
feet into the air."  It looked like to me that the BDs had plenty of
opportunity to use these explosives---provided that they had them in the
first place.  For example, when one of the tanks was injecting CS gas
into the ranch house (yes ranch house; the BDs weren't living in a
fortress) they could have easily destroyed or disabled that tank because
it was idling there for a considerable length of time.  So, why didn't
they do this?  Could it be that they didn't have any explosives or
similar munitions?  I just don't buy what the ATF and FBI have been
saying.  Hopefully, the truth will come out.

Here's something noteworthy:  after the fire had been burning for some
time an explosion occurred---just *one* explosion.  The media said that
this was some of the explosives that the BDs posessed going off.  I
don't think this was the case.  My brother and I noticed that this
so-called "explosion" resembled a plume of propane gas being ignited.
We figure that this is what it was because of how the "explosion"
looked and sounded.  Obviously, it wasn't due to something like TNT,
dynamite, or C4.  I have seen a propane explosion before...the explosion
in the ranch house greatly resembled this.  Also, I noticed something
that looked like a propane tank in the charred ruble the next day.

Isn't it curious that the ATF wasn't very forthcoming about how the four
officers got killed?  Many weeks had gone by before they stated that
some of the officers had been killed and/or wounded by grenades thrown
by the BDs.  Earlier, when someone asked one of the spokespersons about
whether or not an autopsy had been performed on the slain agents, they
said that an autopsy had been done but THEY WEREN'T READY TO RELEASE
THE FINDINGS.  Now why is this?  Does the ATF have something to hide?
Perhaps those four agents were killed by friendly fire.  What is the
cause of death exactly?  NO ONE HAS EVER SAID WHAT IT IS.

What is certain is this:  ATF agents *did* throw grenades into the
compound.  As a matter of fact, Mr. Koresh handed his lawyer a grenade
body during one of the lawyer's visits to the compound.  Later on
the lawyer gave the grenade body (I don't know if it was a dud or a
spent one btw) to the ATF.  How much do you want to bet that this
grenade will mysteriously disappear?  At this point in time the only
people we know who had grenades was the ATF agents.  Wouldn't it be
a shocker if the no one ever found any evidence of grenades, rockets,
or explosives in the rubble?  The ATF would sure have egg on their
face then.  Note that the ATF is doing the *initial* sweep of the
rubble.  The FBI and the Texas Rangers won't investigate until the
ATF is done.  This looks like a perfect opportunity for the ATF to
make sure that others "find" what they want for them to "find" if
you know what I mean.  I'm probably being a little paranoid here
but if I am I have could reason to be.  Recall that several weeks
had gone by before anyone said that the BDs had used grenades.
Also recall that early on the ATF had *denied* that their agents
used grenades on the BDs.  Someone is lying here.


Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
          the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
          [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55111
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: TEXAS HB 1776 - VOTING IS TODAY

I just called Texas' legislative bill tracking service and found out
that HB 1776 (Concealed Carry) is scheduled for a floor vote TODAY!
Let those phone calls roll in.

Daryl

             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55112
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks

In article <1993Apr22.175410.23214@starbase.trincoll.edu>
() writes:
 
>
>"Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small
>arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out
>as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.
>
>I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because
>he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his
>supporters helped inflate his ego.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that he was a loose fucking cannon with a
>shitload of serious weapons. Or that he was banging thirteen year olds and
>twisting their impressionable little minds.
>
>This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
>that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.
>There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the
>stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one,
>but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I
>expected this to happen.
>
>Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was
>coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or
>the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower
>to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing
>to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to
>attract some of the more rootless members of our society.
>
  I'd have to agree with you there Joe.
 
Rodney Thomas

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55113
From: mjp1@roger.gte.com (Michael Procanik)
Subject: MA Senate Bills. HELP!


Two URGENT requests:

1. I need the latest update and description of MA bill S-897.  From
   what I gather this bill takes the Hunter Safety Courses from
   Law Enforcement and places them under Fish & Game control.

2. Has someone out there compiled a list of all MA Senate & House
   Bills under consideration?  If they have, please e-mail me
   the list.  If not, is there a database I can access?

	Thanx,
		Yours in the fight,
		Mike P.

P.S. My wife and I thought Nancy B. was great on Street Stories.

-- 
             Mike Procanik (617) 466-4126 mjp1@gte.com
                     *** I'm the NRA ***
 GTE Laboratories Incorporated, 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02154

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55114
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: TEXAS HB 1776 - VOTING IS TODAY

In article <1rgolaINNqjf@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>I just called Texas' legislative bill tracking service and found out
>that HB 1776 (Concealed Carry) is scheduled for a floor vote TODAY!
>Let those phone calls roll in.

Well, I don't normally like to quote myself, but I just got some
additional information.  I called my state rep (to express my support),
and the person there informed me that it's actually just a second
reading of the bill (three are required) for further consideration.
I'm not 100% sure what *that* means, and I'm also not sure why
there's a discrepancy between what the two offices are telling me.

Still researching....

Daryl

             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55115
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19


In a previous article, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) says:

>
>|>>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>|>>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>
>|How would the Fed snipers have been able to witness the BDs setting the
>|fire (as is claimed) through all that tear gas?
>
>I actually heard one report which claimed that infrared cameras saw
>the Branch Dividians setting the fires... now, you'll have to excuse

Yeah sure.  Maybe thermal GUNSIGHTS on the armored vehicles.  When
discussing military hardware and weapons, the media generally looks like
a ufology convention.

>my scepticism, but I find it quite strange that ANYONE would be operating
>a thermal viewer during a daytime battle. It would be unusual in the
>sense that the Federales combat operation - gassing the BD with "CS2,"
>whatever that is (Is this the infamous "BZ" hallucination gas?), from

CS is merely the garden variety military teargas.  As far as it being
"humane and harmless", I've seen teenage boys knock 200lb. drill
sergeants flat getting away from it....

>I am pretty sure that newly-born religious groups will study these
>FBI tactics and build anti-armor barricades and tank traps to make
>"Next Time!" a lot bloodier for the Federales...
>
What do you expect when idiots and criminals confirm paranoids in their
paranoia...?

-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55116
From: eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder)
Subject: Denver Post Classifieds: No assault weapons



I came across the following notice in the Denver Post classified secction
this morning (April 26, 1993):

\begin{quote}

NOTICE:

The Denver Post will no longer knowingly accept any advertisement to buy
or sell assault weapons.  The Denver Post finds that the use of assault
weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of its readers.

\end{quote}

Now I suppose the Post is within its rights to refuse such ads.  However,
the second sentence is so noxious, I feel compelled to bring it to the 
attention of the t.p.g/c.g readership.  

I called the Post classified number (825-2525) and expressed my displeasure. 
According to the supervisor I spoke to, the Post was reacting to public
complaints regarding the running of assult weapon ads.  However, she said
the paper was keeping track of the reaction to the change in policy.  I 
strongly encourage Denver Post readers to call and make their feelings known.

Eric E. Snyder                            
Department of MCD Biology              ...making feet for childrens' shoes.
University of Colorado, Boulder   
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55117
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: BD's did themselves--you're all paranoid freaks


|This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound
|that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.

Did anyone notice any helicopters equipped with thermal imaging 
equipment? They usually manifest themselves in a turret in the front
of the helo, or a sphere on top of the rotor with optical elements.

I didn't notice any UH-1s or other helos equipped as such. Did they
use handheld military thermal scanners? If so, there is no recording
capability, and hence the credibility of the report is subject to
human error.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55118
From: jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <C5v9Du.D76@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due
>to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate.
>In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of
>meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up
>such scenes. 
>
>As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a
>magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and
>thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the
>time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the
>evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists. 
>
>P.Vasilion

This is quite corect, but a bullet hitting a burned body with little energy
will show virtually no deformation, ie a hollow point probably would not
expand, an FMJ would be "pristene".  Also the bullets will not be marked
with the lands ang grooves of a barrel, because they didn't come out of
one.  A good pathologist should be able to notice this right away.

Let us hope that the  ME's that handle these bodies are more competent
then the ones who did JFK's body.

JAG


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55119
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: Nature of the Waco gas


In a previous article, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) says:

>Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the
>army saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been
>banned from military use.  Its use is also banned by a
>draft international agreement on the use of chemical
>weapons in warfare.
>
>The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea,
>blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.  

I don't know about the paranoia and irrationality, but the rest is
pretty close, all though you left out the inability to breath.  Of
course you can make a claim that people will do some fairly deranged
things to get away from it.  I've seen teenagers flatten 200lb. drill
sergeants to get out of tents full of it.  Which raises another
issue....

>Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the
>earlier.  
>
>This is the stuff Janet Reno was told would be safe for children.

What they didn't mention is that IN THE OPEN, it probably wouldn't do
TOO MUCH harm to children, although I wouldn't use it in close proximity
to infants.  On the other hand, IN CONFINED spaces, the effects are
GREATLY intensified, to the point of LETHALITY, since a sufficient
quantity of CS will displace OXYGEN.  When running a CS chamber CAREFUL
attention is paid to ventilation.  I wonder if they checked to see if
any of the BDs were asthmatics or suffered from other respiratory
diseases.  I doubt it.

-- 
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55120
From: SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
Subject: Two Questions

I'd appreciate any help anyone could give me on these two questions:
 
The Brady Bill was in the news throughout 1992 but what actually happened to
it in Congress?  Did Bush veto it?  If so, when?
 
Also, the state of Virginia, I believe, just passed a gun control bill on
Febrauary 25 of this year.  I think it limits gun purchases to one a month -
is this correct?  What was the bill number?
 
Anyone?

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55121
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

Everyone is complaining about the debacle in Waco. It is hard to 
understand all this angst. What happend there is nothing less than
what we wanted to happen. Why all the sour grapes ?

BATF was looking for a propaganda event to counteract their impending
budget cuts ... the attendance of the press at the initial big
commando raid is proof. It would have been ever so easier to grab
Koresh and his central followers as they shopped in Waco. Alas, no
propaganda value there. 

The FBI screwed-up big time, all the time. They should have never allowed
the situation to drag out like that. A quick second assault, before the
BDs could decide on a strategy, would have been the better plan. 

The BDs themselves were the biggest screw-ups though. They imagined
that US law and US law-enforcement had no jurisdiction within their
little 'country'. WRONG ! They had no right whatsoever to fire on
the BATF, and if they mistook their identity initially, they should
have surrendered at once when they did realize who they were. If the
BDs had a problem with the warrants, they take it to court, just like
the rest of us. If they wanted full-auto weapons, they could have
obtained the proper permits, just like the rest of us would need to
do. What they may NOT do is decide for themselves what US law applies
to themselves and which does not. They get their chance like the rest
of us - at the voting booth. 

If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have
become that way because WE have desired them to be so. We get to
vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. By our choices over the years,
we have approved the creation and form of the BATF and FBI. When
the FBI was out chasing 'pinkos', the general public didn't seem
to mind a bit of extra-constitutional activity. When the BATF is
raiding militant black organizations, we don't mind the heavy hand.
When the FBI is dicking around with the rights of potheads, the
public doesn't mind. Suddenly, when we see a bit of ourselves in
the current 'enemy' choosen by these agencies, we get all bent out
of shape. SUPRISE ! You reap what you sow.

Waco was an encapsulation of the All-American experience - religious
fanaticism, militaristic thinking and overwhelming violence. Don't
blame it on 'them', the FBI and BATF. They were just acting within
the parameters we have set over the years. We made 'them'. We ARE 'them'.

-- Jim Mason 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55122
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge

In article <2077@rwing.UUCP>, pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> I am sick, dismayed, discouraged.  And ASHAMED of our Administration.
> 
> It looks like the US now has their own little Tienamen Square.  The
> FBI is portraying Korash as a psychopath, doing a deliberate mass suicide,
> etc.  Possibly.  Possibly not.  I don't believe that the tear gas used
> [...]
> God Bless America - Land of the Free!!!  (past tense).
> 
> Well, maybe I AM overreacting.  But I see on the TV as I am typing where
> govt spoksewoman (the new attorney general, known to be almost rabid
> about private ownership of guns - wants to ban 'assault guns' and just
> about everything else), is saying the FBI had "amazing restraint", then
> falls back into the official goverenment line about how the BD were
> guity of child abuse, and were into it in an on-going basis, and so on.
> [...]
> Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this
> thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business
> as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order?
> Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...?

	What a load of crap ! The BDs had absolutely NO RIGHT to fire
	upon the BATF agents. If they didn't know who they were at
	first, then they should have surrendered immediately when they
	did realize who they were dealing with. Little groups of loonies
	do not get to decide just what laws they will obey or disobey
	or what sorts of warrants are justified. Like the rest of us,
	they get their say at the voting booth and if their personal
	wants are not backed by the majority of voters, then too bad.
	If they wanted to keep automatic weapons, then they could apply
	for the proper permits. If they had a problem with the warrant
	then they get to argue that in court. In no event do they get
	to establish their own little nation inside our own and pretend
	that our laws and law-enforcement personel have no jurisdiction
	within their borders. You live on US territory, you live by
	US laws - period. (unless you are a congressman)

	Sure, the situation was handled badly by both the BATF and
	the FBI. It would have been all so easy to detain Koresh and
	his core members while they were out in the streets of Waco.
	The BATF, threatened with budget cuts, was trying for a
	propaganda coup ... and dragging the press along for the big
	commando-style assault is proof of that. They should be
	roasted for both their imcompetance and their mindset. On the
	other hand, they DID have the legal right to do what they did.
	Once the attack was begun, they should have pressed on and
	finished it rather than let an interminable situation like that
	take root. 

	The FBI also used poor judgement in a number of ways - but again,
	the laws we voters have approved, or the lawmakers who created
	them, gave them the right to do what they did. If BATF and
	the FBI are latter-day Gestapo, it is because the voters have
	allowed them to become that way. Waco was pure Americana -
	militarist mentality, religious fanaticism and unadulterated
	violence all rolled into one experience. We get what we pay
	for, or vote for, and this was the result of many choices
	we have made over the years. Don't blame 'them' - blame 
	ourselves. We made 'them', we ARE 'them'. 

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55123
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter's address?

In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
> Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him
> for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation
> into the Waco mess.
> 
> Ken

	You are talking about the man who as a federal attorney did so
much to frustrate the proper investigation of the JFK assassination by
the House sub-committee on assassinations.  Fox and hen house???


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55124
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: H.R. 893

In article <C5qEqv.1px@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
[Posting the text of H.R. 893 ...]
[ ... ]
>8         "(s)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to pos-
>9   sess an assault weapon, unless the weapon was lawfully
[page break]
>1   and continuously possessed by the person since before the 
>2   date of the enactment of this subsection.

OB ill-wind-and-all-that:  with Bill the Prez in there, at least the
anti-gunners are out of the closet.  The provision that any existing
so-called "assault weapons" die with their current owners was worked
into H.R. 3371 (102nd Congress bill number) a couple of years ago,
in a complicated way that the anti's claimed was a "drafting error."

Can't call 'em "lying bastards" any longer.  (Not all the time ...  :-)
--------
Gridlock, the only mechanism ever to succeed in
slowing down the growth rate of Big Government.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55125
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject:  Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

[snip]....

draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:


>The President is not competent to plan or judge the planning of such a
>raid, nor does he need to be.  His job is to set basic policies and
>manage the people under him.  If Clinton instructed Reno to preserve
>lives, and if she confirmed that the plan for the raid was a safe as
>could be, then he did his job.  The President should not involve
>himself in the minor details of these kinds of operations.  This sort
>of micromanagement only leads to disaster, as was demonstrated so well
>in Vietnam.

>But the raid went bad:  Over 80 civilians have been killed in a
>controntation with U.S. authorities.

>NOW Clinton enters the picture in a big way.  Will Clinton start an
>investigation?  Or will he try to squash any attempt to investigate?
>Is he a responsible leader?  Or is he only interested in protecting
>the image of his administration?

>We'll all find out as this unfolds.


	Excellent point, Mark.  We should all remember that if Nixon
	hadn't tried to cover up the misguided actions of some of his
	subordinates in the Watergate burglary, the scandal would
	never have brought down his presidency.  So far, Klinton seems
	to be stonewalling this the same way Tricky Dick did.  His whole
	case seems to be "we didn't do anything wrong".  However, if
	in the course of the investigation it turns out that the
	gov't DID do something wrong, and he tried to cover it up,
	then that's an impeachable crime, I believe...  

	Perhaps he is inadvertently cooking up his own scandal...  Can you 
	say "Wacogate", little neighbor?...   ;-)



  *************************************************************************
 *   Ya know, this being part of the "loyal opposition" is kinda fun for   *
 *   a change.  I sure am glad I get to bitch about Clinton rather than    *
 *   having to be one of those poor saps stuck trying to defend him.  I    *
 *   wonder how Michael Kinsley likes being part of the Establishment? :)  * 
  *************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55126
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

In article <9753@blue.cis.pitt.edu> jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman) writes:
>In article <C5v9Du.D76@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>>Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due
>>to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate.
>>In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of
>>meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up
>>such scenes. 
>>
>>As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a
>>magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and
>>thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the
>>time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the
>>evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists. 
>>
>>P.Vasilion
>
>This is quite corect, but a bullet hitting a burned body with little energy
>will show virtually no deformation, ie a hollow point probably would not
>expand, an FMJ would be "pristene".  Also the bullets will not be marked
>with the lands ang grooves of a barrel, because they didn't come out of
>one.  A good pathologist should be able to notice this right away.
>
>Let us hope that the  ME's that handle these bodies are more competent
>then the ones who did JFK's body.
>
>JAG
>
Speaking of ME's. The FBI said the fire victims were found face-up
<fire victims, apparently, are usually found face down> 
suggesting they died prior to the fire. The ME says, in a word,
BULLSHIT, the victims WERE face down. The FBI says they sent a body
of a victim that was shot, supposedly by BD guards, the ME
says, in a word, BULLSHIT, the body showed NO evidence of gunshot
wounds. Can the ATF/FBI tell the difference between CYA and truth?



-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55231
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr23.034910.23729@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:

[many lines deleted]
>>subject.  It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up
>>the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on  e
>th
>>gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part.
>
>Actually, those of us who have experience with social workers pointedly
>ignored it.

Ah, here Freeman is being prejudiced (look it up and see what I mean Freeman).
Here Freeman is pre-judging someone before he knows all of the facts.  Guess
it can happen to the best (and in his case the worst) of us.

>
>Quit while you're behind,
>-andy
>--
Freeman thinks I am behind when actually I am quite on top of things.  The
point he seems to be missing now is that after a certain point accuracy can be
very tedious and ridiculous.  See Freeman's next post for an explanation.


Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55232
From: djh4484@zeus.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes...
>In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
>jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
> 
>> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
>> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:>> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
>> >and unequivocally, without infringement.

   I saw this nifty drawn out posting and I thought I might give the two of you
   a little help with your problem. As you both know what you posted,(and this 
   foolish thing gave me so much shit last time I tried to post) I took the 
   liberty of deleting all but the header and a single quote. I hope you don't
   mind.

   As written the second ammendment states rather clearly for anyone who can
   read the following:

 "  A well regulated militia, being necessarry to the security of a free state,
   the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

  What is regulated? Regulated means "controlled"! How about security?
  Well hey! That would be along the lines of being and feeling safe wouldn't
  it? Wow! We have a concept forming here don't we!? Now what have we left?
  "the right of the people people people people people people people (sorry
  got kinda hungup there) shall NOT be infringed" Oops! Backup there,hmmm..
  "infringed"....That'd be like Interfered with, altered, changed or
  watered down in any way,shape or form! So! What we have here in it's big old
  long winded version would be.

  " A well controlled militia, being necessary to the secure/safe feeling of
  state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be Fucked
  with in any way shape or form by some happy ass good for nothing in 
  some piddly government building who wants to run my life in the pursuit of
  his happiness!" The item is clear and concise in it's present form my young 
  friend! It does not need my clarification or that of any other. THIS IS
  ONLY AMMENDMENT which guarantees the continued existence of the others.
  It's whole purpose is to give people recourse against the military machine
  of a government which fails to properly represent it's creators!US!

>    James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
>    Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
>    to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
>    recital of particulars."


ANY REPLIES OR COMMENTS CAN BE SENT TOO KANE.    DJH4484@RIGEL.TAMU.EDU

"No representative government need fear it's armed citizens"

"Death to Tyrants!"

"The only thing we have to fear......Is Me!"


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55233
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Your Evil Tax Dollars at Work, was RE: ATF BURNS RANCH ETC ETC...

In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
><MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> says:
>>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound,
>>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane
>>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.
>
>Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places?
>In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?
>
And just where is the evidence for this? FBI sayso. The Texas Medical
Examiner refuted 2 of their lies today.


>And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying
>to get out of the compound?

Let me put you in a building, pump in CS, knock the walls down around
you and see how fast you find an exit.

>And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.
>
I don't know why either, you're willing to swallow everything fed you.
Good boy.

>>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept
>>the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.
>
>I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe
>a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the
>contrary. Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under
>the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still
>prefer to believe the cultists?

Oh a Clinton apologist, why didn't you *say* so.

>(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)
>
>>But then
>>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that
>>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.
>
>Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?
>
>>If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they
>>will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the
>>Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation.
>
>So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty
>people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up
>one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States
>to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.

The kgBATF was expecting a quick victory while the cameras rolled,
however, they were the only ones with a script.

>And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader? How is he
>on diabolical laughter? Does he look good in a cape? These things MUST be
>investigated. You first.

Hey, you're the apologist, *you* tell us.

>   "...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
>   DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.


-- 
 +   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
 |*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
 |*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
 +*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55234
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card

In article <1993Apr23.044544.24559@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:

This is where Freeman's love of accuracy becomes really ridiculous.
>
>Good - now let's look at those sections.  They'll prove my point.

[his point was that it is possible under certain circumstances for many people
to carry concealed in Illinois]
>
>>     (a)  A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he
>>knowingly:
>>
>>(4)  Carries or possesses in any vehicle or CONCEALED on or about his person
>>     except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business
>>     any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm;
>
>Note that this doesn't affect all concealed carry.  (Look after the
>word "except".)  It always helps to read the law before commenting on
>it.
>
I did read the law before I commented on it.  Judging from replies I received
about my "Semantics on t.p.g" post many (if not most) people here on t.p.g
assume that when CCW laws are asked about the person is asking about the
possibility of an ordinary citizen getting one.  It would also follow that said
person would get the CCW to carry on his/her person away from their home and/or
business.



>Would a prudent storekeeper carry concealed?  How about someone at
>home?  Note that both are legal, and a lot of "common" people qualify
>for one or the other.
>
>-andy
>--

Maybe Freeman did prove his point but his point is not relevant.  The thing
that most people seem to care about when they ask questions about carrying
a concealed weapon is whether or not they can carry it concealed on their
person when they are out on the street somewhere.  I'm sure that not many
people are concerned with whether or not they can carry concealed at home.
Speaking as someone who lives in Illinois (the only place where the above
quoted law is relevant :-)) I know that it is legal to own a handgun here (I
am not taking into account city ordinances).  I could care less about whether
or not I can carry concealed at home.         I only care about the fact that
I can't carry concealed in the place where it really counts- out on the street.
Freeman loves to be accurate and I can understand that (especially not) but he
seems to be forgetting that accurate facts don't always replace common sense.
I am not going to followup to this thread anymore because I believe that it is
useless to argue these points anymore.  The only thing that is happening now
is that Freeman and I are "running around in circles" trying to prove each
other wrong and I do not have the time to be playing games anymore.  Of course
now Freeman will attack me about my use of common sense in some of my earlier
posts but what can I do.  My only advice for Freeman - quit being so picky
about accuracy sometimes and use your common sense; it really does work some-
times.

Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55235
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Subject: Re: The LAW of RETRIBUTION

Steve Hix writes:

>Is there NOWHERE on the net that this guy WILL NOT POST?
>
>Not to mention, is there ANYWHERE that he makes any
>SENSE?!

Of course there is.

Perhaps the Vogons will put in a hyperspace bypass so that he can get there.


    Alan T. Furman         | Don't blame me -- I voted Libertarian
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55238
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <C5yCou.M5B@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, random@cbnewse.cb.att.com
(David L. Pope) wrote:
> 
> From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  ():
> 
> > 
> > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds. 
> 
> So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't
> seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more
> than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What
> proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any
> "banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your
> wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?

(sic) Oh, you're really bright. As if nobody would have understood it was a
typo.

Several parents with children who either had at one time or currently were
inside the compound made the aforementioned charges. One parent actually
spoke about said charges (in reference to his 13-year old daughter) WITH
Koresh on the phone.

You missed my point entirely.

> 
> > You're a sorry
> > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> 
> Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's
> going to insult you AND your mom!

Since you're unable to formulate a cogent response, you make a lame joke.

> 
> > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend
> > sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the
> > paranoia.
> 
> Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior.
> Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing
>              the same ranch-house.

Anti-social. Normally meaning a response against societal norms. Stealing
is sociopathic behavior. It's not an oxymoron to have a GROUP of
SOCIOPATHS. I guess you're NOT a psychologist. Oh well...

> 
> > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
>                                 ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.

Maybe YOU should get an education, my man.

> 
> Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?

Why won't some assholes use a sig so I can send them mail instead of
wasting bandwidth?

> 
> 	Random
> 	

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55239
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1ra0i5$h69@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
Tavares) wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How
> > in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking
> > governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE
> > reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't
> > there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the
> > sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens. 
> 
> Hey, joe -- assuming you're old enough to remember it -- how did you feel
> about presidential responsibility every time Reagan said "I don't recall" 
> about his arms-for-hostages meetings with the Ollie North gang?
> 
> How did you feel about it when Bush said he "was out of the loop on that
> decision" when he was right there in the thick of it?
> 
> Oh, right.  "He was responsible in the sense that he was briefed, but so
> what -- shit happens!"  Is that what you said?

Of course not. There's more than a little difference between formulating
foreign policy and overseeing the ATF's handling of a scenario involving a
group of religious fanatics. Why do people compare apples and oranges?

joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55240
From: 6820230@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: heidi@lmsc.lockheed.com

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------

The Colorado Daily recently reprinted the Wall Street Journal's article
on Paxton Quigley, including the nefarious little paragraph the Journal
tacked onto the end.  After recieving much assistance from various T.P.G.
type folks, I wrote a letter to the editor criticizing this last paragraph,
and surprise, surprise, surprise, they published it.  The text follows.
The Colorado Daily, btw, is the University of Colorado (Boulder) student
(I think) newspaper... not exactly a big coup, but every little bit, i guess...

(The title was the only thing they changed/added)

"Gun Stats"

The Daily recently reprinted an article from the
Wall Street Journal, primarily concerned with Paxton
Quigley, author of "Armed and Female."  The article,
in turn, cites a misleading statistic that was originally
reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.  The
article states, "A study... found that a gun in the home
was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,
spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder."  This
is an often-quoted statistic, and it is misleading for sev-
eral reasons, outlined below:

The study gives the impression that, if you own a
gun, the likelihood that you will successfully use it to
defend yourself is less than that of the gun being turned
against you.  The study, however, fails to take into
account cases where a law-abiding citizen uses a gun
to thwart a crime, without actually killing the perpe-
trator.

The study actually refers to 'acquaintances' rather
than 'friend'.  This would include the friendly neigh-
borhood thug who shows up like clockwork, every
month, the second your grandmother cashes her social
security check.  Possibly an acquaintance, but hardly a
friend.

The NEJM study is based on the immediate dis-
position of cases and fails to take into account cases
originally filed as homicides that were later ruled to be
self-defense.  Especially considering the small sample
size (396), taking these events into account has a sub-
stantial effect on the 43:1 ratio quoted.

Criminologist Gary Kleck gives us a slightly dif-
erent statistic: a gun is 33 times more likely to be
used, successfully, by a private citizen against an
aggressor than it is to kill anyone at all.  Further, per-
sons defending themselves from aggression by using a
gun fare better than those who resist vicimization by
some other means, or who offer no resistance at all.
Statistics available from the FBI and other agencies
also show that a gun is 245 times more likely to be
used by a non-criminal to defend against criminal threat
than to be used to commit criminal homicide, 535 times
more likely to be used to defend against a criminal
threat than to accidentally kill anybody, and 50 times
more likely to defend against criminal threat than to be
used to commit suicide.

It is well to keep in mind that nearly anything can
be proved by uncritical quotation of statistics.  One has
to consider carefully what questions were asked by
those gathering the data before one can draw an accu-
rate conclusion from them.

D.F. Taylor
CU Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry


--
Spooksmoke: Revolution, Assasination, Thorium, Cobalt-60, Clintin, CIA, NSA, SHC
  DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu
                 Send me something even YOU can't read...
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAitfksQAAAEEAKceEjWI9f5KMJyKP0LOgC5dGHRpbMY2xhOo8kpEHMDyuf8a
1BfDQSj53kosTz6HRoshSDzLVuL1/40vPjmMNtFR+vyZ4jvd3rL4iuq2umMmex3M
itf3uLt8Xn/v/QAbsvhcFSHVJVK4Lf6wosuCMO03m2TiX31AI7VB0Uzo4yXjAAUX
tCREYW5pZWwgRiBUYXlsb3IgPExva2lAYWNjYS5ubXN1LmVkdT4=
=S5ib
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55241
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

In article <16BB8E4C0.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu> R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>In article <1r6qqcINN8j4@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>>Any death is serious.  Wanna discuss match control?  Firearms related
>>unintentional deaths among children ages 14 and under are the fault of one or
>>more negligent persons, not the gun.
>
>No, I don't want to discuss match control.  I don't equate a book of matches
>to a loaded 9 millimeter either.

And you shouldn't, as the matches kill more kids.  So why are you bleating
about guns?

>say that tired old NRA line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

It may be tired, but it is true.

>Sure, people can kill people without guns.  But easy access to guns makes it
>a lot more convenient.  "Guns don't kill people, People with easy access to
>guns kill people".

No, that's not right either.  People who have both easy access and the
desire to kill, kill people.  Considering that people who have the
desire to kill turn that into easy access ....  (Haven't you folks
learned anything from either Prohibition or the war on drugs?)

If you don't affect the desire, you're wasting your time, not to
mention the other costs incurred.

>    Jim, I'm just saying how it is.  I'm not saying if that is a good thing
>or not. From the police who I have talked with who run some of these gun
>buyback programs, I get the impression that they really think they are
>having an impact on the community.

Good for them.  I note that the TM folks make the same argument.  If
you'll pay their expesnses ($21 million for a reasonable size city),
they promise to meditate away all crime, disease, etc.  At least
they're not promising to jail me if I don't go along with their little
plan - they're going to just sit in a room and fly, leaving me alone.

>gun violence whether its effective or not.  Look, if you can't measure
>the impact of these programs using some sort of pre-test and post-test
>evaluation, what is the point?  It must be symbolic in nature.

Ah, but we have evaluated gun control using before-after and it
doesn't work to reduce crime.  What is the point?  We can't claim that
it is symbolic, as people do get jailed.

>The police are
>essentially saying "look, if you have a gun lying around and you don't
>want it, we'll give you $50 for it...because we care about the community".

No, they're essentially saying "we hope this will keep you from
noticing that we're not doing anything useful".  Pissing away
resources isn't "caring".

>If you, I and Joe could think of a way to measure the effectiveness or
>ineffectiveness of these programs we could become rich and famous.

Nope, you'll merely be ignored, as Wright, Rossi, and Daly were after
finishing "Under the Gun".  They were supposed to prove that gun
control worked, so ....

>> Jim, listen to me, I said I'M NOT RELIGIOUS WHATSOEVER, do you understand?
>
>  Religion has nothing to do with this.  I could care less what religion
>they were okay?  To put children in that situation is wrong, pure and
>simple.  Difference is good Jim, I am the most progressive and diverse
>person in the world.  But, if different is allowing kids to be exposed
>to tanks and tear-gas, then yes Jim, DIFFERENT IS WRONG.

So, who gassed them?  Given their previous experience with thugs who
threw grenades before yelling "we're from the govt and we're here to
help you", would a rational person think that the feds had their best
interests at heart?  Would you "know" that the gas was "non-lethal"?

-andy
--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55246
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !

As quoted from <1993Apr17.025258.7013@microsoft.com> by anthonyf@microsoft.com (Anthony Francisco):

> cmort:
> | If anybody wanted proof of the nonsense of the "you can't build guns" claim,
> | they need look no farther than the Philippines.  Amateur gunsmiths there
> | regularly produce everything from .45 automatics to full auto shotguns.  Now
> | if this guy wants to claim that the Philippines is either technologically
> | superior to the US or that their transportation is better than ours, all I
> | can say is that he's living in a fantasy world.
> 
> Unfortunately a few of those .45s blow up in your hands.

That's life.  First you marry Imelda Marcos, then you die! :)

> On the other hand, my compatriots built an excellent copy of a Beretta that
> I enjoyed using when I lived in the Philippines. Hmmmm.

And that's the HARD stuff to copy!

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55247
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...

In article <2071@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>What I find so hard to understand is how come some people, apparantly
>NOT connected with government or otherwise privileged, will
>go to great lengths, redefinitions, re-interpretations, in a full-bore
>attempt to THROW AWAY THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTS under the
>Constitution!!!
>Almost makes me think of lemmings running into the sea during a lemming
>year...
>I really wonder that Jefferson and Madison would say to these folks?

They'd probably quote Montesque (sp?) who was once asked if Russia
was likely to become a democracy any time soon: "No, because
Russia is a nation of slaves and the people get what they deserve."
Since he said that, Russia has changed a great deal. But so, 
unfortunately have other nations.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55248
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: WACO burning

v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>
>>The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found
>>with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot
>>attempting to leave the compound during the fire.
>
>Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every
>where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines 
>went up.

Unlikely.  Ammunition is not as dangerous when simply burned as it
is when fired from a gun.  The brass case is not capable of holding
the pressure generated by burning powder, and will (unless supported
by the walls of a gun barrel or chamber) simply split open.  While
this may cause small pieces of brass to fly around, it will not
propel the bullet with any significant velocity.

In fact, it was not uncommon in years past to dispose of old loaded
cartridges by burning them.  As long as you were not close enough
to take a piece of flying brass in the eye, you were reasonably safe.

Thus, the detonation of loaded magazines or loose rounds might cause
slight injury but would be unlikely to cause fatal bullet wounds.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55249
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (Re: Boston Gun Buy Back)

>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>
>>According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a
>>gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in.
>>They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of
>>some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another
>>media-event brought to you by HCI.
>>
>>Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100
>>to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit
>>tacky, but hey, whatever works.

As David Veal points out, this sort of "promotion" would be used
against gun owners by the mass media.

However, here is my proposal: offer gun safety classes in your area,
free, as a community service.  Such a class would normally cost $40
or $50, so offering it free is a good promotion.

Our Gun Club has organized several of these (we just finished
teaching another one last night, in fact) and they have been
very well received.  We get a lot of people who are novices
interested in guns.  We even get a few who are anti-gun, but
feel they should know something about "gun safety" since members
of their family keep guns at home.

Teaching such a course gives us many desirable benefits:

(1) We have the chance to teach gun safety rules; this increases
    firearm awareness and may help to reduce gun accident stats.

(2) A "gun safety" class is Politically Correct, and likely to
    be viewed positively by the public and the media.

(3) Most of the students are 'normal people' (not gun enthusiasts)
    and this kind of class gives us the chance to give them a
    gentle introduction to firearms.

(4) Some of the students are enthusiastic, and will purchase a gun
    and become more involved in shooting or personal defense.

(5) It improves the public perception of our club and gun owners
    in general.  Our students see that we are all reasonable,
    non-aggressive, soft-spoken people, which helps to mitigate
    the standard image of a hardcore gun owner.  Even anti-gun
    students sometimes tell us they have "something new to think
    about" with regards to personal gun ownership.

(6) Sharing our experience with others is a lot of fun.

Our course is the standard NRA-certified "Home Firearm Safety"
class, and our students pay only $5 for materials.  We also
teach the NRA's "Personal Protection" class, although the cost
is higher for that one since we have to purchase range time.

I think firearms safety classes are an excellent response to
gun buy-backs.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55250
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Change of name ??



	CAN you read ??
	If so: read my posting about Quisling OR look in a dictionary.
	If not: Don't read this :)


			Thomas

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55251
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BATF & FBI Do Right Thing in Waco

In article <1993Apr21.223541.2353@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
 
>Everyone is complaining about the debacle in Waco. It is hard to
>understand all this angst. What happend there is nothing less than
>what we wanted to happen. Why all the sour grapes ?
 
       Cute word angst.  Conveys volumes.
 
       I'd be interested in this particular definition of "we."  It's
such a fluid pronoun.
 
>BATF was looking for a propaganda event to counteract their impending
>budget cuts ... the attendance of the press at the initial big
>commando raid is proof. It would have been ever so easier to grab
>Koresh and his central followers as they shopped in Waco. Alas, no
>propaganda value there.
>
>The FBI screwed-up big time, all the time. They should have never allowed
>the situation to drag out like that. A quick second assault, before the
>BDs could decide on a strategy, would have been the better plan.
>
>The BDs themselves were the biggest screw-ups though. They imagined
>that US law and US law-enforcement had no jurisdiction within their
>little 'country'. WRONG !
 
       The BD were a paranoid little cult out in the middle of nowhere,
which all of a sudden had their worst paranoid fears reinforced.
 
       Joy.
 
>They had no right whatsoever to fire on
>the BATF, and if they mistook their identity initially, they should
>have surrendered at once when they did realize who they were.
 
       Yes, they probably should have, although how many paranoid
nuts can say they held off the feds for 51 days?
 
>If the
>BDs had a problem with the warrants, they take it to court, just like
>the rest of us. If they wanted full-auto weapons, they could have
>obtained the proper permits, just like the rest of us would need to
>do. What they may NOT do is decide for themselves what US law applies
>to themselves and which does not. They get their chance like the rest
>of us - at the voting booth.
 
        The voting booth is highly over-rated.  People need to get up
off their lazy butts more than every year or every two years.  Hell,
most don't even do that.
 
>If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have
>become that way because WE have desired them to be so.
 
        No, because "we" have decided that it doesn't make enough
difference to "us" to get up and do something.  That's something,
for instance, a lot of people who go speak against gun control
bills at their local government.  Dozens of "pro-gun" speakers
show up and few if any antis do, but  they often win anyway.
 
        Why?  Because it doesn't matter who shows up, it matters
who's willing to scream afterwards.  And it isn't that most people
give a damn one way of the other, but that they don't.  Nobody
gives a damn about anybody beyond their own little worlds.
 
>We get to
>vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. By our choices over the years,
>we have approved the creation and form of the BATF and FBI. When
>the FBI was out chasing 'pinkos', the general public didn't seem
>to mind a bit of extra-constitutional activity.
 
       The general public's usually not even read the constitution.
And what they have learned is a distorted picture of the whole thing.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55256
From: icsgh339@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: newbie

This is my first time on the network, but I am very concerned with this
incident in Waco.  I will refrain from stating my opinions until after I have
read the FAQ.  Could someone tell me how to get this?  I must say that I
believe the Govt. was wrong in the actions that they took in this situation.

Portenier           icsgh339@trex.oscs.montana.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55258
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr26.172903.12436@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <C5yCou.M5B@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, random@cbnewse.cb.att.com
> (David L. Pope) wrote:
> > 
> > From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  ():
> > 
> > > 
> > > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> > > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds. 
> > 
> > So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't
> > seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more
> > than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What
> > proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any
> > "banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your
> > wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?
> 
> (sic) Oh, you're really bright. As if nobody would have understood it was a
> typo.

That was a reasonable insertion, so folks would know "Random" hadn't made an  
error reposting your message.  No one was flaming you for the typo.

> 
> Several parents with children who either had at one time or currently were
> inside the compound made the aforementioned charges. One parent actually
> spoke about said charges (in reference to his 13-year old daughter) WITH
> Koresh on the phone.

I have heard such claims from disgruntled former members.  Could be true, who  
knows.  No proof.  And what does all this have to do with the BATF and FBI  
actions?
> 
> You missed my point entirely.
> 

No, you missed his.

> > 
> > > You're a sorry
> > > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> > 
> > Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's
> > going to insult you AND your mom!
> 
> Since you're unable to formulate a cogent response, you make a lame joke.
> 
> > 
> > > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend
> > > sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the
> > > paranoia.
> > 
> > Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior.
> > Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing
> >              the same ranch-house.
> 
> Anti-social. Normally meaning a response against societal norms. Stealing
> is sociopathic behavior. It's not an oxymoron to have a GROUP of
> SOCIOPATHS. I guess you're NOT a psychologist. Oh well...
> 
> > 
> > > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu
> >                                 ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.
> 
> Maybe YOU should get an education, my man.
> 
> > 
> > Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?
> 
> Why won't some assholes use a sig so I can send them mail instead of
> wasting bandwidth?
> 

This from someone who does not have a return address in his header:
----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From:  ()
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Sender: usenet@starbase.trincoll.edu (SACM Usenet News)
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Lines: 65
----
Whereas David Pope (random) did, so a reasonable newsreader could simply hit  
reply to his comments, but not to yours.  Get an education in Internet use, "my  
man".

> > 
> > 	Random
> > 	
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55259
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr26.174819.13707@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> In article <1ra5i9INNd4g@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De
> Arras) wrote:
> > 
> > In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  () writes:
> 
> > > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup
> > > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. 
> > 
> > I don't recall saying Baptists do any of that.  Though I suppose some do.   
And  
> > none of them are listed in the dictionary as characteristics of a cult.  My  
> > mother stockpiled Campbells soup when it was on sale.  
> > 
> > > You're a sorry
> > > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things.
> > 
> > You are an intolerent, foul-mouthed human.  You sound like you are ready to  
> > join the KKK or neo-nazis, with a narrow mind like yours.
> 
> Fuck YOU. My paternal grandparents died in Oswiecym (Aushwitz in the native
> tongue, for all of you pseudo-historically literate people). 

And Bejing = Peking, who cares about native tongue, as long as we all  
understand each other.

> I would
> suggest you'd have to search long and hard to find someone with more
> diffuse sensibilities. 

Oh, not more than a few feet, I wouldn't think.  I'm sorry IF your paternal  
grandparents died in Oswiecym or Aushwitz, which is easier to say than prove,  
but if so, the lesson they paid thier lives for was wasted on you.

> Just tootin' my own horn.

You are the expert.  I often feel compelled to brag about the circumstances of  
my grandparent's death.  8-}

> 
> > > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
> > > who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.
> > > 
> 
> I don't care about *cults*. There's no language problem here. My problem is
> with religious fanatics (claiming to be God is just a *little bit*
> unsettling) stockpiling several years' supply of canned foods and enough
> weapons to hold off a company (not to mention the ATF, which %&^#ed up in
> the first place) and talking about how they're going to "take care" of all
> of the "unbelievers." But granted, up to that moment, he'd done nothing
> wrong. I recognize and respect that.
> 
> Then the ATF discovers he doesn't have proper permits for some of his
> purchases and failed to pay some taxes on them. 
> 

A BATF offense, if true.

> Then several parents come forward and demand that previous charges of child
> abuse be refiled. There have been interviews with some parents whose
> children were in the compound at some point. These parents claimed
> psychological and sexual abuse. The childrens' statements supported these
> charges.

A LOCAL offense, if true.  Totally outside the BATF's domain.

> 
> Was it a 'no-knock?' I really haven't heard anything on that. But clearly
> he was not just another guy minding his own business. Hell, give them all
> the guns in the world if they don't bother anyone. But he was a scary sort,
> don't you think? 

I didn't know the man.  Just what the TV chose to tell me.

> The sort of person you'd want your daughter to date? 

I thought there were prejudicial undertones here.  I would trust my daughter's  
judgement.

> I
> didn't think so. Reason number one to doubt the legal statements made by
> some of the survivors. (Note that some of them were made by his 'guard,'
> well-[hesitate to say expertly] trained killers).

I don't believe either side blindly.
> 
> Then he fired on the ATF. That's not just a little mistake, or some
> red-white-and blue American defending his home against Big Brother. 

IF they fired first, without announcing in a beleivable way who they were ( I  
can pound on your door and claim to be the police, will you just lay down and  
take it if I do?), then he could be justified in firing on the ATF in  
self-defense.

> That
> shit doesn't fly. Anyone with his background that will shoot and kill
> Federal Law Enforcement officials is not some good citizen whose crusade
> enjoys our support. He's a loose cannon. Just my opinion...

"His background"?  What law has he been convicted of breaking in the past?
> 
> joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55260
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Two Questions

In article <16BB8C820.SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
 
>I'd appreciate any help anyone could give me on these two questions:
>
>The Brady Bill was in the news throughout 1992 but what actually happened to
>it in Congress?  Did Bush veto it?  If so, when?
 
       The Brady Bill passed the House in 1992, but failed to reach a
vote in the Senate.  As such, it never reached Bush.  (Sarah Brady's
condemnation not-withstanding).
 
       It'll probably pass the House again, and will probably pass the
Senate if they can get it to a vote.  Whether of not they'll be busy
with other things will be the question.  I don't expect gung-ho opposition
on the part of Senate Republicans, since they won't want to over-use their
fillibuster trump card.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55261
From: michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn  michaelh@btr.com)
Subject: CNN tape shows tank starting fire

A friend recorded CNN news during the gassing and incineration of
the BD's.  I went through it carefully today, and found something
very interesting.  A tank is pulling out of the house, and there
is a fireball, maybe 24" across that lasts for about 1 second.
Exactly ten minutes and thirty nine seconds later, the smoke starts
billowing out of that area of the building.
Now, I'm no govt. spokestwinkie, so it might really have been a
weather balloon or something.  Perhaps someone would check it out
and comment.


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55262
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>}    They assembled a frightening arsenal of weapons 

>What, exactly, did you find frightening about their weapons?

    The lethality in small part, but mostly what I found frightening 
was the fact that they were wielded by people who believed that they 
ate breakfast every morning with Jesus Christ. Now I wasn't there in 
Galilee back in the Roman occupation, so I don't know for certain that 
David Koresh was not Jesus Christ, but I strongly suspect that he was 
not (even aside from the fact of never having seen them in a photograph 
together).

>}by circumventing laws which were intended to prevent such a buildup. 
>
>Which laws are you making reference to?

    I admit I can't cite a specific, but if there isn't a law against 
purchasing grenade components and assembling them into functioning units 
then perhaps we need one. All second ammendment arguments aside, I'm just 
not sure that I like the idea of private citizens with hand grenades.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55263
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks

In article <121415@netnews.upenn.edu> egedi@ahwenasa.cis.upenn.edu (Dania M. Egedi) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.222604.18331@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes:

>>>wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the
>>>systemic effects of cumulative individual actions.  If you want fire
>>>insurance on your house that's prudent and it has no effect on me; but
>>>if you and a bunch of other paranoids are packing handguns in the
>>>backcountry it makes me, and anyone else who doesn't chose to protect
>>>himself in this manner, pretty f**king nervous. 
>>
>> Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.
>> 
>
>Aha.  That's the part that makes me nervous too.  Who gets to decide if
>I am a threat?  

	When I might possibly be on the receiving end of a violent gesture, 
	then *I* get to decide for myself.  If someone does not like it, too
	bad.  I would be doing exactly what YOU  or any other living creature
	would do in terms of evaluation.  What's the big deal?

>Based on appearance?  

	Sometimes.

>Would someone feel more threatened when approached by a very dirty, smelly, 
>slightly-maniacal looking person with a slight glaze to the eyes, muttering 
>to himself?  

	I might.

>Doesn't this describe most backpackers after they've been out more than a 
>couple of days?  

	Not in my experience.  And let us not forget that context is often an
	important factor in evaluating a situation.  Seeing disheveled persons
	on a hiking trail is not likely to be evaluated equally with meeting
	a grimey sort, as described above, on a lonely city street at 3 am.
	Anyone that cannot properly discriminate between these two different
	situations is legitimate fodder for the old "survival of the fittest" 
	principle.

>Or based on something else?  Proximity?  No room to pass on the trail
>without getting *real close* to someone.  An inner sense?  Now I'm really 
>getting nervous.

	Sounds like you doubt your own abilities.  You sound pretty
	typical in this respect.  You also seem to think that you'll
	be safe or safer if others are unarmed.  This is dangerous 
	fantasy.

>Twice when I was hiking the A.T. I came up on a shelter that I was planning
>on staying at and saw someone sitting there cleaning his gun.  Softly I backed
>away, and hiked another 5 miles to get *out of there*.  I'll freely admit it here:
>I'm not afraid of guns; I'm afraid of people that bring them into the backcountry.

	Then you are in need of some form of therapy.  Not necessarily that
	of an analyst, but maybe you should learn about guns.  Your fear is
	seems to be based in ignorance and false knowledge.  You see a person
	with a gun and you feel threatened.  Why is this so?  Have you any
	legitimate basis for this?  Any first-hand experience that lends
	validity to your fears?  Or are your fears based on mediated experience,
	i.e. the anecdotes of others such as network news?  I trust you can
	see the lack of legitimacy in such mediated inputs?

	And why are you afraid of the PEOPLE as mentioned above?  Forgive me,
	but you sound afraid to the point of paranoia.  Perhaps you should talk
	to someone about this.  I am not saying this to be rude or fascetious,
	but I think anyone with fear as deep and baseless as yours *seems* to
	be needs some sort of help.  Living in fear really sucks, even if it
	is only when around people with guns in the back country.

	Tell me: would you be as fearful of a park ranger who was right in 
	front of you with their side arm in clear view?  Why or why not?

	-Andy V.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55264
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Violations

>> Eighth Amendment:
>> 1) The Davidians suffered cruel and unusual punishment when:
>> 	f> Thoes who escaped were imprisoned without bail without a  
>hearing.
>
>Happens all the time, they were arraigned the next day, I'd doubt
>you'd have any luck on this point.


	I had heard that not all were arraigned yet, some were being
	held as "material witnesses."

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55265
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: guns=Amex AND new name.....



I have NEVER spoken for a ban against guns in America !
What I've said is that there seems to be to MANY of them, and especially
to many in wrong hands....

Now IF you would like to reduce the number, how would you do it without affecting
good/responcible gun owners ??


I DO believe in a persons freedom.
What I don't believe is that you can have it all and don't pay for it.

MOST europeans believe in a society of individuals, and that you HAVE
to give 'a little' to make that society work.

Cars and guns should really not be mixed, I just tried to make a point.
Like America, Norway has some spaces you have to cross to get from a to b,
so a car is essential in most parts....

Guns on the other hand are not essential in Norway, so we don't 
argue that IF we 'banned' guns we HAVE to ban cars.....


EVERYONE who believe that Hitler and WW2 could be avoided if there were
more guns in Germany in the 30's: PLEASE read some HISTORY!


Is this discussion about

1. Banning weapons for ALL Americans
            or
2. Making it harder for criminals to get one ??



Change of name.......
Wrote that one after reading the first postings about the Waco 'incident'.
I still think there are 'some' posters should move their post to alt.conspiracy
or make a new newsgroup.
(If you read the first postings after the Waco fire you should see who I mean......)

Did the BATF get the warrant for a gun search only or was there other reasons.
(Child abuse for instance)

Doesn't the people reading this newsgroup have access to the clari.news.* hierarcy ??
(Some seems rather mis/unInformed)

(Or is the clari.news.* hierarcy ruled and censored by the corrupt facist goverment??)



                                    Thomas Parsli


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55266
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

In article <1993Apr26.174819.13707@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:
>
>> > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths
>> > who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.
>> > 
>
>I don't care about *cults*. There's no language problem here. My problem is
>with religious fanatics (claiming to be God is just a *little bit*
>unsettling) stockpiling several years' supply of canned foods

No crime here.

> and enough
>weapons to hold off a company

No crime here.

> (not to mention the ATF, which %&^#ed up in
>the first place) and talking about how they're going to "take care" of all
>of the "unbelievers."

No crime here.
Also no substantiation of your claim that Koresh said this.  I for one have
never heard this mentioned before.  Where did you hear it?

> But granted, up to that moment, he'd done nothing
>wrong. I recognize and respect that.

Up to which moment?  The one where you decided that anyone who claims to be
God no longer has the protection of the Constitution?
What happened to the separation of church and state?

>Then the ATF discovers he doesn't have proper permits for some of his
>purchases and failed to pay some taxes on them. 

I have yet to see any evidence of *this*, either.  From what I hear the
*original* warrant (the reason for the Feb. raid) is still sealed.  What are
"unsealed" seem to be warrants taken out after the initial raid.

>Then several parents come forward and demand that previous charges of child
>abuse be refiled. There have been interviews with some parents whose
>children were in the compound at some point.

Funny, I haven't seen any of these "interviews."
Interesting that when the social services agencies investigated Koresh on
these previous charges, they found absolutely no evidence of abuse.

> These parents claimed
>psychological and sexual abuse. The childrens' statements supported these
>charges.

Funny, I don't remember hearing anything about childrens' statements,
either.  Where did you say you heard all this?

What *I* heard was that none of the children who left the compound early in
the seige exhibited any signs typical of abuse, physical or mental.  This
from the newspaper and national TV news.

Did you also hear that it's the job of the BATF and the FBI to lay siege to
homes where child abuse is suspected?  I thought you did.

>Was it a 'no-knock?' I really haven't heard anything on that. But clearly
>he was not just another guy minding his own business.

"Clearly?"  Please tell us what Koresh was doing that can be construed as
other than "minding his own business" before the BATF raided the place.

> Hell, give them all
>the guns in the world if they don't bother anyone. But he was a scary sort,
>don't you think? The sort of person you'd want your daughter to date? I
>didn't think so. Reason number one to doubt the legal statements made by
>some of the survivors.

Your logic just amazes me.  I think your grandparents who died in
Auschwitz would be turning over in their graves if they could hear how
cavalierly you throw away people's protection of law because you think
they're "scary" and "not the sort of person you'd want your daughter to
date."  What sort of people do you suppose the Nazis thought your
grandparents were?  Probably not the sort they'd want their little
frauleins dating...

> (Note that some of them were made by his 'guard,'
>well-[hesitate to say expertly] trained killers).

And next I suppose you'll tell us exactly WHO these "well-trained killers"
have killed?

>Then he fired on the ATF. That's not just a little mistake, or some
>red-white-and blue American defending his home against Big Brother. That
>shit doesn't fly.

Because you said so, right?  Right.

> Anyone with his background that will shoot and kill
>Federal Law Enforcement officials is not some good citizen whose crusade
>enjoys our support.

So someone with a different background, say someone who didn't claim to be
the Messiah, in your book COULD shoot and kill Federal Law Enforcement
officials WOULD be a good citizen whose crusade enjoys our support?

> He's a loose cannon. Just my opinion...

Worth the paper it's printed on.

You're amazing, simply amazing.

  -joe

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55267
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Waco "Inside Story" (AP) (Was Re: ATF BURNS....)

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
: 
: Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.
: 

No, they probably couldn't.  If you had ever been tear gassed, you 
wouldn't be so quick to condem.  



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55268
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: CLINTON JOINS LIST OF GENOCIDAL SOCIALIST LEADERS

[Joe, why don't you put your username on your account?]

On Mon, 26 Apr 1993 17:48:19 GMT, joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu wrote:

> Then the ATF discovers he doesn't have proper permits for some of his
> purchases and failed to pay some taxes on them. 

Or claims to have discovered so...  It would hardly be the first time
they raided someone based on incorrect evidence.

> Was it a 'no-knock?' I really haven't heard anything on that. But clearly

It was a "no-knock", according to the Associated Press report.
Here's something I found in my collection:

    Excerpts from an article in the Knoxville News-Sentinel Final
    Edition Monday, March 1, 1993 (the byline is associated press):

    WACO, Texas - Fierce gun battles erupted Sunday as more than 100
    law officers tried to arrest the leader of a heavily armed
    religious cult.  At least four federal agents and two cult members
    were reported killed.  [...]

    The gun battles began when federal agents hidden in livestock
    trailers stormed the sect's head-quarters Sunday morning,
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    witnesses said.  The agents had warrants to search for guns and
    explosives and to arrest Howell, said Les Stanford of the ATF in
    Washington.  [...]

    Witnesses said the law officers stormed the compound's main home,
    throwing concussion grenades and screaming "Come out," while three
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    National Guard helicopters approached.  For a moment, there was no
    response.  Then the shooting began. 

I think "storming the sect's head-quaters" and "throwing concussion
grenades" qualifies as a no-knock (or perhaps an illegal assault).

> he was not just another guy minding his own business. Hell, give them all
> the guns in the world if they don't bother anyone. But he was a scary sort,
> don't you think? The sort of person you'd want your daughter to date? I
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably not.  But then again, neither are you.

> Then he fired on the ATF. That's not just a little mistake, or some
> red-white-and blue American defending his home against Big Brother. That
> shit doesn't fly. Anyone with his background that will shoot and kill
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And just what is "his background"?  What prior crimes had he been
CONVICTED of?

> Federal Law Enforcement officials is not some good citizen whose crusade
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, BATF are "Federal TAX Enforcement officials".  They're not
police, nor do they have police powers.

--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...  The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.  The part
which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance
of the facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty.  ..."   Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55269
From: lilak@peaks.enet.dec.com (Rod Lilak)
Subject: Bennett : Banned, Bayonet 



I wrote a letter the other day to Empower America - the organization
which claims to be championing conservative issues, esp. in the wake 
of the Republican defeat last fall. 

Some might consider them just a an organization to create a network of 
support among conservatives for some individuals in prep. for '96 run.

You'd be close to the truth.

Their two leading spokesmen are Bill Bennett, former 'Drug Czar' who heartily
supported Bush's semi-auto import ban, and wondered if it went far enough - 
who helped put the big lie about 'sporting use' into the public's eye - and
Jack Kemp - who recently came out in support of semi-auto bans. 

These are conservatives ? 

Anyway I thought it interesting that when I ran Word Perfect's spell check
against my letter - it came up with the following corrections for 'Bennett' :

1. Banned
2. Bayonet


Needless to say, I found these choices rather amusing.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come
close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell
after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The
savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
    -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55270
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <nate.1507.735856109@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    I admit I can't cite a specific, but if there isn't a law against 
>purchasing grenade components and assembling them into functioning units 
>then perhaps we need one. All second ammendment arguments aside, I'm just 
>not sure that I like the idea of private citizens with hand grenades.

Are you aware you can make a grenade with gunpower and metal water pipes?
Maybe we should outlaw hardware stores and ammo reloading.

Are you aware that you can make a firebomb with gasoline? etc.

-- 
 Justin Ngai, 8 pounds, 2 ounces,
 born 4/24/93

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55271
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Here's the number to call for CA bills...

I made a few phone calls today, and found that if you call the Bill Room at
the Sacramento State Capitol, you may order free of charge any bills that
are currently being pushed.  I was told that they will only fill an order of
five bills per phone call, but when I asked kindly and told the nice lady that
it was very important, she filled my order for ten.

California State Bill Room
916-445-2323

Subject:  Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers
 
Sorry I forgot to include this in my previous letter but we also
have to worry about State bills.  These are the ones that I am
currently aware of:

SB 292
SB 247
SB 67
SB 89
SB 180

AB 117
AB 155
AB 166
AB 482
AB 501

My thanks to Bob Hale for providing the bill numbers!

/------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Peter D. Nesbitt |   Air Traffic Controller   | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM   |
|                  |     Oakland Bay TRACON     |                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  CBR600F2 Pilot  |     NRA Member CCX1380F    | S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/

Hey!  I fixed my sig.file!

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55272
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BATF Achieved Objective; Wants to "Move On"

In article <1rh9soINNimh@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>
dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
 
>In article 26844@convex.com, langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:
>>feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>>>Everyone discussing why the BATF did this or didn't do that is missing
>>>the point. BATF wanted to destroy Koresh.  Everything they did was
>>>consistent with that objective.
>>
>>    And having done that, they've declared victory by flying their flag
>>    over the ruins. Regardless of who started the firefight or fire,
>>    I see the flag as nothing but arrogant.
>>
>
>        Not only arrogant, but in plain bad taste.  As though they had
>        defeated a difficult foe, and done so with honor.
>
>        I understand Reno does not own the BATF... doesn't Bentsen, a
>        Texas boy at that, I believe?  Why is not Bentsen from Treasury
>        as much out front as Reno is?  Is he hiding behind her apron strings?
 
 
       The BATF got sat on pretty early on.  After the initial shooting
was over, it pretty much become the FBI's show.  (Even that BATF guy
stopped showing up next to the speaker at the daily press conferences).
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55273
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Waco Questions


| The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its
| citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe
| the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The
| only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the
| elimination of personal freedom.

I think this is a little extreme, i am concerned about a couple of things
i've seen lately. It seems to me that the government is *beginning* to 
enforce political correctness. the first King verdict was polically incorrect
so the hell with constutitional protection from double jeopardy, try the cops
again. the BD's are far as i can tell didn't do anything wrong. nothing that
would justify the horrable end they were subjected too. they were simply
polically incorrect in the extream. i can't help but wonder "who's next"

jim shirreffs
i speak for myself and only myself


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55274
Subject: Repeat violent criminals--is reform often impossible?
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)



From the Boston Globe, Thursday April 22 1993

p. 44

Walpole man, 32, guilty in rape

Kenne, N.H. -- A Walpole man
charged with kidnapping a
mother of two from her home, then
raping and beating her, has pleaded 
guilty.  Roger Santaw Jr. also plead-
ed guilty to an attempted escape
from Cheshire County jail last win-
ter.  Santaw, 32 is scheduled to be
sentenced next week.  The rape last
fall came six months after Santaw
was released from prision, where
he spent 15 years for a rape he commit-
ted when he was 16.  (AP)


 
[end of article]

Any reactions?  Did he do enough time?  What should his penalty
be?  

BTW, Walpole is a town in Massachusetts.  Of course, New
hampshire is close by.
J. Case Kim
kim39@husc.harvard.edu


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55275
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

In article <1993Apr21.091130.17788@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>
>This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.

	This was not stated nor implied.  Try asking.
>
>Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
>gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
>is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
>research purposes on such chemicals.

	This is laughable.  Licenses?  Right.  So then I would need a
	license to possess chlorine gas?  It is a weapons grade poison.
	Would I be breaking the law then if I were to, say, pour Chlorox
	on the spot where my cat pissed on the floor?  The reaction of
	ammonia and bleach liberates pure chlorine gas.  Do I go to jail
	for this?  Why or why not?

	Would I need a license to possess other chemical agents?  What about
	nicotine?  Deadly poison, and rather fast acting.  Must I now become
	licensed to posess tobacco?  And what about nicotine sulphate, an even
	deadlier poison?  Will I need a license to possess this type of 
	insecticide?  What about Raid(tm)?  Black Flag?  Gasoline?  Benzene?
	Hydrazine (a violent poison)?

	Will I go to jail for possessing a can of tomatoes that went bad with
	botulinus?

	What about my mom & pop QC lab where I use cyanogen bromide (mustard
	gas) to do lot analysis on certain non-prescription pharmaceuticals?

	What if I wish to use potassium cyanide to recover gold from aqua
	regia?  A license? 

	Would I need a license to possess Beryllium, perhaps the most poisonous
	non-radioactive metal?  How about Beryllium-Copper alloy?

	Do I need a license for nitrate fertilizers which *could* be used to
	make VERY powerful explosive devices such as the one that the IRA
	recently detonated, killing 1 and injuring 45?

	Can I have vinegar without license?  Hydrogen peroxide?  Where is the 
	line drawn?    

>I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
>definitions.

	Yes they could, but are they good ideas?  Are they needed?  Is there
	any shred of sanity in them?  Scarcely, I trust.
>
	-Andy V.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55276
From: PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: newbie

In article <0096B9BF.EB6A4220@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>
icsgh339@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:
 
>This is my first time on the network, but I am very concerned with this
>incident in Waco.  I will refrain from stating my opinions until after I have
>read the FAQ.  Could someone tell me how to get this?  I must say that I
>believe the Govt. was wrong in the actions that they took in this situation.
 
        As far as I know, there is no FAQ for tpg.  Somebody was working
on one, but I think it "died in committee."
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal  University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed\
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft\ ... Sometimes I get to
thinking you don't love me anymore." - "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55277
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1rgudtINN3it@apache.dtcc.edu> bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes
:
>In article <2099@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>>I want to see an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full prosecuting and
>>subpoena powers.  With felony prosecution where felony acts are found.
>>Fat chance, I bet.  I bet the Justice Dept will have an internal
>>investigation which will turn up at most 'poor judgement'.
>
>  OOOHHHHHHHH, can you say "INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR", geee, maybe ol'
>Mr. Walsh can do something useful after all.....
>
> (Right, fat chance...)
>

I'm responding at the risk of misreading your response, but I do have to tell 
my fellow conservatives to give it up, attacking Reno/Clinton/ATF/FBI.

They may have botched an operation, but they didn't kill anybody who never shot
at them first.  David Koresh was a frigging lunatic.  His followers had the 
combined I.Q of a Geraldo audience.  The kids probably would have been those
fucked up social rejects who go to Freshman dances in high school, never to be
seen again (except maybe in the band) until prom, when they show up like 
animals boarding the ark.  Then it's bowling till 3 in the morning..... 
(WHY....WHY?? did it happen to me??!!)

Anyway, the point is Janet Reno/Bill Clinton were only following the advice of 
trained, law enforcement officials who were experts in their fields.  I'd 
rather have our leaders do that then micro-manage every crisis that comes 
along.  Then you'd really see trouble no matter what party or ideology the 
President and her (er.. I mean his) Attorney General is.
-- 
Ryan C. Scharfy

rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55278
From: awe@pimms.mit.edu (Ari Epstein)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <viking.735373292@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> In <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com> mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary) writes:
> 
> 	
>                                         
> 	
> 	  LDS and RLDS
> philosophy is that all other religions have strayed from the true
> Church as set down by Jesus, but that God will judge each on his
> own merits.  In addition, the RLDS also contend (and the LDS may
> as well) that ignorance of the True Way (tm) is an excuse.  You
> can only be condemned if you had been tought the way and rejected
> it.  In short, LDS and RLDS suffer everybody from Lutherans to
> Buddhists, secure in the knowledge that though they are wrong they
> will not be penalized for ignorance.  


I believe that this is not quite correct. My understanding is that LDS is
engaged on a project to "convert" the souls of deceased persons of other
religions, in order to spare them from damnation and gain them entrance into
heaven. To this end, the Church has compiled extensive genaeological records, so
that they will know the names of people to convert. A long article in the New
Yorker a few years ago described the LDS research methods in some detail (for
example, some researchers pay visits to local native storytellers to learn the
names of people long dead). This sounds like just the sort of lie that would be
made up about any unusual religion, but the New Yorker story convinced me that
there is some truth to it (the New Yorker used to do extensive fact-checking, and
the story was quite detailed).

Ari



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55279
From: jtrascap@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jim Trascapoulos)
Subject: Re: Denver Post Classifieds: No assault weapons

eesnyder@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) writes:



>I came across the following notice in the Denver Post classified secctio

>this morning (April 26, 1993):

>\begin{quote}

>NOTICE:

>The Denver Post will no longer knowingly accept any advertisement to buy
>or sell assault weapons.  The Denver Post finds that the use of assault
>weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of its reader
.

>\end{quote}

>Now I suppose the Post is within its rights to refuse such ads.  However

>the second sentence is so noxious, I feel compelled to bring it to the 
>attention of the t.p.g/c.g readership.  

>I called the Post classified number (825-2525) and expressed my displeas
re. 
>According to the supervisor I spoke to, the Post was reacting to public
>complaints regarding the running of assult weapon ads.  However, she sai

>the paper was keeping track of the reaction to the change in policy.  I 
>strongly encourage Denver Post readers to call and make their feelings k
own.

>Eric E. Snyder                            
>Department of MCD Biology              ...making feet for childrens' sho
s.
>University of Colorado, Boulder   
>Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347
 
Will do! I appreciate the thoughtfullness of the Post to not be an
intermediary for such sales. The "Right to bear arms" is one of the most
misapplied rights in our Constitution, and assault weapons go way beyond
what is, or rather should be (imho), a "natural" right in America. Just
ask the family of that boy shot back in September - the papers are full of
stories about a child with an assult weapon with a "angelic face" (Post)
who committed the murder without ever thinking.
 
This has all got to get under control. I applaud the Post for their bravery
 
Jim Trascapoulos * jtrascap@nyx.cs.du.edu * "So, what size id do YOU wear?"


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55280
From: karl@dixie.com (Karl Klingman)
Subject: Re: The Truth about Waco 

dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:

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

>>*	The tanks were collapsing interior walls and ceilings putting people
>>	at great risk.

>Dear, dear. They could have COME OUT.

Then by your logic, the Jews in Europe in the 1930's were the cause for
the Holocaust.  Hitler told them to leave and because they didn't they
brought the whole thing on themselves.  Because as you say, they could
have COME OUT of Germany.

>>*	There was no group instruction of any kind from Koresh or his 
>>	aids after the tank invasion (referring to any kind of suicide
>>	pact or counter-assault efforts.)


>It's ultimately irrelevant who "lit" the fire.  They had ample opportunity
>to LEAVE.

Same for the Jews in Europe 1930's.

>While he was there.  Anyway, outsiders RARELY see abuse.  It's a secretive
>thing.  All we have to go on are the court documents in the Jewell case
>and the mistrial in California.

You don't see any evidence of the abuse -- therefore it must be taking place?
As you point out everwhere but here, it is irrelevant to this case.  The
ATF is not in charge of investigating child abuse.

>>*	No one was ever held against their wills and could have left at any
>>	time.  The people who were murdered in the fire were there by their
>>	own choices.

>EXACTLY.  By their OWN CHOICE.

In obvious contradiction to the statements made by the F. B. I.

>I have NEVER judged them by their religion, but by their ACTIONS.

And just what are those actions that you are judging them by?
Their refusal to let the government control their lives? Their refusal
to submit to unconstitutional laws?  Their refusal to behave like
cowards?  Some of Texas' heros could have taken the cowardly way
out too and surrendered the Alamo.  After all, all they had to do was
COME OUT.  They stayed as you say by their "OWN CHOICE".  Problem
is not everyone chooses to act like a groveling dog in the face of
insurmountable odds.  But as you point out, they certainly do have
that right.  

>If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would
>have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses
>of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not
>IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to
>shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.

Bull.  They did, in fact, live a quiet, religious life -- as they claimed.
The warrant was not issued because they "stockpiled weapons".  It is
not against the law to own as many guns as you want -- yet (Except in 
Virginia).The warrant was issued for some "gun parts" that are about the size 
of a half-dollar.  Certainly worth the lives of so many people, don't you 
think?

>Just as we don't blame a cop who shoots a kid who had pointed a toy
>weapon at him, I don't think the FBI deserves blame in this case.

You can forget that WE business.  I certainly do blame them.

-- 
He who would trade his liberty for  |  Karl Klingman
security deserves neither.          |  American Research Group, Inc.
                                    |  karl@dixie.com

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55425
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: guns=Amex AND new name.....

Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:

	Remember me, Tom?  I hope you'll respond, and I seem to
be a Voice of Reason or some such (I've been recieving fan mail,
so naturally my ego is somehwat inflated of late), and hope to
make a few points here.

>I have NEVER spoken for a ban against guns in America !
>What I've said is that there seems to be to MANY of them, and especially
>to many in wrong hands....

	And our argument is that you cannot remove them from the people
who need restricting and not remove them from the people who don't.  A
fairly simple problem, given our size and numbers.  Do you agree?  We
all believe criminals, particularly violent criminals, should not have
firearms.  The problem is making a law that does this without trodding
upon the rights of the vast majority.  Nobody here seems to be able to
do it, and I doubt anybody in Norway can either.  Thus, we are left with
a philosophical difference: does the safety of a few justify restricting
the many?  We say "no," while others say "yes."

>Now IF you would like to reduce the number, how would you do it without
>affecting good/responcible gun owners ??

	Can you provide a method that cannot be abused?  I doubt it.

>I DO believe in a persons freedom.
>What I don't believe is that you can have it all and don't pay for it.

	Of course.  This is not in contention.  What is in contention
is how much one has to pay.

>MOST europeans believe in a society of individuals, and that you HAVE
>to give 'a little' to make that society work.

	It is this "giving a little" that makes Americans wary...
We have seen this argument before.  You might remember how a
Chamberlain "gave a little" to a particular fascist/short asshole,
and how such "appeasement" worked.  While it might work in some
instances, it doesn't work in others, and since we cannot predict
the future we must be cautious in using actions that have a
history of failure.

>Cars and guns should really not be mixed, I just tried to make a point.
>Like America, Norway has some spaces you have to cross to get from a to b,
>so a car is essential in most parts....
>Guns on the other hand are not essential in Norway, so we don't 
>argue that IF we 'banned' guns we HAVE to ban cars.....

	Cars are not essential in Norway any more than they are in
the USA.  I'm willing to bet that you have neighbors that would be
willing to drive you anywhere you wanted to go for a price.  Thus,
cars are not essential for your transportation.  However, the
arguments presented show that, since cars are used to kill far more
people than guns in the USA, it makes much more sense to restrict
cars than it does guns.  How one defines "essential" often depends
upon what one is willing to go through for that service.  When we
look at the raw data, such comparisons are not individually weighed.

>EVERYONE who believe that Hitler and WW2 could be avoided if there were
>more guns in Germany in the 30's: PLEASE read some HISTORY!

	This depends upon what the populace was willing to do.  As
Desert Storm proved, even an armed populace won't just revolt even
when given a chance.  Still, would Hitler have done all that he did
with an armed populace?  We have to wonder, as some of his first
acts were to confiscate firearms.  Other points in history show
that dictators were overthrown by arms in the hands of the populace.
Thus, we're left wondering if Hitler would have been overthrown
or if King George was just unlucky in keeping the USA as a colony.
One can argue both sides; one also has to live with each action.

>Is this discussion about
>1. Banning weapons for ALL Americans
>            or
>2. Making it harder for criminals to get one ??

	It is about #2, but so far all proposals to curtail #2 have
wound up enforcing #1 as well.  I only wish that "or" was so logical.

>Change of name.......

	That was, on my part, purely in jest.  I merely pointed out
how we were from similar backgrounds racially, but of wholly different
backgrounds politically.  I thought this would underscore my point on
how our cultures were so different despite similar heritage.

>Did the BATF get the warrant for a gun search only or was there other reasons.
>(Child abuse for instance)

	BATF can *only* enforce gun/tobaccco/alcohol violations.  Child
abuse is a matter for the individual states and local authorities.

>Doesn't the people reading this newsgroup have access to the clari.news.* 
>hierarcy ??  (Some seems rather mis/unInformed)

	That hierarchy is a paid-for feed at many sites.  Most people do
not get it for this reason, and I suspect money, not censorship, is the
main reason.  Do you get alt.sex* at your site?  I can't read it here
because of censorship and legal fears, so again our differences show.
You have topless sunbathing, and in the USA we can watch a murder every
fifteen seconds and yet breasts are forbidden on television.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55426
From: carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the

I'm not sure were this thread has been before i popped in, but I've never
thought of waiting periods as having anything to do with training or
competence. I just can't imagin any valid reason for having a gun that
can't wait a few days. I can think of plenty of bad reasons for not
wanting a waiting period: I want to buy a gun and kill so-and-so right
now, I've crossed the state line to buy a gun illegally and I can't
afford to spend the night here, etc.

I'm not a big fan of guns, but I feel that it is important to guard
American's rights to own them. On the other hand, we license and regulate
many things without seriously impeding anyones constitutional rights.

Carl

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55467
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH - UPDATE

In article <C6548v.JHA@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>In article <1993Apr27.032401.28156@news.acns.nwu.edu> brice@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Benjamin Rice) writes:
>>The reason the fire department couldn't fight the fire is that bullets were
>>whizzing throughout the area.  Had koresh not had such a "frightenly large
>>arsenal" maybe the feds would not have decided that having the firedepartment
>>on the scene would have been a useless waste of taxes and potentially
>>dangerous had a different fire broken out in Waco
>
>So, how come the fire department had been at the compound area for
>49 days, only to be sent away two days before the FBI attack?

(Whatever the above comment has to do with the hazards of fighting a
fire in the midst of ammo cooking off...)
Maybe the fire department was loudly complaining the whole time about
being diverted from their other duties, and the FBI said "FIne. Go home
and we'll call you if we need you."  A million things could have happened,
we don't know.

BTW, this is the first time I have heard that the Waco FD was on scene
for all but the last 2 days...  what's the source (out of curiosity)?



-- 
<><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <>
<><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55468
From: mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum)
Subject: Re: Community Spirited Drug Dealers (Was: Strippers...)

sylvain@netcom.com (Nicholas Sylvain) writes:
>>value gun shops where all the city's many fine community spirited drug
>>dealers arm themselves....
>
>Such a fine posting, with the exception of these particular lines. I hope
>you don't *REALLY* think that your average drug dealer actually purchases
>his gun(s) from a legal source.

	As a matter of fact, I know it.

	There were several shootings recently in which the guns had
been purchased at the Baltimore Gunsmith, on Broadway - a favorite
place to get cheap "popular" pieces. By "popular" I am referring to
the kinds of guns our local youth gangs like: pistol grip shotguns,
cheap magnums, and Tec-9s.

	I hate to poke a hole in your bubble, but I was referring
to a specific gunstore, and specific incidents. Any other questions?

mjr.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55470
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

As quoted from <nate.1504.735838830@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> by nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle):

> >What did those people do wrong in the first place? that is what i can't 
> >figure out. 
> 
>     They assembled a frightening arsenal of weapons by circumventing laws 
> which were intended to prevent such a buildup. Then later they used some 
> of those weapons to kill representatives of the Federal government. I'm 
> sure they were frightened when they saw all those BATF officers closing 
> in, but in retrospect I can't see how their subsequent gunfight could be 
> expected to improve the situation.
> 
What laws did they circumvent?  Being "frightening" isn't a crime.  Some people
are afraid of young Black males.  That doesn't make the mere status of being a
young Black male a crime.

The BATF itself admitted leading off by throwing handgrenades.  There is no
evidence that they properly identified themselves as law enforcement 
personnel.  Under those circumstances, other persons have been found to be
acting within their legal rights to exercise self defense against unidentified
armed intruders.

>     At this point I place little or no credibility on any of the charges 
> of child abuse or molestation, but I would remind you that the Branch 
> Davidians aren't the only ones burying their dead.
> 
The charges are irrlevant anyway, since the BATF has absolutely no jurisdiction
in such matters anyway.  Of course that hasn't stopped them from making other
such spurious charges, such as the existence of mythical "meth labs".  Of
course they whole "cult" thing indicates the level of contempt that they have
for the 1st amendment.

> >sure they were crazy, no dought about it, but what did they do wrong? 
> 
>     They attempted to stage an armed resistance to federal authorities 
> under conditions that placed dozens of unarmed and innocent people in the 
> line of fire. 
> 
That armed resistance, at least initially, may well have been LEGAL.

-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55471
From: bd474@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill McDonald)
Subject: Re: HB 1776 passes the Texas House!


In a previous article, dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) says:

>
>From memory, today's Houston Chronicle (27 April 1993) reported that
>HB 1776 PASSED in the Texas House of Representatives with (approximately,
>this is from memory) 95 votes for and 45 votes against.

What does this bill do?

>However, in an effort to go into CYA (that's cover your ass) mode,
>they wrote the bill in such a way as to make the law subject to a
>statewide referendum in November.  However, the paper reported that
>this is actually unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution, which
>only allows referendums for constitutional amendments, not for plain
>old laws.
>
>If the court does not permit the referendum the bill will probably
>go into effect with little fanfare.
>
>All of the above is subject to the Texas Senate's voting for
>the bill as well.  Time to start calling the state senators now!!
>
>Daryl
>             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
>               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura
>

McD
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bill McDonald                | "Le coeur a sas raisons que la raison ne
St. Louis, MO                |  connait point" -- "The heart has its
wm2237@rapa1!texbell.sbc.com |  reasons that reason cannot understand"

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55472
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: My sig


My sig has generated more mail than any of my posts.

Robin Hood is a school financing plan wherein property rich school districts
will have a portion of their tax revenue taken from them and given to property
poor districts.  The laudable plan is to equalize the per student spending. 
IMHO, however, it is a disaster waiting to happen.  Taxes will go up in 50% of
the districts and we will lose control of how OUR tax money is spent.  It
penalizes districts that have excelled.

And the election is Saturday. Along with city council, school board and the
unfinished Senate term.  And after I exercise one right, I'm going to exercise
another!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55473
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card


Gun clubs:
If you are a member you CAN borrow weapons....(Suprised??)
You are supposed to train with a .22 for the 6 months, THEN
you can start with anything bigger.

Drivers licence:
Forgot that USA is THE land of cars.....
Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy.
Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......
But we think this is acceptable because a car is NOT a toy, and
bad drivers tend to hurt OTHERS.
(If you are really bad, you WON'T get a lincence!)

Abuse by the goverment:
This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should
get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)

Guns 'n Criminals:
MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.
And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe),
we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.

Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!
Someone said that if we 'ban' guns we'd have to ban cars to, because they 'kill' to...
I don't think we should argue on this one..... ;)

The issue (I hope..):
I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem.
Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)

I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia:
They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them
to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.

If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
it's the 'axer' ??
(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)

Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??

If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)

Don't flame the Englishmen because of Northern Irland, they have gun control that works
(in England) and fonds from USA are one of the reasons why IRA can bomb innocents...
(Something about throwing stones in glass houses...)
Don't flame them because of what to (three?) children did either.
(Can an Jugoslav have an oppinion on guns or even peace??) (YES!)

(My numbers about crime rates after restrictions on shot-guns are from the police
and the Statistisk Sentralbyraa) (understood that one Sorenson??)

LAST WORD:
Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if you want to protect 
your citicens.



	This is not a .signature.
	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
	and to bring down the evil Internet.


                        Thomas Parsli
                        thomasp@ifi.uio.no

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55474
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !

As quoted from <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:

> The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
> you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !

Kind of sounds like Plessy v. Ferguson, huh?  Of course as in that case,
things change, huh?

> Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
> are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
> be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
> 
No, if your little fantasy comes to pass, the country will have gone
TOWARD the KKK.  You're of course being a little disengenuous.  Violent
solutions are never passe FOR THE GOVERNMENT and CRIMINALS (who frequently)
cannot be distinguished).

"Avoid situations which encourage criminals"?  You mean don't be a woman?
Don't be Black?  Don't be gay?  I'm quite certain that having a surfeit of
unarmed victims will discourage your beloved KKK from engaging in "violent
solutions"....


-- 
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55475
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: The Real Reason Politicians Want Guns Confiscated

Politicians want to eliminate private ownership of guns before the
general public starts violently resisting the tax increases needed
to fund the federal government as an ever higher percentage of tax
revenue goes to pay interest on the national debt (currently 57 cents
out of every tax dollar collected and rising).

-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

I'm beginning to look forward to reaching the %100 allocation of taxes
to pay for the interest on the national debt. At that point the
federal government will be will go out of business for lack of funds.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55476
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: Repeat violent criminals--is reform often

In article 23303@husc3.harvard.edu, kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:
> 
> 
> From the Boston Globe, Thursday April 22 1993
> 
> p. 44
> 
> Walpole man, 32, guilty in rape
> 
> Kenne, N.H. -- A Walpole man
> charged with kidnapping a
> mother of two from her home, then
> raping and beating her, has pleaded 
> guilty.  Roger Santaw Jr. also plead-
> ed guilty to an attempted escape
> from Cheshire County jail last win-
> ter.  Santaw, 32 is scheduled to be
> sentenced next week.  The rape last
> fall came six months after Santaw
> was released from prision, where
> he spent 15 years for a rape he commit-
> ted when he was 16.  (AP)
> 
> 
>  
> [end of article]
> 
> Any reactions?  Did he do enough time?  What should his penalty
> be?  
> 
> BTW, Walpole is a town in Massachusetts.  Of course, New
> hampshire is close by.
> J. Case Kim
> kim39@husc.harvard.edu
> 


   Some women might say, "Death".  How about "life, with no hope of parole"?

   David N. Bixler
   Auburn University         All standard disclaimers apply


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55482
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Bomb Laws (Was: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!)

In article <C64CpI.M1F@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
> ...
>The primary purpose of fertilizer is not to explode or kill
>people.  Maybe just a law saying you cannot use this stuff
>to make a bomb would be good?

  Even better, let's pass a law making it illegal to kill people
with bombs of *any* sort.

--henry schaffer

P.S. Thanks for explaining the primary purpose of fertilizer.  
Now I can stop worrying about the World Trade Towers bombing.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55483
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Why are we being censored in a free America? This node specificaly

In article <1993Apr23.072224.13478@mixcom.mixcom.com> you write:
#
# Which Article of the Constitution gives me the right of revolution if things
# seem to be going cockeyed??
#
# Hmmm...
# --
# Peter G. White, President, Synthesis 93 Inc.
# Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
# Peter.White@mixcom.com


Dunno if you'll find it in the Constitution, but that other document of American
liberty, that kids are taught to hallow in school, is the Declaration of
Independence.  That document is in fact a justification not just for the right
if revolution, but of the DUTY of revolution by the people, once the government
gets too oppressive.  It is a very radical document, and I recommend all
Americans... especially those in office... read it once a year.



Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55484
From: R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: Gun Buy Back

>
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:37:34 GMT, R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu wrote:
>
>>  Firearms are the fifth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children
>> ages 14 and under.
>
>From the rkba archive, "rkba.004":
>
>   "Total firearm deaths for children (<1 through 14) at 587 (1988) is
>    one of the SMALLEST causes of deaths in children. Cars, falls,
>    burns, drowning, food ingestion are all much larger cause of
>    deaths (7,988)."
>
>So, firearms are the 6th leading cause, after drowning and choking on
>food (at least for 1988).
 
Sorry Charles...According to the National Safety Council, ACCIDENT FACTS,1991
"In 1990, gun accidents were the fifth-leading cause of accidental death
for children ages 14 and under."
 
>> I don't understand how the ratio to other accidental
>> deaths is important.  So guns don't kill as many children as car accidents.
>> What is the difference in severity between 1,000 deaths and 10,000 deaths?
>
>The difference is that a rational person would address the leading
>cause _first_, and address the lesser causes later.
>
 That thinking is so screwed up, I don't even know how to respond to it.
A rational person would concentrate on motor vehicle deaths, and not attempt
to affect childhood falls, drownings, gunshot injuries, etc.????????????????
So this so called rational person, (using your definition), if he or she
were attempting to affect the leading causes of deaths for adults aged 25
through 64 would only worry about cancer, and would not try to decrease
LESSER CAUSES such as heart disease, injuries, stroke, suicide, liver disease,
chronic lung disease, homicide, HIV infection, or diabetes.  Oh, okay Charles,
that makes a lot of sense.  I tell you what Charles, I'll call the Heart
Foundation and suicide hotlines and tell them that they are not acting rational
and that they can all go home because they are addressing the LESSER CAUSES
of death.  And you call your local police homicide department, liver foundation
and diabetes foundation and tell them to stop addressing these lesser causes.
Please, quit wasting my time with this silly shit Charles.
 
I've got an idea Charles, why don't you start a talk.politics.caraccidents
group or talk.politics.fall group?  This is talk.politics.guns.  Don't
confuse the issue.  Just because a social problem may not claim as many
victims as another, we should not try to address it?  I don't agree.
I'm not posting to t.p.g to debate the supposed severity of causes of
childhood deaths. I am really getting frigging sick of having to respond
to the irrational statements of people who assume that someone who
wants to discuss youth gun violence or unintentional youth gun deaths
is trying to make a political issue out of it.
 
 
>> I assumed that any humane
>> person would be concerned when any 10 year old got hold of their parents
>> gun from their bedroom drawer and accidently blew away one of their friends.
>
>A "humane person" who keeps a firearm in the house with a 10 year old
>would also teach this child how to safely handle the firearm;
>Ignorance is our greatest enemy.
>
 Again Charles, you tend to confuse the issue and take things out of context
for your own purposes.  The statement that you responded to above is actually
in reference to a previous post by another person who, like you, expressed
concern over making youth gun violence a priority.  I guess, maybe Humane
person and Rational person could be interchangeable huh? Both would be defined
as "a person who only addresses the social problem that causes the greatest
number of childhood deaths."  If that is the case, I'm extremely glad that I
am inhumane and irrational.
 
>>  Well Joe, I suggest that you talk to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What _other_ sources of information do you have which confirms their
>data?  These folks are well known for misrepresenting the facts.
>Perhaps you can verify their data with the Uniform Crime Report...
>
Sorry Charles, the FBI Uniform Crime Report is WELL known for misrepresenting
the facts.  But if you insist, according to the 1990 UCR, "Firearm murders
of youngsters 19 and under increased 125 percent between 1984 and 1990"
 
Is the National Center for Health Statistics good enough for you?  They state
that "Every day, 12 American children ages 19 and under are killed in gun
accidents, suicides, and homicides.  Many more are wounded".
 
Or how about the National Pediatric Trauma Registry?  They say "Gunshot
wounds to children ages 16 and under nearly doubled in major urban areas
between 1987 and 1990."
 
Do you also doubt the American Academy of Pediatrics Charles???  They state
that "Gunshot wounds among children in urban areas increased 300% from
1986 to 1988."
 
Charles, I hope you don't need to be convinced that youth are increasingly
victims of gun injuries and that they have easy access to guns.  If you don't
realize this fact, (I don't care if you go by CDC or FBI data, or if you go
into the homes, schools, and streets where these kids are and take a poll
by yourself), I'm not going to bother to try to convince you.  Its obvious
that you have ruled out any idea of discussing this issue in a sane fashion
and that you are so focused on trying to make this a gun control and political
discussion.  I really don't want to do that.
 
>> or the Centers for Disease Control.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>They have firearm statistics?  Are firearms a disease?
>
 Charles, it's obvious that you know nothing about the CDC.
They don't just study cancer and heart disease.  I've got news for you,
interpersonal gun violence IS an epidemic.  In 1984, Surgeon General
C. Everett Koop declared that gun violence is as much a public health
problem as cancer, heart disease, or auto accidents.
 
>> that YOU greatly underestimate the presence of guns in the lives of youths.
>
>In "the lives of youths" or in their schools?  I know a number of
>youths who have firearms present "in their lives".  Is is quite
>appropriate to teach children to safely handle firearms (this is a
>"presence", right?).  What are you trying to say?  This innuendo
>reminds me of listening to Bill Clinton.
 
WHO THE F**K SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TEACHING CHILDREN TO SAFELY HANDLE
FIREARM CHARLES??? In the future, if you are going to post to t.p.g and jump
into a previous discussion, please read the entire posting, not just 1
sentence that you decide to respond to. What the hell are you saying here???
You're wasting time and space trying to make a political and gun control
issue out of a discussion that isn't.
>
>> The CPHV reports that 135,000 youth bring GUNS to school DAILY and that
>> 400,000 bring GUNS to school at least once a year.
>
>I wouldn't trust their statistics without *independent* verification.
>
>> The CDC estimates
>> that 1 out 0f 25 high school students carried a gun to school at least once
>> in 1990.
>
>Based on CPHV statistics?  Based on UCR?...  Based on what?
>
>> The CDC also says that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key
>> children (kids who come home from school to an empty house), have access
>> to guns in their home.
>
>Therefore?...  What is the purpose of this claim?
>
Charles buddy, I'm getting really tired of this.  Do you live on the planet
Mars???  As a physicist, I realize that you probably don't come into contact
with many youth, but I REALLY think you need to make a trip to your local
urban high school and discover the joy of guns in schools.  In addition
spend a few minutes talking to these kids.  Ask them if they have ever heard
gunshots in their neighborhoods, whether they know anyone who has been shot,
whether they know anyone who has a gun, whether they have ever held a gun, and
whether they themselves have ever been shot.
 
Believe me Charles, THAT will be your *INDEPENDENT* VERIFICATION.
 
###########################################################################
Rodney W. Thomas                    R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Urban Child Research Center
Cleveland State University
Cleveland,OH. 44115
###########################################################################
>--

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55485
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <1993Apr27.154255.18227@synapse.bms.com>
hambidge@bms.com writes:
 
>
>In article <C65E95.D7u@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr27.071223.3508@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes:
>>>James P. Dusek (dusek@rtsg.mot.com) writes:
>>>> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>>>
>>>>     They did, they used CS that would NOT harm children.
>>>
>>>i REALLY hope you're being sarcastic here, but i've seen so many
>>>stupid things said in complete seriousness that it's hard to tell
>>>without a smiley.
>>>
>>>do you actually believe there's a CS gas that can discriminate based
>>>on the age of the target?
>>
>>Yes, the gas used was a mild concentration or formulation compared to
>>the 'heavy duty' stuff.
>
>You know this for a fact? How do you know? Or, are you just making
>things up for flamebait?
>
The FBI has claimed from the begining that it wasn't standard use
tear gas. How do you know it was? Or do you just assume it was
for flamebait?
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55486
From: wondertr@fraser.sfu.ca (wondertree learning center)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the FREE State,
the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.

I know that as a Canadian, I don't have much to stand on...

But, I think that the right to KEEP and BEAR arms is very important to
maintaining a FREE society. The America is still the most enviable
place to live on this Earth (by anyone with their head on straight)
and will stay that way only if more people stand-up PUBLICLY for what
they believe!!

Remember, that if you stand for nothing... You'll fall for anything...
including "well-meaning" socialists, they did in Canada.

later
TED


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55487
From: oldham@icd.ab.com (Daniel R. Oldham)
Subject: More propaganda

Just saw on CNN that the independent team that examined the Waco fire
and reported that it was started inside by the BDs is now under question.

The attoneys for the BD's are claiming that it's not an impartial team
for the team leader is the wife of one of the BATF agents. HA!

The goverment continues with it's propaganda.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-	This is not a secure line.                                       -
-	Daniel R. Oldham			oldham@heron.icd.ab.com  -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55488
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: No cost to gun waiting periods???

In article <1rhr7s$fg1@access.digex.net>
carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron) writes:

>I'm not sure were this thread has been before i popped in, but I've never
>thought of waiting periods as having anything to do with training or
>competence. I just can't imagin any valid reason for having a gun that
>can't wait a few days.

You can't think of any valid reason to own a gun that can't wait?

Either you have a very limited imagination or a strange definition of
the word "valid".

Here are a few reasons you might want a gun *right now*:

You're a Korean greengrocer in LA and a riot has just started in a
nearby neighborhood.

You've received a death threat.

Your SO has just broken your arm and you fear for your life if you
stay with him and he's said he'll kill you if you leave him.

A psychopath is breaking into people's houses in your neighborhood and
robbing and killing people inside.

A violent mugger is operating on the route you have to take to get to
your night job.

There are lots of dangers you might be in that won't wait for the
waiting period for you to purchase a gun.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55489
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: HB 1776 passes the Texas House!

HB 1776 is for Concealed Carry in Texas.  It provides for licensing
citizens to carry concealed firearms if they pass an instruction
course (30 hours, if I remember correctly), pay a $140 fee (good for
4 years), and meet several other criteria related to personal
character, etc.

While I don't agree with all of the criteria, I feel it's high time
that pro-gun types fight the same way HCI et al. do -- by getting
incremental changes in the law.  

Daryl

             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura

Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns
Document_id: 55490
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!

In article <C65E95.D7u@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1993Apr27.071223.3508@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes:
>>James P. Dusek (dusek@rtsg.mot.com) writes:
>>> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>>
>>> 	They did, they used CS that would NOT harm children.
>>
>>i REALLY hope you're being sarcastic here, but i've seen so many 
>>stupid things said in complete seriousness that it's hard to tell 
>>without a smiley.
>>
>>do you actually believe there's a CS gas that can discriminate based
>>on the age of the target?
>
>Yes, the gas used was a mild concentration or formulation compared to
>the 'heavy duty' stuff.

      I heard it was delivered in high concentration to counteract the
      wind at 30 mph blowing it away.  What is your source for the
      quoted low concentration?



