HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:08:04 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>> = (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>> = ? (You'll have to ask Phil):

>>>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons

>>>It remains to be seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>>>platform above work.

>>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>>before a woman could get an abortion?

>Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.

You're right but not in the way you think.

>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

Have you ever had someone make a credible threat on your life?  If so,
have you ever gone to the cops with your problem?  I would be willing
to bet you would change your mind about how badly and fast you need
a gun if you ever get the privilege of answering yes to these two
questions.

>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?

On the other hand it isn't going to hurt her either.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold)
Subject: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: /mnt4/lgold/.organization
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 05:42:48 GMT

...there's a VERY good reason to vote for him:

Harry Blackmun is 84.

Blackmun is the guy who wrote the "Roe v. Wade" decision.

Although he's a Nixon appointee, he's actually a moderate.

If Bush gets re-elected, he'll be able to topple a woman's right to
have a safe and legal abortion.  (PLEASE, no pro-choice or pro-life
flames here!)

If you're pro-choice (I AM), no matter how low Clinton is on your
totem pole, he's your ONLY electable choice.

I saw the MTV appearance, btw.  I felt in some cases Clinton was
spouting off political rhetoric, while at other times, he really was
speaking off the top of his head.  Speaking strictly as a media
person, his strongest feature is to be able to spout off farmboy-ish
homespun-sounding sayings in that Arkansas accent of his.  The MTV
video spots in between rounds of questioning were also CLEARLY biased
towards making Clinton look good.

The MTV spot is similar to Carter's doing the "Playboy" interview.  On
the same token, the dumbest thing Carter ever did was to stop
appearing in public in jeans and flannel shirts; it made him seem like
he was no longer "one of the people."  Note that Reagan began doing
the jeans-and-flannel-shirts-in-public bit right around election time....

--Lynn

--
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?<&QY97(@=V5R92!T;R!H97)E(&%B;W5T('1H:7,A"F%P
`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:974 talk.politics.guns:18173
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:26:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.182226.20807@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>There is one *big* difference between the US and Israel.  In Israel
>almost every adult has served in the military and thus has been trained 
>in the proper handling of firearms.  This is *decidedly* not the case 
>in the US.

Does this mean you support Israel type gun policies (full carry
privileges, full automatic machine guns available) for law abiding US
citizens who are as well trained as the average Israeli?

>I have seen statistics on "accicental" vs. "intentional" firearm casualties
>in the US that indicate that Americans are phenomenally bad at firearm
>safety, but unfortunately can't quote them.  Can anyone out there do so?

Gun accidents are not the problem in the US, gun crime is.

If you want to argue that we'd be better off if criminals were better
trained and more effective in their MIS-use of guns, go ahead.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:21:16 GMT

In article <1682DAC0E.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu> EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu  
writes:
> In article <6dgm6rr.crisp@netcom.com>
> crisp@netcom.com (Richard "Crispy Critter" Crisp) writes:
> >At the same time the democrats want to pull guns (particularily the
> >assault rifles) off the store shelves thinking that somehow this
> >will stop violent crime.
>  
> It's "most deadly assault weapons"

Would anyone care to elaborate or speculate as to how
this will be defined?

> >We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty:
> >The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box
>  
> Did Hitler say that too?
>  
> --Eric

No, that sounds very un-Hitler like to me.  Hitler did boast
(in 1935) that Germany was the first country to adopt strict
universal gun registration.  He also adopted a policy of
allowing only males enrolled in Nazi paramilitary organizations
to own firearms.

Robert K.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1113 talk.politics.guns:18382 talk.bizarre:24019
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:12:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In article <23009@oasys.dt.navy.mil> efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler) writes:
>In rec.humor, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article<mckellar.711911075@sylvan-lk> mckellar@cs.UAlberta.CA (Neil McKell
>>ar) writes:
>><   lchsu@cayley.waterloo.edu (Leon C. Hsu) writes:
>><   >GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ... AMERICANS KILL PEOPLE!
>Geez, Americans must be the most violent in the whole world.  Now that
>I think about it, you're right, America is the only country ever to
>be involved in wars or murder somebody.

Suddenly it's all clear!

I should move some place with less violent people!

Sarajevo, maybe?

Armenia?

Beruit?

Baghdad?

Medellin?

San Salvador?

Phnom Phenn?

NO!, the spiritual center of the Western world: The Holey Land!  I'll get
me some rocks and go to Jerusalem!

Anywhere except where all these violent Americans are.

(Provincialism begat tunnel vision once again.)

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu                         # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:39:59 GMT

In article <veal.115@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>>> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>> = (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>>> = ? (You'll have to ask Phil):
>
>>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.
>
>     This is incorrect.  There are plenty of "legitimate" reasons for 
>wanting a gun now, not the least of which is "I want one."  Target shooters 
>might need to replace damaged pistols on the eve of a competition match.  
>Abused women might need protection from boyfriends or husbands.  
> 

While I agree with Pro-RKBA arguments I've seen on this thus far,
I'm surprised noone has brought in the most recent illustration
of why one might want a firearm *now*. That would be the recent
festivities in LA. A whole lot of people learned the downside of
waiting periods the hard way (and, surprise! surprise! the criminal
used the opportunity to acquire unregistered firearms for free). 
Fortunately, things cooled down relatively quickly, but they could 
just as well not have. What if "next time" (wherever in the US it is) 
things just keep escalating and spreading? Of course one could view it 
as an objective case study of evolution in action (i.e. those with the 
prudence to think ahead and take the precaution of obtaining a firearm 
& training in the use of it tend to survive, those who don't *might* survive).
but that 15 day wait (or 7 or 1) could provide a horrendous object 
lesson for the potential victim on why waiting periods are a bad thing.
If they survive to benefit from their "education" that is.

I submit that the warm and fuzzy feeling (aka "false sense of security")
that waiting periods give the pro-HCI types has too high a potential
price tag in human blood.
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CREATION OF ALT.POLITICS.CLINTON
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:17:23 GMT
	<1992Jul18.213910.14039@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<14apv5INNcoe@agate.berkeley.edu> <+lbm5jf.jimb47@netcom.com
	<m8cm04-.romo@netcom.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <m8cm04-.romo@netcom.com> romo@netcom.com (Rafael Romo) writes:
<   jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler) writes:

<   >two years, not six years. Senate terms are for six years, and every two
<   >years some of them come up for election. My memory is that he lost his

<   In California (I don't know about other states), there is one six-year
<   Senate term (long term) and one four-year senate term (short term).  

	I assume that you are referring to the current election cycle
	*only*; the California "four-year senate term" is an artifact resulting
	from a Senator retiring.

	All U.S. Senators normally serve 6-year terms; it's in
	the Constitution, folks.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Who owns what? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:55:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.194040.9227@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.184453.19350@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>
>>>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
>
>>    I read it in todays Columbus Dispatch containing the same statement , that
>>the top 1% of the nation now have more wealth than the bottom 90%, 
>
>These two statements are not the same.
>
>>and in 1980,
>>America was #1 in wages an average person made, now it's #13 in the world. 
>
>Also misleading. Measuring wages is open to interpertation due to fluxuations
>in currency. In 1980 for example, the $$ was stronger than it is now.
>
 
    Then, the less amount of weak $$ we make now certainly make it even worse
 
     #1 in wage, and stronger $$  then
     #13 in wage, and weaker $$ now
 
    What does that say ?  
>
>>   I don't know the figures. But I do know America has the largest number of 
>>billionares in the world, and the largest  number of people below poverty
>>line. 
>
>Hold on a second here. Are you actually telling me that there are more
>people living in poverty in the USA than in India or China or some other
>third world nation? You can't possible be serious!
>
>Does the average person actually believe this? I guess that's why
>Clinton is ahead in the polls.
>
>  Allen
 
 
    Though not intentional, that was my fault.  I should have added " among  
industrial nations" to the statement.  We can't really compare us to Mexico 
Russia, or China.  If we use the same cut-off line in terms of US $ to 
measure poverty level, then the whole 1.2 billion Chinese and all of Russian
are in poverty.  I would like to assume even Republicans should know not to
lower our standard, we should compare to Japan, Europe. But I guess I may
be wrong sometimes. For example, the incredible Richard Crisp, in praising 
the achievement of the Republicans, said that the stock market reached 
record high, hmm, that's right, today's stock market is higher than that of
1930, and even if we attribute all the growth to the republicans, that does
not really say much, does it ?  
 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
To: rjwill6@pacbell.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:45:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the Founding Fathers knew
>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
>and personal nuclear devices.

Actually, they did know about rocket launchers.  (The Chinese invented
them not long after gunpowder; it's an obvious idea.)  Revolving
cylinder weapons weren't unknown either.  Every "modern" mechanism for
automatic weapons was described in a paper presented to the Royal
Society in the 1600s.  A royal patent on an automatic weapon was
granted in the mid 1700s, before the Revolution.

Repeating weapons were common battlefield guns in the 1300s.

I'm fairly certain that they didn't know the name Uzi and probably
didn't know about nukes.  Other than that, and war planes, there's
nothing new in weaponry.  (I realize that since digital watches were
invented, you people think that our ancestors were stupid, but that's
your delusion.)

The 2nd doesn't protect all possible weapons, but you'd have to
actually know the history of weaponry to understand the argument.
(BTW - the "modern" trend in military small arms is toward LESS lethal
ones.)  Think about the actual wording of the amendment.

>"arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
>conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction that

If that's how you feel, propose an amendment (or support the current
bill to repeal the 2nd).  The anti-flag burning people did.

You might also try to make the "gun control works" argument; no one
else has succeeded, but there's always a chance....  If you can't make
it, then why is the 2nd amendment interesting?  (I recommend Kleck's
"Point Blank" as an intro to the relevant research.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:327 alt.politics.perot:1032 talk.politics.guns:17766
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:29:48 GMT
	<1992Jul20.154135.23260@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul21.003040.10985@igor.tamri.com> <q2dmgqr.saf@netcom.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <q2dmgqr.saf@netcom.com> saf@netcom.com (Steve A. Feinstein) writes:
<   In article <1992Jul21.003040.10985@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
 <  >
<   >However, it appears that he's just another quick fix politician.  When are
<   >these people going to realize that Gun Control does not equal Crime
<   >Control?  Look at the comment Clinton's supposed to have made, when he
<   >visited LA after the riots.  I believe he said that it made him favor the
<   >Brady Bill more than he had previously.  The thing is, the Brady Bill
<   >mandates a 7 day waiting period and California already has a FIFTEEN day
<   >waiting period!
<   >
<   >Think about it:  did the LA rioters fill out forms and wait 15 days when
<   >they stole firearms from gun stores?  NOT!!!
<   >
<   Well lets take a look at the British. 

	You are aware that we are not British, do not have the British
	culture and have not had that culture for more than 200 years?

< I beleieve that they don't even
<   allow their police to carry guns, 

	Yes and no.

<and is't next to impossible for a
<   civilian (if not impossible) to obtain a gun.  

	This is false; it is possible for a civilian to obtain 
	a gun. There is a capricious licensing process.

	Note that criminals who use guns rarely have licences..

<I do know that the
<   crime rate there is signifigantly lower than it is here in the US.
<   Why is that?

	Because of a different culture?

	Mexican gun laws are STRICTER than British gun laws, yet
	by any measure you choose, crime in the Republic of Mexico
	is worse than in the U.S.

	If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
	safer than the U.S.?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1087 talk.politics.guns:18341
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Guns and Liberty
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:53:59 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:

>Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the Founding Fathers knew
>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
                                      ^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These have already been banned, to no effect.   These are not relevent to 
the discussion.

>and personal nuclear devices.  
     ^^^^^^^^
These don't exist.

>To claim that their 1789 view of
>"arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
>conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These are nuclear weapons and poison gas.  They are not relevant to the 
discussion here.

>that
>are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
>flam reality".  

I am afriad that you are in error.  The basic philosophy, that the people 
should remained armed as a check on the state, is as valid and relevant 
today as it ever was.  To limit the effectiveness of the arms bourn by the 
people is to handicap them in the face of tyranny.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1157 talk.politics.guns:18440
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:34:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: UB

>(Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>How do YOU come to your conclusion?  Strict gun control has
>>>lowered homicide rates in foreign cities.  It remains to be
>>>seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>>>platform above work.
>>>
>>>-Mark

(Richard Crisp) writes:
>>Yeah, like Moscow, Beijing, Pnom Penh, Baghdad, Tehran, Sarajevo, etc
>>

(Benjamin Renaud) writes:
>No No No!!! Please... like London (In the UK, you know Europe, on the
>right yes.. there) or Paris or .. any other -civilized- country
>(democratic too... and enough so so that they don't fear their
>leaders.. but then again they don't have David Dukes there...so maybe
>you're right after all, but wait a minute, all the kids that get shot
>everyday.. No no you can't be right...*sigh*)

What makes you think the US is civilized?  *whew*  We already have
gun control in the US:  New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago.

It is a federal offense to sell a gun to a kid.

Newgroups: SET!

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:24:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.191308.100392@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:



>I said nothing about supporting waiting periods.  I merely related
>some facts about buying guns and having abortions.  I have no
>desire to debate gun ownership, so I won't be answering any
>more articles about this topic.  

Then why did you post on talk.politics.guns?
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion