HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:48:30 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

In article <1992Aug14.105106.17019@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
>>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
>>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
>>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.
>
>You might compare that with Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 
>which is a national police force. Ontario and Quebec have provincial
>police forces, but in the other provinces the RCMP also carry out the
>functions of a provincial police force. There are also local police
>forces, but in many cases they are responsible for an area the size of
>a county, not just an individual city or town.
>

Or you might compare them to state troopers or the FBI. 
:-)
Kristin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Effecting illegal gun supplies (Was Re: "Demo Gun Control")
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:55:01 GMT

ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

>In article <171eaqINNdv0@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>

Frank manages effect for affect.

Caroline manages a spelling flame.

Point for Frank.

Advice for Caroline:  This is a politics group, not a spelling bee.  Learn
to tell the difference.  You'll do your side more good.

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2246 alt.politics.perot:1309 talk.politics.guns:19586
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:32:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>, lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
> If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so although some
> criminals would continue to obtain guns, some would decide not to pay the
> increased price, and so fewer would have guns. 

Hee hee hee!  Who do you think pays the price?  Not him -- YOU.

What happens when the price of drugs goes up?  Do some junkies decide
not to use them anymore?  No, they just have to rob a few more radios
and cellular telephones to get the same fix.

So your burglar is perhaps two additional houses away from getting
the gun he wanted in the first place.  Who knows -- one of them might 
be yours.
-- 

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.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Jul28.202958.17780@cs.cornell.edu>
	<1992Jul29.145354.18028@news.Hawaii.Edu>
	<1992Jul30.181100.3137@igor.tamri.com>
	<1992Aug1.141712.14062@news.Hawaii.Edu>
	<1992Aug04.144516.16296@rsvl.unisys.com>
	<1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:27:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

   I think the fallacy is with your arguments.  Some potential
   suicides would resort to some other method if a gun was not
   available, but some wouldn't.

We eagerly await some sort of evidence for this assertion.  You might
look at the recent New England Journal of Medicine article, which
might appear to support your position.  Don't let the fact that the
correlation is more due to the fact that gun ownership and suicide are
both correlated with relative affluence bother you; it did not bother
the authors.

For the other side, see the famous Kleck reference.

   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
   although some criminals would continue to obtain guns, some would
   decide not to pay the increased price, and so fewer would have
   guns.

By all means, support this assertion too.  Guns are NOT more expensive
on the street in areas of strict gun control in the US (the only area
in which I am aware of studies being made).  Street gun prices tend to
be much lower than over the counter prices in any case.

   If a criminal does not carry a gun, he may still cause death or
   injury by other means, but it's less likely.

Again, I request support.  The Uniform Crime Report disagrees with
you.  Guess which one I believe?

   Gun control advocates believe only that the controls will reduce
   deaths and injuries due to guns, not that they will eliminate them.

If they (and you) belive this, you believe it without evidence of any
sort.  What little evidence we have (Portland, Orlando, Keenesaw)
tends toward the other direction (although it is not conclusive).

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.180110.11083@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>	If you read the whole second amendment you would have found
>a preface to the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  This 
>preface specificly mentions a "well regulated militia."  I don't remember
>the exact wording but it is something close to "Being a well regulated
>militia is required to protect democracy, the right of the people to keep
>and bears arms shall not be abridged."

It's considered good form to know the text when discussing it.

"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."

>				This mention of a "well regulated
>militia" in the same context of the "right to bear arms" has been
>interpreted to mean that people have the right to bears arms in a well
>regulate militia, e.g., a state militia.  

Feel free to provide court cites where that interpretation has
actually been used.  It turns out that the Supremes haven't considered
the 2nd and state militias, and it is unlikely that they will.  After
all, the meaning of "well regulated Militia" was an armed people NOT
under the control of govt.  (Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in
1749, not to mention usage and discussion by Madison et al and the
legislative history, especially the amendment proposed by Gerry, which
was accepted, and a "common defense" amendment, which was rejected.)

The first phrase is about the distribution of military power; it
is a limit on govt power, not a restriction on the right of the
people.  See Scarry's University of Penn law review article.

>however, state that guns can be used by a militia to overthrow an unjust 
>government.  

Subject to the correct interpretation of "militia" (an armed peo not
necessarily a govt organization), that's right.  Note that govt can't
control access to arms without interfering with that right of
revolution.  Given access, there's no social benefit to restricting
self-defense uses.  (Note that murder can be handled like shouting
fire in a crowded theater is.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.220349.23619@news.Hawaii.Edu> gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:

}It's hardly an inconvenient constitutional question!  Go read your
}Constitution.  Look at the second amendment (ALL of it). Then ask
}yourself if it says, or even implies, anything about an individual's
}right to bear arms.

Go read your Constitution.  Look at the fourth amendment (ALL of it).
Then ask yourself if it says, or even implies, anything about an
individual's right to be free from arbitrary searches & seizures.

look at the first amendment, look at every other occurrance of the
phrase "the right of the people" and every occurrance of the word
"people". Then ask yourself if these sections say, or even imply,
anything about individual rights.

i guess i'm just not sophisticated enough to be able to read the words
"the right of the people" three times in a few paragraphs and get it to
mean `the right of [individual] people' twice and `the right of the
[state legislatures]' in between.

do you ever experience problems with cognitive dissonance?

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2118 alt.politics.bush:1904 talk.politics.misc:40269 soc.culture.usa:6627
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:53:12 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Aug15.220349.23619@news.Hawaii.Edu>
gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:
>It's hardly an inconvenient constitutional question!  Go read your
>Constitution.  Look at the second amendment (ALL of it). Then ask
>yourself if it says, or even implies, anything about an individual's
>right to bear arms.

Look at it yourself, Gerard.  It says "the right of the people to keep
and bear arms".  Not "the right of SOME people" or "the privilege of
the people"...

>The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the second amendment
>gives the States the right to maintain their own militia.  Period.

Care to post the relevant segments of their decisions?

>Why
>maintain such an anachronism as part of the Constitution?  It makes
>about as much sense as Wyoming maintaining their law that you can't
>take a photograph of a rabbit on a Sunday.

Guns have several purposes:  they enable you to protect yourself from
deadly danger, they enable you to hunt food, they provide pleasure
when used for sporting purposes.  Which of those uses is an anachronism?
Surely, life is not now so safe and secure that we don't need to defend
ourselves!  

>That the NRA and others can so misconstrue the meaning of the second
>amendment is a sorry comment on the teaching of language in American
>schools.

There are numerous possible interpretations for the second amendment.
I choose to believe in the broadest possible interpretation; you choose
to believe in a narrow one.  That's life...

   don
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: NPC (was Re: National Health Care)
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:26:31 GMT

In article <Bt6xoo.n4o@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
}In article <1992Aug18.160213.27954@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
}...
}>  I sent him the quote from PPF were Gov Clinton calls for the 100,000 officer
}>National Police Force and repeated my orginal question.  Silence for over
}>week (compared to the 12 hour turn around for previous messages).  I resent
}>the message.  The reply I got back was the NPC was to be a training cadre.

}    Job training is the key to enhancing the US competitiveness, and the NPC 
}    will play an important role in making us more competitive with police 
}    states around the world.  All these for a mere 10bil a year.
}    What a bargain!

as if we needed any help. we're already the leading police state in the
world by several metrics, for example, last year we were leading the
world in per capita imprisonment of our own citizens. about twice as
high as South Africa & the ex-Soviet Union, and between 8 & 20 times as
high as any other major country.
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc. 
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:19:33 GMT

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

> I personally believe that if we disarm America, some day a few generations
> down the road (or sooner if Socialists like Feinstein get elected Senator from
> Califruitty) someone will declare themselves "President For Life". If we 
> ever find ourselves in that situation and are unarmed, we are in deep trouble.
> That is the long and short of it.

People who don't believe that this could happen have obviously not
been paying attention to the world around them.  Many countries around
the world have fallen prey to self appointed dictators after giving up
the means to defend themselves.  It hasn't happened in the U.S.
because no would-be fascist in his right mind would attempt to take
over a country that has 70 million law-abiding gunowners.

I am not saying if you remove the means for the people to defend
themselves from internal fascism that it WILL happen, only that it
COULD happen.  Why take chances?

-- 
Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:09:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>Ah, then what is the "ultimate recall power" that "liberals" find
>>appropriate?  Surely they don't believe that "lie back and enjoy it"
>>is the appropriate response to a tyrant?  (That is be the "liberal"
>>response to rape, but that's another argument.)
>
>If you believe that last sentence, you're insane, but that's another
>argument.
>
>>Suppose that Bush decides to keep the job after Clinton won.  What
>>then "liberals"?  (We've already established that you won't disagree
>>with the assertion that Bush is the anti-Christ, so you don't get to
>>argue for his essential goodness now.)  The ballot box failed and Bush
>>has the Army.  Are you going to hold a rally?  Are you going to build
>>a paper mache Statue of Liberty?  Are you going to set up a burial
>>squad and lie in neat rows so that the tanks can roll over you without
>>wasting gas?
>
>...And I suppose all you conservatives will point your legally obtained
>firearms at the tanks, fire them, watch the bullets bounce off, and then
>be squished yourselves?
>
>If you really take this "we have to be ready to fight off a military
>takeover" argument seriously you have to argue for private posession of
>everything up to and including fully armed jet fighters. Are you?
>
Hell, sounds good to me!

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Very Dangerous Times Indeed!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Guns not ULTIMATE (was Re: Defined: National Police Force)
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:48:44 GMT

In <183139@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>>[...] What we [liberals] don't support, is the attitude that guns are the
>>>"ultimate recall power."

>>Ah, then what is the "ultimate recall power" that "liberals" find
>>appropriate?  Surely they don't believe that "lie back and enjoy it"
>>is the appropriate response to a tyrant? 

	No in fact it's a line most often used by Red-necklicans. ;)

	An article recently described some young men of conscience
	who went to Viet Nam as medics and refused to carry weapons.
	Are you claiming that proves they "enjoyed it"?
	Whether or not you agree with: "fighting violence with violence"
	your leap to "enjoy it" is pure bigotry.

>Andy...that's a really stupid line.  Take a Valium and calm down.  By 


>>Suppose that Bush decides to keep the job after Clinton won.  What
>>then "liberals"?  (We've already established that you won't disagree
...
>>argue for his essential goodness now.)  The ballot box failed and Bush
>>has the Army.  Are you going to hold a rally?  Are you going to build
...
>>squad and lie in neat rows so that the tanks can roll over you without
>>wasting gas?

	That's a perfect example of Bush's attitude toward
	peaceful demonstration. I heard he's finally realized that
	there is a pro-democracy movement in China. Hah!

>I would suggest you're terribly paranoid, as most purveyors of this argument
>seem to be.  Now, ponder what caused the breakup of the Soviet Union.  
>Rhapsodize on why the British left India.  Guns aren't the only way, so your

>George Lambert

	Bev

-- 
Bev Huntsberger		bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu
			The University of SOUTH Carolina

Personally, I have nothing against incumbents;
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:51:27 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <92234.104630DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> 
|> [...]
|> From the NMES:
|> The number of people who were without insurance for all 12 months of
|> 1987 is 24.5 million people.
|> 
|> The number of people who were without insurance for any length of time
|> in 1987 is 47.8 million people
|> 
|> From the SIPP:
|> The number of people who were without insurance continuously from
|> Feb. 1985 to Aug. 1987 was 10 million people.
|> 
|> The number of people who were without insurance for at least one month
|> during this period from Feb. 1985 to Aug. 1987 is 68.1 million people
|> 
|> FACTS
|> 

Why do you suppose people have 'gaps' in their insurance coverage.  It
couldn't be because insurance is tied to employment, now could it?
We need to reform the system so that people buy their own catestrophic
health insurance plans which they own, independent of whether or
not they are employed.  However the solution is not a 'one size fits
all' insurance package offered by the government.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1934 talk.politics.misc:39714
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:01:23 GMT

In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>...And I suppose all you conservatives will point your legally obtained
>firearms at the tanks, fire them, watch the bullets bounce off, and then
>be squished yourselves?
>
>If you really take this "we have to be ready to fight off a military
>takeover" argument seriously you have to argue for private posession of
>everything up to and including fully armed jet fighters. Are you?

There are those who would argue in favor of that!  I don't agree with
the premise, though.  I think deterring a would-be-dictator is quite
well accomplished with small arms.  Remember that this tyrant needs to
CONTROL the population, not destroy it.  We would be unable to defend
against B-52s, but they aren't likely to be a threat.  Hitler didn't
bomb the Jews.  Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao didn't bomb their
"undesirables" either.  The more likely scenario is exactly what these
despots did: the secret police would come around on foot and round
everyone up (or search the house, or whatever), and that is the kind of
thing which an armed populace guards against.  Yes, it seems
far-fetched that something like this might happen in the US.  Perhaps
this is precisely because of our Founders' foresight.  It's been working
for so long that people have forgotten that it works at all.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc