HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Assault Rifles And Reality (Was: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:10:05 GMT

In article <6dgm6rr.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard 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. 

	Well, it's that time again.

	"Assault rifle": a lightweight carbine which fires
	an intermediate-powered cartridge and is capable of
	either semi-automatic or full-automatic fire.

	Any firearm capable of "full-automatic" fire (i.e.
	discharging more than one cartridge for each operation
	of the trigger) is regulated in the U.S. under the
	National Firearms Act of 1934 as a "machinegun". 
	In order to buy a machinegun, assuming state and local
	laws allow, one must pass an FBI background check, submit
	fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
	provide a letter to the BATF from one's local law enforcement
	agency agreeing to the purchase and pay a $200 tax.

	Obviously, there are no stores that sell machineguns
	"off of the shelf" legally.

	The Democratic platform refers to "semi-automatic
	assault weapons", I believe, which is an oxymoron
	since a true assault rifle is not restricted to semi-
	automatic operation.

	There is no such thing as a "semi-auto assault rifle",
	anymore than there are "automatic-standard" transmissions
	in modern automobiles. 

	There is no place in the US where machineguns are sold
	legally without a lot of paperwork.

	Anyone who insists so is either ignorant or lying;
	take your pick of which you believe the Clinton
	campaign is guilty of.



	Followups will remain in both alt.politics.clinton and
	t.p.g. for now.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:59:57 GMT

>>>>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.

This is an interesting use of the word "lowered".  The low homicide
rates PREdate the gun control.

>>No No No!!! Please... like London (In the UK, you know Europe, on the
>>right yes.. there) or Paris or .. any other -civilized- country

Those are the cities I'm talking about.  If anything, the rates were
LOWER before.  (BTW - We'll be happy to ship people from the crime
prone areas of the US to your favorite civilized country so they can
show us how things are done.)

Yes, the rates are still low, but why credit gun control for that?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul25.192246.18641@news.Hawaii.Edu>
	<1992Jul28.202958.17780@cs.cornell.edu>
	<1992Jul29.145354.18028@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:18:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.145354.18028@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:


   I think the public arguments made against gun control in the U.S. may
   be misleading.  Those arguments mostly concern whether proposed
   restrictions will achieve their ends.  I would like to think that
   a fair number of people oppose gun control really just because they
   don't think it's any of the government's business whether a
   law-abiding citizen keeps a gun, regardless of what the 2nd amendment
   really means, and regardless of how many are killed as a result of gun
   availability.

I expect you may well be right.  I also believe that the primary
motivation of many of the banners is simply to get rid of nasty guns,
regardless of how many are killed as a result of the law-abiding no
longer being able to defend themselves.  This is the only plausible
explanation for the Brady Bunch not embracing the Staggers Amendment:
remember, it better addresses the problem claimed to exist by HCI than
the Brady Bill...  it's also the only plausible reason for the various
``assault weapon'' bans.

-Joe.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Distribution: usa
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Jul22.214308.27457@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, Michael Barbehenn writes:
>It is ALWAYS better to have the money and be taxed than to not have the
>money in the first place.  Anything short of 100% taxation means that
>for every dollar earned, something goes into the bank.

Truly spoken like someone who does not work for a living... ;^) 

In fact, it is not always better to have the money and be taxed. Basic 
microeconomics teaches us about opportunity costs. If the tax rates
go up much more, my wife will probably drop out of the working world
because the cumulative affect of all the costs associated with going to 
work will have gotten to be higher than the value we get out of her paycheck. 

It's not just whether the government takes 100% or leaves you a dollar at the
end of the day....would you work for $1 a day? After all, something would still
be going into the bank, right? We could save a pile of money if she didn't work,
and we don't even have children. I know people with kids who spend about 1/3 to
1/2 of the woman's take-home pay on day care. If the government takes much 
more of it, you can very easily be better off not working. Sure, our "standard of living"
will go down, as measured by the government, but would our quality of life suffer? 
Maybe not. We might not eat out as often, but then again, she'd be able to really
make our garden produce more food for us. We wouldn't have two new cars, but
we wouldn't need them. Our income taxes would be lower, and the government would
get fewer $$$  from the two of us than it used to. (of course, then they'd raise my
taxes again....sigh.)  

And all this says nothing about the quality of your time. How much is your time 
worth to you? If your time is worth more to you than your take home pay, and
you don't need that pay to stay alive and housed, why not drop out?

For an advanced example of this principle on a nationwide basis, see the current 
economic state of the CIS (Russia). 
 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Summary: Rod Williams must not be an American...
Organization: If I was organized I'd call Williams up and sing it to him.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:23:58 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

As soon as you give me one; it'd beat a coffee break hands down!

>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You just not have grown up here or lived in the USA for any great
length of time.  You must not follow baseball, either.  Don't you
know the part in _The Star-Spangled Banner_ where F. Scott Key goes
on about "the rocket's red glare"?  Remember this was from 1812.
No, you're probably a wet-behind-the-ears immigrant, so you wouldn't
know any of that. ( ;-), for the sarcasm-impaired.)

Not too much changed in military technology between 1789 and 1812.
So, the Founding Fathers almost certainly DID know about rocket
launchers.  And they knew about repeating and semi-automatic
weapons, since they were patented a century earlier and used on
american soil, respectively.

Anything else you think the Founding Fathers missed?

"If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make somebody pay."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:825 alt.politics.elections:9205
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:37:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul26.170803.26254@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>
>You are right. The goverment is in the business of balancing rights between
>persons. 
>
>My review of the Contitution of the United States does not find any place
>where it defines a fetus of any stage of development as a person. The word
>person, and its more or less its equivalent people is used many times. Every
>time it is used, it is in a context that would imply that being born is a
>major criteria of being a person.

What wonderfully simple logic, I agree!  Now find in the Constitution where a
woman is defined as a person, or a black man who is defined as only partly a
person.  Shall I give you a brief summary of what it took in terms of 
legislative struggles to force the law to recognize these two THINGS as
persons. 

Just how willing are you stick by your view?  I'll bet when you see how much
you have to lose you be singing a different tune toot sweet.

PSG.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: ronp@dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: DAZIX / An Intergraph Company
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:49:26 GMT

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


With one small sentence, Mr. Williams reveals that he is totally
unaware of the type of weapons which existed in the late 18th
century (hint: machine guns did exist and rocket launchers were
invented centuries earlier by the Chinese).   Once again, he
proves that an unarmed man should never engage in a battle of
minds.

************************************************************
*Ron Phillips                        ronp@dazixca.ingr.com *
*Senior Customer Engineer                                  *
*DAZIX / An Intergraph Company                             *
*381 East Evelyn Avenue              VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
*Mountain View, CA 94041             FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Francisco
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:02:30 GMT

> "dal" <p00056@mail.psi.net> writes:
>> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

>>Poppycock.  The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens
>>to "keep and bear arms".  If it had, there would have been wording such as
>>"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
>
>Excuse me .... Why dont you get stuffed? Why is it that most of the 
>signers of the Bill of Rights have written about the right to bear arms
>as a personal right? In what flim flam reality do you exist? The domain of
>our Bill of Rights is entirely and utterly the province of the individual.
>Because of sickening rationalizations like yours, our lives are slowly being
>dictated, decided and determined by the few and not the will of the individual. 
>The hell with the courts, the law, idiot politicians and especially you...
>Ill will defend my right to exist as a free man, and not a slave to ignorance.
>
>We are men, not chattel for you amusement.

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.  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 that
are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
flam reality".  The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:50:05 GMT

In article <crb2.711764025@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
> [...]
>
>The wonderful thing about the system in which we live (under GB) is that
>theoretically anyone has a chance to bust into that upper 1%, but I 
>maintain that if the insintive is taken away (ie..I can live as good
>if I make $24k as if I make $60k) then people will adopt the attitude
>of 'why bother..'.

But when does this ever happen?  I mean, everyone knows that the more
money you earn, the more money you take home.  Even a progressive tax
doesn't change this.  I hate to say it again ... paper tiger alert!

Anyone who doesn't realize this isn't likely to make $24k, let alone
$64k ... or has never really encountered the tax structure.

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:56:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.200032.24708@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:

>>Fortunately, you are talking to a libertarian, and I support the right of 
>>anyone who wants to take poision to turn thier brain to tapioca.  Just don't 
>>expect me to pay for his rehab or to support him once he screws himself up 
>>to the point that he can't work for a living.

>Of course the Libertarians haven't even thought to add up the possible
>expense to society in terms of crime, loss revenue, etc.  I support 
>the legallization of many but not all drugs.  There are some drugs known
>to promote violent episodes.  But, this is not what I wanted to continue
>on.  My main point is that very FEW cases are in such vacumes as the before
>poster (T. Archer) thinks.

     I find it difficult to believe that the legalization of drugs would
promote *more* death, violence, and crime, considering how much of the
violent crime involves the transportation and selling of drugs, rather
than the use.  Further, so much is because of users stealing and commiting
other crimes in order to pay for their "fix."

     Perhaps the number of deaths and the amount of crime related to *use*
would increase, but I also believe that crime involving transportation 
andselling would fall far, far more.

>tag@ecn.purdue.edu

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.020257.9150@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
}Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?

To wager a guess - because he is afraid to steer?  Seen the responsible
positions that he has run for?


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:929 talk.politics.guns:18104
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:13:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.224818.18580@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> >>My concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases by minors,
> 
> >If gun purchases by minors is not an issue, then why did
> >you bring it up?
> 
> Just to piss you off :).  Let's see, how many 21-year-old gang members do you
> think go in and buy guns for their younger friends?  Totally zero?  Get real.
> Possibly even a significant number, seeing all the Junior Rambos running
> around with semi-autos in the big cities.

You need to explain to me how successfully ID'ing this 21-year-old as an
adult is going to change that scenario one bit.

Oh, I get it.  This 21-year-old gang member has to ID his PALS to make
sure THEY'RE 21 or over, before they get the guns.  OK, that makes sense.


(By the way, "minors" are people UNDER 18.  People 18 and over are ADULTS.
Well, wait -- they're ADULTS WHO CAN SIGN CONTRACTS, GET DRAFTED, AND GO TO
ADULT PRISONS.  People 21 and over are ADULTS WHO CAN BUY BEER AND HANDGUNS.  
But what else do you expect from a country where companies regularly have 20 
"Senior VP's" and 193 "Junior VP's"...)
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: AIDS and those damn democrats
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:26:41 GMT

In article <nlv449o@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter) writes:
>|This is rich!  The stuff from talk.bizarre is so profound we have to
>|look at it everywhere, but heaven forbid anything from another newsgroup
>|leak into the hallowed spaces.
>|
>|Deal with it.
>
>Hey, no problem-- so long as you don't mind me responding
>to each & every crosspost with bizarre material.  Sauce
>for the goose, after all.
>
>If you other readers of alt.politics.* disagree with
>Streeter, you might want to demonstrate it by editing 
>your newsgroups lines.

Well, I don't know who Streeter is, but since Starcap'n Ra has made
such an effort to bomb various alt.politics newsgroups, perhaps
someone should do something about him?  Otherwise, maybe you should do
what you want everyone else to do, and just quit posting or following
up to 'inappropriate' posts?

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:587 alt.politics.perot:1064 talk.politics.guns:17859
From: efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:21:23 GMT
Reply-To: efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

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.



-- Ted Findler
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:878 alt.politics.bush:290 alt.politics.elections:9241
From: borden@cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:33:01 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <70395@apple.Apple.COM> athos@Apple.COM (Richard Eames) writes:
>It's all very simple, really.  If you are too stupid to register to vote by
>going to your local library and getting a card, then I don't want you voting.
>
>It's that simple.
>
>Rick Eames
>athos@apple.com

Really?  I'd like to see everybody voting.  I could make an exception in
your case, however.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:58:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.192145.16282@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
>You've got it backwards.  The view that the Second Amendment does apply to
>individuals is a fairly new one, originating primarily in the twentieth
>century.

Konecki's using a different calendar than the rest of us.  During the
Senate debate on the 2nd amendment, Gerry pointed out that one of the
clauses in an early version allowed the govt to disarm individuals
selectively (or even wholesale).  That argument won and the offending
clause was removed.

The senate that passed the 2nd amendment is on record stating that
it is an individual right.  All of the commentators agreed.

I'll repeat my challenge: come up with a pre-1900 reference to the
collective/state militia interpretation.  (Even Presser rejected
that.)  There are tons of references for the individual rights
interpretation from the time of its adoption.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion