HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:58:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr13.215814.19107
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> >Bullshit, Suzy!  If you would listen to what's being said, instead of
> >looking for things to justify your accusations of sexism, you would know
> >that the use of lethal force is *always* considered an extreme measure,
> >to be used only as an absolutely last resort.  Most, if not all, of the
> 
> Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
> would kill for a penny; like in the case of the Terminator
> saying OZ should be nuked; like in the case of the guy who said he
> would attack the guy who tipped beer on me. There are none so blind...

Like in the case of Susan who said that gay bashers should be pitied rather
than resisted.  Funny how you two don't mind telling other people to die for
YOUR sordid "morals".  There are none so blind as David and Susan... other 
than their victims of course.

> >gunowners here have had enough firearms training to know that.  This is
> >talk.politics.guns, not talk.fight.alternatives.  By the time we reach
> >the stage of discussing guns, we have dismissed the other alternatives
> >as inadequate for the particular situation.  BTW, why do you make sexist
> 
> Yes.... always the non-violent ways are dismissed. You live
> in a violent society. You know no better.

Yes.... always non-violent ways are the ONLY ways put forward or recognized.
You live in a sheep society.  You know no better.

> >comments like "too many of the *male* posters here..."?  Many people post
> >under aliases, or by their initials, so you don't know what sex they are,
> >now do you?  Aren't you making just a bit of an assumption, based on their
> 
> One can tell. 

One can even tell if two people are the same person, right...?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Buchanan/gun control
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:38:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

On the off chance that there are still some reading this
group that might still be interested in the views on
gun control held by Pat Buchanan (I recall some discussion
about differences in his approach between holding an AR-15
and later in the south...)

He was interviewed this afternoon on KGO (San Francisco, CA)
radio.  Among the questions: "What's your stand on gun
control?"

Roughly, they were:

	There are too many gun-control laws currently in
	effect.

	Taking Washington, D.C. as an example, these laws
	are ineffective.  They do not reduce crime.  They
	do not disarm criminals.  They, instead, disarm
	the law-abiding and take away from them the ability
	to help provide their own self-defense.

Not that he's got a snowball's chance, but he spoke directly
and did no mumbling/waffling on that issue.  No mention of
"assault weapons" or "semiautomatic whatevers", either.

For what it's worth...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Watch out for this!
Date: 14 Apr 1992 17:32:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu
Keywords: HCI Propoganda NEH

In article <1992Apr10.113155.4128@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>The poster on the 2nd Amendment, of course, was the most offensive,
>stated:

>	The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the states right
>	to maintain militias;

The Second Amendment was to protect the existance of militias, composed of
"the body of the people." Since the states' authority over the militia
was severely limited by Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution,
it is difficult to argue that _anything_ in the Constitution protects the
_states'_ powers over the militia.

>	the National Guard is the modern version of a state militia
>	and is the only organization protected by the 2nd Amendment;

According to theSupreme Court, the National Guard is _both_ part of
the regular army _and_ _part_ of the militia. US Titie X recognizes
all males between 18 and 45 as part of the militia. The Supreme Court
has recognized the militia as including everyone "physically capable of
acting in concert for the common defense."

>	the Founding Fathers never intended for privated citizens to
>	own their personal arms.

Rather odd, since most of the Founding Fathers owned firearms themselves,
and the militias they established assumed that private citizens would and
should have their own guns.

>A photo of rows of rifles in a gunshop stating, "Automatic weapons are
>easily available over-the-counter at any gunshop."

Not since 1934...

>A photo showed shotguns pointing skyward from a duck blind, captioned,
>"Only hunting and target shooting are legitimate reasons to be
>allowed to own firearms."

Self-defence? I take it that protecting one's own life is not considered 
"legitimate."

					       Frank Crary
					       UC Berkeley
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:27:30 GMT

rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.011408.15761@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.171912.11842@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>>>Wait a minute!  Maybe they're sexist because they *don't* pick fights with
>>>women.  After all, we want to be equal in every way, including getting beat
>>>up on.  But then, that would make us wymmin, wouldn't it?  I wonder if they
>>>pick fights with wymmin, or just women?  Help me Susan, I'm so CONFUSED!!!

>>Roberta, surely you jest? 

>Can I see a show of hands, please?  Who, if anyone, could not tell that
>this was tongue-in-cheek?  Yes, David, I was jesting.

>>*All* fighting is wrong. I know you
>>really know this. 

>I disagree.  Defensive fighting is not wrong.  When there is no other
>way out, I would consider it to be foolish to allow oneself to be
>injured or killed by not fighting back.  

	The problem is Roberta that too many of the male posters here
attempt to suggest that fighting is the _only_ solution available instead
of a last resort.   They talk about, "not turning the other cheek" nor
even attempting to avoid a fight, when the other result will basically
result in a lot more blood being spilled which is unnecessary.

>If you wish to do so, that's
>your right.  Do not tell me that I have no right to defend myself if
>I find it necessary.

	As far as I can tell no one is suggesting that.  What is being
suggested is the question of whether or not fighting is the only solution 
which is available to people in certain situations (ie a fight).


--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stantoni___________________________________|
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ross Perrot *for* gun control
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:06:14 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <52659@mimsy.umd.edu> forda@gtephx.UUCP
(Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Suddenly, I'm interested in reading more about the rise of the Third
>Reich (sp?).

I've been thinking the same thing . . . people who don't think we could vote
in a dictator, aren't paying attention to what's going on now.  Who knows
what Perot is for?  His supporters don't, but they don't care either.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef		I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:16:09 GMT

In article <53161@mimsy.umd.edu> andy@sail.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>Under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control
>Act of 1990, HR 3757, signed by Bush on Jan 29,1991 and unopposed by
>the ILA), it "shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor", punishable by 5
>years and/or $5k*, for non-licensees to possess a gun within 1000 ft
>of a school.  Unloaded guns in locked containers or in locked racks
>are okay, but none of those non-locking long gun cases qualify.  It
>will be expensive to figure out whether or not a locked trunk or glove
>compartment qualifies.

What's a "school"--does it include a college?

What happens to people who *live* within 1000 feet of a school.  Do they
have to give up their guns?

Why didn't the NRA tell us about this?
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:14:11 GMT
Organization: UEA, Norwich, UK

In <1992Apr6.054050.23146@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>But this thread was about people who were in a position
>when they *could* run away.

Just like a "fight", in Australian Newspeak, is by definition
something that can be run away from?

The point you and Susan are strenuously ignoring is that there are
situations where running away is not possible.  Such possibilities
justify the freedom to own firearms.  No-one but you'n'Susan'n'Brian
is suggesting using them to deal with minor annoyances.

>Just face it, you want to be
>able to use your gun, otherwise why do you always try to 
>say that non-violence will never work?

Who has said that non-violence will never work?  Actual quotes, please.

--
Richard Kennaway          SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk		uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:09:00 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <susan.702533741@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>
>>>>How do you explain the female pro-gun people?
>>>
>>>	I wasn't talking about the female pro-gun people who do not,
>>>as far as I can tell make posts in the same "talk-tough" style as do 
>>>some of the boys in this newsgroup.
>
>>Who would these "boys" be?  All US posters who legally bought their
>>firearms from FFL dealers are at least 21, making them men.  
>
>	No, no, no T(w)ermie, when you become 21, you become before the
>law a man, however we all know that under the sheets you're still a boy
>at heart and in hand.
>
>	As Gertrude Stein pointed, "...what is the use of being a little
>boy if you are going to grow up to be a man?"
>
>	I call you a boy because despite your physical age (which is
>open to debate) you still show the immaturity of a small boy who likes to
>talk tough with his schoolmates down behind the sheltershed whilst you
>sneak a quick fag before the teacher on yard duty catches you.

Welcome to my kill file Susan!  You have earned that lowest of
booby prizes along with your office-mate Brian Ross and cohort 
Dave Bowen.

Shoulda figured...
[In the Australian Tongue]
once a dumb cunt, always a dumb cunt.

[Translated in US]
you haven't learned a damn thing yet.

[Translated in PC-speak US-dialect]
your dyslexia prevents you from learning a few simple concepts.

Aideu!

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: King beating correction
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 18:58:47 GMT

WOW thats really great anyone who cracks racial, ethnic, sexual
or other wise tasteless jokes should receive a jail term, thats
the way to do it, legislate it, jail time, laws solve everything
dont they. why not just plug the correct algorithim into a cray
and generate as many possible laws as possible, that should solve
the worlds problems
** sarcastic for the humor impared ***
Actualy a 20 year moritorium on new laws would probably be better :-)
Along with a 20 year moritorium on law schools and new lawyers :-)
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-19.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Watch out for this!
Keywords: HCI Propaganda NEH
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:53:23 GMT

>The poster on the 2nd Amendment, of course, was the most offensive,
>in fact, it appeared that they went out of their way to be offensive.
>The poster contained a silhouette of a National Guardsman, imposed
>on top of this were several paragraphs of text, which, in brief,
>stated:
>
>	The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the states right
>	to maintain militias;
>
>	the National Guard is the modern version of a state militia
>	and is the only organization protected by the 2nd Amendment;
>
>	the Founding Fathers never intended for privated citizens to
>	own their personal arms.
>
I found that same display in the MIT Humanities Library.  I went to 
the director of the library and asked him (1) how long the display would
be up, and (2) if I could put something out to present the other side's
viewpoint.  He walked out and took a look at the display, and read the
second amendment portion.  "I didn't notice this. . . .  I believe people
have the right to own guns," was his response.  He said, however, that it
was only a temporary display, and would be taken down in a month.  When
I returned the next month, I noticed it was still there, so I left a message
for him.  Eventually, I got it removed.  Currently, I'm trying to donate
American Rifleman to the library, and the librarians make the usual evasions
that even though 10 sports magazines like RUNNER'S WORLD and TENNIS WORLD
are carried by them, American Rifleman is not appropriate.  I went over
the head of the humanities librarian and talked to the Director of MIT 
Libraries, who then said he'd look at a copy of American Rifleman and
decide if it might be suitable for the Dewey Political Science Library.

                 "What's 13+1?  The Para-Ordnance 14!"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: CNN's report on gun control????
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 03:21:59 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

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

>In article <53301@mimsy.umd.edu> achaboty@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>	On Friday night/Saturday morning there was a story on CNN about
>>some sort of gun control.  Did anyone happen to catch what it said...I
>>only saw the tail end of it and didn't see it again.  They were reporting
>>from Columbus, Ohio and since I am located in Dayton, I figured it may
>>directly effect me.
>>	Thanks a lot for your help.

>Ohio House Bill 709, which I posted here would make it a criminal
>offense for your loaded firearm to fall into the hands of a child
>[less than 16 years of age].  Also, this bill would require the Ohio
>Dept. of Education to establish a course for gun safety awareness
>to be taught to students in public schools.  If you need a copy of
>the bill let me know and I'll mail it to you along with some
>commentary.

>Or it could have been about this:

>Columbus, OH passed an "assault weapon" ban a couple years ago.
>Some manufacturers, I believe Colt and Springfield Armory are
>among them, have filed a lawsuit claiming that it's an illegal
>bill of attainder.  The anti-gun attorney general, Lee Fisher, is
>saying all sorts of baloney that these are the weapons of choice
>of drug dealers and violent criminals, blah blah blah ...  He even
>was shown on tv and the newspaper holding an AR-15 on the steps of
>the State House.

The story may have been that people in Ohio are unhappy that Colt,
which is challenging Ohio's assault weapon ban bill, is currently
being financially underwritten by the state of Connecticut since Colt
is in Chapter 11 at the moment.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
George Bush believes in the "carrot and stick" approach to social problems:
       - give carrots to the rich and stick it to the poor -
From: jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:52:39 GMT
Reply-To: jreece@sousa.intel.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intel - Information Technologies

In article <1992Apr14.142102.17779@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:

> Thus, technically, a Chicago resident with an unregistered handgun
> he kept at home traveling through Arizona with it would technically be
> breaking the law.

On the other hand, it seems to me that an Arizona resident
traveling through Chicago would be protected.

> (3) NRA's support of the so-called "Instant Check." Way before anything
> showed up in the NRA House Organs (American Rifleman and American
> Handgunner), we started seeing in the general media NRA's support
> for the "Instant Check" plan. Nobody asked _ME_ if I wanted an
> "Instant Check" plan.

The "Instant Check" plan had two purposes.  One was to put waiting-period
backers on the spot as to whether they really wanted to hinder criminals
or just hassle us law-abiding gun purchasers.  Secondly, if passage of 
some kind of mandatory background check is inevitable the 
instant-check beats a 7-15 day waiting period.  
 
> I point these things out not to hurt NRA, but to point out that
> only informed NRA members can properly keep NRA on the course of
> defending and furthering the RKBA of the American people.

In judo there's a principle:  The way to deal with someone pushing you
is not to push back, but to pull them *toward* you, and onto their face.
I see the instant-check compromise as following that sort of strategy.
Didn't work, though.

-- 

John Reece			
Intel spokesman?  Not!
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:30:14 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr11.211334.18518@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>>...
>>>>>> ... armed bodyguards ...
>>>
>>>The amusing thing in the entire Rushdie episode is he spent a good deal
>>>of his time his prior to the Iranian threat expounding on how the
>>>British government was fascist.  I suspect 1) he hasn't endeared himself
>>
>>I don't see anything amusing about this. Everyone has a right
>>to the services of their government regardless of whether they
>>voted for them.
>
>  Will everyone who is in danger of being attacked be provided with
>armed bodyguards?  If that service is available to all then I see
>no inconsistency in Rushdie being provided these services.  However
>if bodyguards are not provided to all, and the government prevents
>people from effectively defending themselves, then inconsistencies
>abound. 

Henry, I am astounded! I thought you would have some understanding of 
this case. Rushdie is under a death sentence. There is a price on his
head. He is in known danger because some people find a novel he wrote,
offensive. He is in a different category that the rest of us.
If you can't see this, I pity you.

>
>  Where were the full time armed bodyguards when Dr. Chang needed
>them?  Where are the full time armed bodyguards who should be 
>protecting all these Australian women who are shot by their
>husbands?

There were none as none of these people was in the same
situation as Rushdie. Dr Chang did not expect to come to harm. It was a 
tragedy that could not be predicted. Those women who
are shot by their own husbands clearly to not believe that they
are about to be shot, else they wouldn't stay with them.
Do you seriously say that your life, or mine, is at 
this time, in the same danger as Rushdies? Talk about blaming the victim!

The problem with people like you, is that you have Buckleys of
even making others sympathetic to your cause when you show
yourself to be either so unfeeling or so unaware.


>>>with his full-time bodyguards and 2) his perspective has changed.  Maybe
>>>not...self proclaimed intellectuals are often fairly stupid.
>>
>>SR is not a self-proclaimed intellectual. You are
>>obviously anti-intellectual.
>
>  Wow - what an effective rejoinder!  Is he "obviously
>anti-intellectual" because you disagree with him or because he is
>amused by Rushdie?

He is so, because he made that shallow, ignorant statement. Rushdie
has never proclaimed himself as an intellectual.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:37:42 GMT

Hmmm.  I haven't been reading for a while, but I'll take a chance on
jumping in out of context.

In <1992Apr13.210106.16475@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
>>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
>>
>>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
>>back then)

Then I guess radio and television broadcast enjoys no 1st Amendment
protection?  And people are not guaranteed freedom to practice their
religion if it happens to be one of those founded since those times?

[Larry's response deleted]

-- 
**************************************************************************
* It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion.  * Jeffrey S. Clary  *
* It is better still to be a live lion, and usually  * clary@iastate.edu *
* easier.  -- (Paraphrase from memory of L.L.        *                   *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns