HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: f33012l@puukko.hut.fi (Janne Kivel{)
Subject: Re: treacherous Russians (Baltic boshevicks)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:06:33 GMT

verbit@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:

>>>Lithuania is an exception, of course: they have had no less
>>>immense culture than any other mature European people. Not a wonder that
>>>a situation in Lithuania is better than in other two Baltics countries.
>
>>In what ways situation in Lithuania is better? The only way situation
>>in Lithuania actually differs from situation in Latvia and Estonia is
>>that there are considerably fewer Russians in Lithuania,
>
>I referred there to recent article which quoted RFL report,
>stating that the only Baltic country with tolerable situation
>in the human rights is Lithuania.

So you effectively translated that as being due to the maturity of Lithuanian
culture. Naughty, very naughty. :-)

>You are right, culture never helped with minorities treatment.
>I was answering the article were it was stated that in Baltics
>it should be better than in Tadjikistan. I assume that the author
>believes that Balts are mature etc than Tadjiks are not, while the
>truth is opposite.

Have you any evidence to prove your last statement? Last Sunday, Helsingin
Sanomat, a Finnish daily newspaper, published an article concerning
the difficulties involved when ethnic Russians are leaving one of 
the furthermost parts of the collapsed empire, Tadjikistan. I could provide
a translation of that article if anybody is interested.

>Misha.

Janne Kivela"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
From: bil@burka..aix.kingston.ibm.com (Igor Belchinskiy)
Subject: Re: Shafarevich and National Academy
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 13:24:47 GMT
Organization: Be. I am.

In article <18jgqpINNlc4@agate.berkeley.edu> muh@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.044354.15455@husc3.harvard.edu> verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
>
>> have conviniently deleted :)

>if I really study the subject. My claim will be that "ne tak strashna
>academia, kak ee maluut", at least physics and astronomy department.
>
>Oh, two more alive: Ginsburg and Khalatnikov.
>
>Yury
>
>

Kikoin - is one of them alive?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
From: meyers@rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Florio vetoes repeal of NJ "Assault Weapon" ban
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 19:18:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

From The Wall Street Journal, 9/11/92, p. B3A (without permission):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
     New Jersey Governor Veotes Bill Repealing Assault Weapon Ban

               By a Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter

     TRENTON, N.J. -- Gov. Jim Florio vetoed a bill that would have
gutted the nation's toughest law against assault weapons, setting the
stage for a possible override by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

     Mr. Florio, a Democrat, promised the veto when the Legislature
approved an anti-crime package in August that included a repeal of the
ban on assault weapons that Mr. Florio pushed through the Legislature
in 1990.

     Mr. Florio's veto of the bill was conditional, meaning he rejected
only the provision legalizing assault weapons.  He also attached a
provision seeking a non-binding referendum on the ban in November 1993.
The Legislature can either do nothing and forgo passage of any of the
anti-crime package; push for an override of the veto; or agree with Mr.
Florio and enact his amended version of the law.

     "We're cautiously optimistic," said the governor's spokesman, Jon
Shure.  "But the National Rifle Association is a force to be reckoned
with, and the force they can put on people is impressive."

     The NRA has sent more than $360,000 in campaign contributions to
selected legislators and the state Republican Campaign Committee,
prompting Mr. Florio to accuse the gun lobby of trying to buy a new
Legislature in New Jersey.  The ban, however, has the support of former
Gov. Thomas Kean, the state's most prominent Republican and chairman of
President Bush's re-election campaign in New Jersey.

     After Mr. Kean came out for the ban last month, the NRA threatened
to withdraw its support from the Bush campaign in New Jersey.  But Mr.
Kean only stiffened his opposition to the gun lobby.

     Mr. Florio's gun ban targeted about five dozen kinds of large-
magazine and semiautomatic weapons.  Included are guns capable of
firing more than 15 rounds in six seconds and semiautomatic shotguns
capable of holding more than six rounds or equipped with a folding
stock.  The repeal would legalize all assault weapons banned under the
law except for AK-47s and Uzis.

     Republican legislative leaders couldn't be reached for comment
yesterday.
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:09:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T


	Why not?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:25:14 GMT

To be entirely cynical, it is worth considering the effect of a
Libertarian _loss_: If they were to receve a substantial number of
votes (say even 5%), both the Democrats and the Republicans would
notice. Even if neither party cares much about personal rights, they
do care about votes, and both are quite willing to change thier views
if they think they can gain votes that way. Even if a third party 
doesn't win an election, one of the major parties will usually 
pick up the key third-party issues, if the third party is popular
enough.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Denver Police Kill Another Un-Armed Person, Today!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:08:05 GMT

In <2-mnl9c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>Why?

>Because we all sit on our asses and complain instead of doing something.
>Because we bitch instead of running for office.
>Because we allow the media set the agenda for public debate.
>Because we vote for incumbents.
>Because we accept blantantly unconstitutional government action as long as
>	it either helps us personally or doesn't gore our own ox.
>Because we're not willing to get involved.
>Because we EVER think the government can fix anything.

	Guilty as charged on one or more accounts.  However, one you didn't
note that deserves mention: the cost of filing suit to change the situations
is out of reach for most, and just name one lawyer who will fight to repeal
no-knock legislation for a contingency fee!  Class-action?  It's possible,
but if we could get that many people to send money, we could vote Daffy Duck
into the presidency or congress with a write-in campaign.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:25:16 GMT

> Rick Wojcik wrote:
>The question is, how many gun owners really want
>to live in a society where gun possession is unrestricted?
> NRA propaganda would have us believe that they all do.
 HCI and media propaganda have led you to believe that this is the 
 NRA position, which is very far from the truth. It's too bad that 
 you have swallowed their one-sided reporting. I believed them at 
 one time also, until I caught them in something I knew was a lie.
 Then I decided to check on things myself and shortly after a few 
 more lies I decided to join the NRA and hear what they had to say
 instead of what the press claimed they said.  
  That was 5 years ago and now I will soon be upgrading my membership
 to life and signing up my wife.
       
 
   Myron
  NRA, IPSC


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.
From: mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:46:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Sep8.065530.22611@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>There's a difference between defeating foreign aggression with 20
>million Americans dead and defeating foreign aggression with 100,000
>Americans dead. If you can take the battle to your enemy, you can get a
>lot of leverage out of it. Isn't it better to sink an enemy ship with
>2,000 soldiers than to try to kill them one by one after they land on
>US soil?
>
>You could dig a hole with a shovel or a bulldozer so who needs
>a bulldozer?
>

Well, yes, that is certainly looking at one side of the equation.  But look at
the costs: hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and a force ready-made
for the president to use in adventures all over the globe.

It might be instructive to see how many Americans have been killed defending
the US, vs how many have been killed in foreign wars that had little or
nothing to do with us.

I doubt that any of this was what the founding fathers had in mind.

>
>-- 
>My opinions are my own.
>Vote for Clinton: protect the right to keep and bear sporting goods.
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler)
Subject: Re: Hand-loads for defens
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:36:46 GMT

In <1992Sep9.140629.21598@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath) writes:

># # In article <tmi.714982020@well.sf.ca.us> tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler) writes:
># # or at least don't get caught in a stupid lie, don't volunteer extraneous 
># # information, and most of all be sure you know what's happening. A seemingly 
># # innocent off the cuff remark could land you in prison, or in Georgia, in 
># # the electric chair.

	I don't know where you got this from, but I DID NOT WRITE OR
POST THOSE WORDS or anything that agrees with or endorses them.

>This may not be the right group, but, to get capital punishment,
>don't you have to commit first degree murder?  Does anyone have
>to hand the definition(s) of the various degrees of murder and/or
>manslaughter (usually accident I think???) or can they suggest a
>good book with this information?

	Every jurisdictin is slightly different, but obviously for
those places with the option of capital punishment the crime must have
been heinous. In some places there are acts other than murder that can
qualify one for capital punishment. The difference between murder and
manslaughter is not that manslaughter is accidental and murder is not,
the difference is that a requisite element of murder that is not
required for manslaughter is malice. There can is such a thing as
intentional manslaughter.

-- 
                           Peter Alan Kasler
                      Threat Management Institute
                 800 West Napa Street, Sonoma, CA 95476
     Voice: 707-939-0303  =  tmi@well.sf.ca.us  =  Fax: 707-935-1713
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:59:51 GMT
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego

In article <81848@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 18084cINNks8@agate.berkeley.edu, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>By federal law (Title X), Supreme Court rulings (Presser v. Illinois and
>>US v. Miller 307 US 174) and the stated views of the framers (A. Hamilton,
>>G. Mason, R. H. Lee, etc..) the "militia" includes all citizens 
>>who are physically able. This makes a "collective" interpertation almost
>>meaningless: I am a member of the militia, by federal law, so the
>>Second Amednment protects my right to keep and bear arms (in my capacity
>>as a member of the militia.)
>
>I have no answer to this other than to say that the Supreme Court has yet
>to overturn a single gun control law on the basis of this interpretation.
>Moreover, I think the court should have distinguished between eligibility
>for militia duty and militia duty itself.  The fact remains that you belong
>to no real militia, and you haven't been asked to engage in any of the 
>training that you and others think "well-regulated" refers to.

Then impeach your state governor for nonfeasance in office; state
governors are, in the Constitution, given the responsibility of
officering and training the militia in their state; since the state
governments only deal with the _organized_ militia, the governors
are failing to perform their duties with respect to the _unorganized_
militia.

-- 
random sig #111:
Sean Malloy                                  | This message has been
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | close-punchlined for the
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | humor-impaired.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        |
From: nick@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Nick Leiterman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:14:04 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

In article <1992Sep9.021926.17120@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <92Sep8.173155edt.47951@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
> >>>Also, there was a woman who turned in her son's (in his late 20s, not a kid)
> >>>$1700 rifle, because she didn't approve of the hobby.
> 
> >So did he get his gun back? He could sue these people for possession
> >of stolen property or accessory to theft!
> 
> As far as I know, he hasn't: He explained the situation to the San Francisco
> police and they refused to return it. He even tried to get them to
> _arrest_ his mother for thieft, which they also wouldn't do. As for
> civil action, the police can buy stolen goods all they want (this is
> a standard proceedure in undercover operations and the police seem
> to be exempt from these laws.) Remember, the _intention_ of a buy-back
> program is to buy stolen firearms and get them off the streets (well, 
> that's the excuse, at least...)
> 
>                                                  Frank Crary
>                                                  CU Boulder

In the Seattle buy back, I heard that if a gun was reported stolen, it
would be returned to its proper owner.  In Seattle it is not the police
who are buying the guns, it is a non profit group of people supposedly
not connected with the government.  Washington state has a law that says
guns confiscated by the police cant be destroyed.  I heard that the seattle
police ignore this law.

I am not in favor of gun buyback programs,  but I am not totaly against it
I think it is a waste of money, but its not my money they are wasting.  
The worst thing about it is all the press it gets for the anti's.









-- 
     Nick Leitermann
     Seattle Washington
     nick@bcstec.boeing.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (ICOM IC-R70)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:00:47 GMT


In <82077@bcsaic.boeing.com> Rick Wojcik states:

|Morris the Cat (MC):

|MC> Take my word for it, it's "C"; Wojcik hasn't changed has argument
|MC> style since we were arguing this stuff back in 1989... it is most
|MC> amusing watching people argue with Wojcik and receiving the same
|MC> "Your evidence isn't evidence, because I don't acknowledge your
|MC> evidence as having any validity at all"... as one person commented
|MC> here about their supervisor: "Talking to him is like talking to a
|MC> black hole."

|This reply is one of the abusive ones,

Interesting; I see no 'abuse' of Mr. Wojcik.

|which is distinct from Andy's in that
|it lacks all substance.

"Lacks all substance"...hmm, the original poster gave three choices of
why Mr. Wojcik claimed no reponse. I claim one particular response based
on past experiences... seems substantive enough to me.

|Morris the Cat's views haven't changed since that
|time either.  Does that make him a "black hole" cat?

My, how Wojick forgets: his argument style 4 years ago was based
almost entirely on rhetorical retorts.

|And how
|many anti-gun netters respect you enough to even listen to your arguments?

The ignorant ones, the fools, or the gun-haters?

| We have yet to see a single gun control
| law overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 2nd.  They just don't
| seem interested in the case made by the pro-gun lobby.  I think that, on this
| point, at least, we all agree.)
 
You stumbled into one, Rick. Perhaps the corrallary is that the Supreme
Court _IS_ interested in the arguments of the anti-RKBA lobby, eh?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:27:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.023449.18064@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.183742.11598@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Nope, not at all.  The first clause is about the distribution of
>>military power.  It is a restriction on govt, to be subordinate to
>>civilian power, just as it is supposed to be under civilian control.
>
>My, my, aren't we reading an awful lot into that little phrase? Amazing how 
>the authors were able to encapsulate such a complex political theory into 
>those 12 words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of 
>a free state...". Funny also that they did so without any mention of 
>"civilian", "military", "power", or "control".

Yup, that's what happens when one writes in an understood political
context and uses phrases that have complex meanings.  However, the 2nd
isn't the only example.  BTW - It did mention those things.  What does
Darcy think a "free state" and "security" mean to revolutionaries?

>Strangest of all, of course, is the fact that such an important political
>statement, instead of being enshrined in its own Amendment as one would 
>expect, got glued onto some bullshit about individuals owning firearms, 
>without even the benefit of a sentence break between them.

Ah, now there's a bit of constitutional law.  "some bullshit about
individuals owning firearms" not only concedes the point, it tells us
what Darcy thinks about it.  Hint: It doesn't much matter if Darcy
likes it.

The structure of the 2nd may be strange to 20th century stylists, but
it is hardly unique, as at least a third of the other 9 amendments
(out of the first 10) bring together even more disparate ideas
together in a single sentence.

We're still waiting for Darcy to tell us what the relevance of his
argument is to the discussion.  Come on; out with it.

We're also waiting for him to explain the meaning of the second
phrase, the one that mentions a "right of the people."  After all,
he's told us that EVERY word and phrase is important.  Since he's told
us what the first phrase means and that "the people" mentioned are
only those associated with a "well regulated militia", what does that
second phrase mean?  It can't be protecting militia guns because
there's no such thing as a militia without guns so they're protected
by the 1st clause.  Whose "right to keep and bear arms" does the
second clause protect?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: New JPFO Book on Nazi Gun Control Laws
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:47:17 GMT


Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is now offering a
new book entitled:

		"GUN CONTROL" Gateway to Tyranny
		
		The Nazi Weapons Law, 18 March 1938
		
It is a 136 page book, size 8.5 x 11.

Price $19.95 + $2.95 Shipping

TWO books for $43.85 + $3.95 Shipping

JPFO, Inc.
2872 S. Wentworth Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53207

Authors are Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman.

Table of Contents:

Dedication
Preface
Forward
Introduction
Note on Sources and Translation
Major Organizations Supporting "Gun Control"
Law on Firearms and Ammunition, 20 April 1928
Implementing Regulations: Law on Firearms and Ammunition, 13 July 1928
Law Against Unauthorized Use for Weapons, 28 March 1931
Forth Regulations of the President on the Protection of the Economy and
	Finance, and on the Defense of Civil Peace (Part 8),8
	December 1931
Regulations to Change Implementing Regulations on the Law on Firearms
	and Ammunition, 2 June 1932
Regulations of the President for the Maintenance of Domestic Peace
	(Section V: Unauthorized Use of Weapons), 19 December 1932
The Nazi Weapons Law, 18 March 1938
	[The authors state they include the original German text and
	translations.]
Implementing Regulations: Weapons Law, 19 March 1938
Regulations Against Jews' Possessing of Weapons, 11 November 1938
Comparison: The Nazi Weapons Law, 18 March 1938
	    The U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended
Comparison: Implementing Regulations to the Nazi Weapons Law, 18
	    March 1938 and the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended
JPFO Research Materials
Examples of JPFO Advertisements Attacking "Gun Control"
Membership Forms
Book Order Forms
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:21:25 GMT

In article <26304@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>
>
>One other reason to study MA (which I define pretty broadly) is to give
>subliminal clues to the scum that if they drag you down to their level,
>you can operate effectively there.  

	Dunno if you folks remember, but last November I posted a little
	incident that happened at a local bar with yours truly.  Band was
	playing and one of the "roadies" took a grave disliking to me for 
	some reason (my breath??).  Said he was gonna kick my ass.  Got up
	in my face (I was sitting) and tried like hell to pick a fight.  I
	just remained serene.  Did not smile or scowl; just looked at him
	dispassionately.  His friends got real nervous and escorted him out
	of the bar, never to return.  His friend looked at me and said with
	a sheepish smile "Sorry, he's REAL drunk", and left.

	I was not at all afraid of him or his friends (coupla beers helped:)).
	I believe they saw this, and the fact that I was not giving their
	buddy the expected response cued them off that I might be serious 
	trouble.  A most satisfying way to conquer a foe I must say.  Most
	of these bar brawling asshole types will not fuck with you if they 
	think they're going to have a wailing fight on their hands, unless you 
	happen to be in a bar in Fresno.  I think this goes even more so for 
	the street mugger who is looking for as easy a take as can be had.

>Scum respect that.  They don't
>respect the things that are valued by most of us middle-class keyboard-
>clackers.  In fact, they go out of their way to publicly DISrespect
>those things, if they think they can get away with it.  

	Absolutely correct.  I spent years hanging with bikers and teaching
	in the ghettos of NYC and can say for certain that folks like this
	do indeed make it a point to scorn the middle-class types and take
	pleasure in pummeling the shit out of such folks when they feel they
	can do it successfully.

>But if they 
>think you're able and willing to break kneecaps and smash teeth when
>provoked, maybe they won't mess with you.

	Unless you're in Fresno.
>
>Then again, maybe they'll whack you from behind and take your wallet
>before you wake up.  Never can tell.  

	Not in Fresno.


	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns