HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.155205.6389@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
>Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
>Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:52:05 GMT
>In article <PA142548.239.714228520@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>|> Dr. Einstein built the atomic bomb with the hope of ending war.  At the 
>|> time, he expected the bomb to be placed under the control of a multi-
>|> national organization and used as a deterrant.
>|> 
>|> He was a porr student of human nature, but you cannot question his motives, 
>|> as they are clearly documented.  See any biography.
>
>
>Yikes! Revisionist history.
>
>Einstein provided the basic theory that was later used to discover the principles
>which were used to build the atomic bomb.  He *was not* directly involved in the
>effort, so he cannot be said to have "built the bomb" in the same sense as, say,
>Fermi could be.
>
>Einstein did write a letter to Roosevelt that helped get the effort started.
>
Sorry.  Not revisionism (I LOTHE revisionists.)  Just over-generalization 
and poorly-recalled contemporary history.
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 12:58:25 EDT
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Subject: re: clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
 <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> <1992Aug18.013525.6833@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>

In article <1992Aug18.013525.6833@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>...
>So, wrt the Brady Bill, is Clinton lying or ignorant?
>
>-andy

In my personal opinion? Lying.

W. K. Gorman
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:54:36 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Aug18.170946.27305@news.yale.edu> swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>From: swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
>Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:09:46 GMT
>
>In article <18AUG199212372337@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>|> Why don't we (gun owners) police ourselves to insure that gun owners are 
>|> competent to own and operate such a potentially dangerous device?
>   ...
>
>|> 
>|> The SCUBA industry polices itself quite effectively.  One must have been 
>|> certified as a competent diver before renting/purchasing SCUBA gear.
>
>
>Actually, I don't believe there are any requirements for purchase of
>SCUBA gear.  Most dive shops I've been in (a) won't rent you gear, (b)
>won't fill your tanks, and (c) won't take you on a dive unless you can
>show one of the major certification cards.  However if you buy your own gear,
>have your own compressor, and go out in your own boat, then it becomes
>the problem of your own estate to collect from your own insurance
>company if you get yourself killed.
>
>However, I agree the sport diving industry is a good example of self-regulation.
>20/20 bashing aside, I often use SCUBA certifcation in comparison to
>state-run auto and motorcycle certification as an example of how private
>voluntary safety training is better than the state-mandated kind.
>
>We live in a credential-crazy world where having a certificate attesting
>that you have black hair is more important than having the black hair
>to show someone directly.  I've also thought the NRA should do more in
>this area.  To be fair, there are several levels of NRA training available,
>including a basic home firearm safety course, which comes with a certificate
>suitable for framing. What is lacking is a little card for your wallet.
>Sounds like a simple change.
>
You are mostly correct.  Most of the shops I have been to would not sell you 
pressure gear if you couldn't cough up a c-card.
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:51:15 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU


(attributes may be manged)

someone, maybe, syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) writes:
>>              ...  Pretty soon, California may
>>be like England, where nobody can have a gun.  ...

This, quite simply, is wrong. Only those who are prohibited from owning
guns, or those whom a Chief Constable considers cannot be entrusted with
a gun, may not have them. Everyone else can have them.

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Firearms
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:29:38 GMT

In article <12773@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

}>I simply have better things to do,
}>like finding out what's the most efficient load for killing
}>house-scorpions with an M1911...

Snap-caps.  They'll allow you to club the scorpions to death with the butt
of the grip fairly safely. (-:


[For the non-experts:  Snap-caps are plastic dummy rounds used to protect
the firing pin when dry firing.]

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:26:58 GMT

In article <20AUG199208485574@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
(JAMES ZAKANY) writes:

> Those who carp that "Licensing => Gun Bans" are really ignoring the fact 
> that most people are fed up with firearm violence and will politically 

Will this training prevent or reduce firearm violence?  I assumed violent
people were the problem, not the firearm.

> [...]
>
> I see nothing wrong with a gun safety program that issues a license that 
> certifies that the carrier is competent to operate a firearm!  In fact, I 
> see everything right with it.

I have no problem with a voluntary program where people can learn
to handle firearms safely.  I do have a problem with a mandatory
program, since you can then turn a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE.  ("Oops...
we've just run out of safety certificates, and it's impossible to
print any more..  Have a nice life, Sir.").

So, let's have a voluntary safety program, and encourage kids to attend.
Let's make it part of the High school curriculum...  Instructors are
probably easy to find.  We could most likely get some NRA instructors
to volunteer.  :-)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:22:16 GMT

In article <l8gnuiINN571@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:

}I doubt that the suicide rate is much different between teens
}in gun-owning homes and those in non-gun-owning homes.
}
}Has anyone studied this problem (and published on it)?

Oh yes.  Oh my, yes.  I don't have chapter and verse handy, but I interned
four years at the local Suicide Prevention Center.  Off the top of my
head:

     Teenagers, as a group, are among the highest risks for suicidal
     behavior.

     More females than males attempt suicide.

     More males than females successfully commit suicide.

     Females tend to overdose on whatever's available (relatively low
     risk).

     Males tend to use guns (relatively high risk).

Check out the "Psychological Abstracts" in the nearest research library.
Look under "suicide" and "suicidology", among other things.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but those are the unfortunate facts.

(BTW, under California law, if anyone gets hold of one of your guns and
injures or kills themselves or someone else, _you_ get to spend three
years in jail for "improper storage of a firearm", a felony.  As I write,
at least one person is in jail because his grandson accidentally shot
himself on New Year's.  What effect, if any, this law will have on in-home
gun accidents remains to be seen).

(For the record:  I'm a member of the NRA and ACLU.  I agree with the
Supreme Court's flag-burning ruling.  I even wrote to my congresscritters
and the president, telling them so and opposing the anti-flag-burning
amendment.  I was not happy with their responses, but I'd only voted for
one of them anyway -- and that turned out to be a mistake).

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 20:35:39 GMT

aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:


>Rememebr PUSH in Philadelphia? They organized against the (white)
>cops. Their apartments were bombed. Rememebr the Black Panthers in
>LA, they were shot like dogs. That;s what you get when you fight
>the police. Please save the romantic, 'I'll pick up my
>gun and just shoot one of 'em' - that'll teach 'em a 
>lesson.
>HAH - your dead!

 HAH - you're dead even if you don't!
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Premeditated Murder - Part 2  (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 14 Aug 1992 03:44:40 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp

In article <1992Aug13.135011.13118@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
- READY for violence - and of the 10-15 guys I know, they are VERY
- READY to hurt anyone - if you sneeze wrong - you're dead.
- Not to mention the few 'hot dogs' who JUST LOVE when someone
- SUGGESTS resistence...they're itching to pull that trigger.

     You seem to be condoning pre-meditated murder.  Why?  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  BARKLEY UNIX:  
 kossack@rice.edu  |                 The operating system with an attitude  
  +1 713 240 2073  |    
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 06:19:37 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

>Net result?  Deputy Tony Aston shot and killed Robin Marie Pratt
>in full view of her 6-year-old daughter and 5-year-old niece,
>using his MP-5 submachine gun.  Pratt was totally blameless; she
>heard men breaking down the door and windows, ran from her bedroom
>to gather the children, and was shot to death without warning by
>by Deputy Aston, who was in the hallway.

>This situation sounds pretty bad, right?  Well catch this: Larry
>Pratt, the man they were coming to arrest, was *innocent*!  They
>dropped all charges shortly afterwards, saying they had received
>a "bad tip".

>Now the State Attorney General's office has decided not to prosecute
>the Deputy.  To quote the newspaper: "Greg Canova, the senior
>assistant state attorney general, announced yesterday that there was
>not sufficient evidence that Deputy Anthony Aston intentionally,
>recklessly, or negligently fired the shot that killed Robin Marie
>Pratt, 28."


And to think awhile back I was criticized for describing the pigs
as animals with unlimited licenses to kill.

My, how history repeates itself.  The Brown Shirts this time wear 
blue and have metal badges instead of "SS" emblems.  The result is
the same.  We now must fear the police more than we fear the criminal
element.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:21:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <l8gnuiINN571@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
> In article <veal.198@utkux1.utk.edu> veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug11.173826.12566@riacs.edu> gahooten@george.arc.nasa.gov (Greg Hooten -- IAS) writes:
> >>Nor has anyone
> >>addressed tha issue of teen suicides in homes with guns.  
> >
> >>Such suicides suceed far more often than in homes w/o guns.  

> Has anyone studied this problem (and published on it)?

I know of five suicides in my immediate circle of family, friends and 
colleagues.  Only two were teens.  One (female) did not use a gun.
The other (male) climbed the town water tower and jumped.  Inasmuch
as things like water towers are not usually found in homes, perhaps 
his data is correct (for the wrong reasons).
-- 

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...
From: aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:56:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Rememebr PUSH in Philadelphia? They organized against the (white)
cops. Their apartments were bombed. Rememebr the Black Panthers in
LA, they were shot like dogs. That;s what you get when you fight
the police. Please save the romantic, 'I'll pick up my
gun and just shoot one of 'em' - that'll teach 'em a 
lesson.
HAH - your dead!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: A question for the gun-control advocates (Was: I'll never give 
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:22:45 GMT

 
 Kevin L. McBride wrote:
>Well, I don't keep boxes of bullets around the house anyway.  I keep
>boxes of cartridges,
 I keep boxes of bullets, boxes of primers, boxes of cases, and cannisters
 of powder. ;)

 Along with boxes of cartridges.



    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: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:25:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <cthong.714252278@sfu.ca>
cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

>
>smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>
>>cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes...
>>>
>>Doesn't this sound like
>>>you've got something in your place that you don't want the authorities
>>>to see? look.. i plan on signing on with my country's police force
>>>next time. and it's RIGHTS like this that would make my job of keeping
>>>the peace and ensuring public safety more DIFFICULT than it already is.
>
>>You seem to have the police-state mentality that many police have.
>
>>Rights!
>>What rights? !
>>I don't need no damn rights!
> then why do i feel more free than you?

     That's a good question.  Perhaps your idea of freedom does not coincide
with mine.  My idea of freedom hinges upon freedom from government coercion.
Yours, apprently, does not, so long as the government coercion is aimed at
something you disapprove of.

why do i have less problems with
>my own security and trust in my govt than you?

     "Freedom is Slavery."  Perhaps because your government has taught you
that freedom is something different than we believe it is.  Perhaps that
government power is integral to your concept of freedom.

>it could be that singapore
>has a proven track record for peace , growth and all round stability but
>i'm sure you chalk it all up to propaganda and how we MUST actually be poor
>starving , oppressed , ignorant and mislead as compared to you eh?

     Don't be silly.  Most people in the United States are just as mislead
thorugh the government regulations enforced on the public school system.
Maybe you are peaceful, growing, and stable.  You have, however, paid a
price for that to your government that I am unwilling to pay.  Peace and
prosperity under authoritarian rule is just another form of slavery.  A
gilded cage, but still a cage.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19907 soc.culture.french:6074
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and fascism
Date: 23 Aug 92 04:53:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Aug23.010331.15464@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:
>Whereas in the USA, you can buy M16s by reading ads in the newspapers.
>We agree that European countries have less criminality than the USA.
>As a matter of fact, thay also have harscher control on guns...

Uh, reality check:
I assume from the microsoft.com address you are in America, but I can't
reconcile that with the statement above. Last I checked, M16's
are honest-to-gosh fully-automatic military assault rifles. Not only
would I be extrememly unlikely to see one advertised, it would be
rather difficult to buy one at all. I suppose ads for enlisting
in the military might show a soldier holding one.

Sorry to inject reality into your little fantasy world where some 20,000+
federal and state gun regulations don't exist, but one should be careful
about flying off "half-cocked". Hollywood very efficiently depicts
America as a land dripping with blood and Uzi-toting criminals.
Fortunately for the tenants, it's not true.

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: ACLU's "Campaign for the Bill of Rights '92"
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 17:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.230252.12509@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com
(Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>I wonder what would happen, if the NRA threw it's weight behind Marrou.
>
>It would further the popular perception of the NRA as a bunch of
>lunatic-fringe wackos.  And Marrou would still lose.

Hmm, I don't see it that way.  For one thing, I guess I see people who
want to restrict our choices in life as the wackos and people who want
to minimize the government's power over our life in the tradition of
independence that made this country the freest in the world.

Also, neither Bush nor Clinton consider RKBA to be important, so why
not support a party that supports true freedom, instead of political
headgames?

>>It doesn't seem like Clinton or Bush are going to do us any good...
>
>Quite true.  Which is why advocates of the RKBA need to focus
>intensively on congressional races this year.

But given the power invested in this one position, choosing a President
isn't a trivial matter.

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:47:16 GMT

In article <168499844.GLETTY@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu> GLETTY@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu ("Bruce E. Gletty") writes:
>In article <183135@pyramid.pyramid.com>
>glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
> 
>>In article <#a9msdc.crisp@netcom.com> 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.
>>>
>>OK, Dick, riddle me this:
>>
>>If your assertion is correct, how was the military backed coup of Gorbachev
>>overthrown by an unarmed population?  Keep in mind that the conventional
>>forces of the USSR were the largest of any nation in the world.
>>

It wasn't a military backed coup.  Some of the military supported it
but not really enough to call it a military coup.  Most of the
troops didn't even know why they had been sent to Moscow.  Some
thought that the US had attacked them!

The coup was backed by old-style party hacks that didn't understand
the changes (foreign TV, elected leaders, FAX machines, etc) that had
taken place since the ouster of Khruschev  (Yet they were strangely
concerned about world image).  They felt that all
that was needed was a show of force and the people would submit.

The whole thing was incredibly mis-managed and stupidly planned.  They
must have known Yeltsin would fight it but if they had moved a day
earlier he would have been stuck in Kazakstan. (And how many people 
would have resisted without Yeltsin?)  They used troops from
the immediate area instead of troops from other republics (which
might be more willing to open fire).  They completely botched
catching Yeltsin before he reached the White House and then
didn't make sure of the loyalty of the elite KGB group they
wanted to send in to capture Yeltsin.


>It didn't work because only a small part of the military was really
>behind it. Also, the fact that the troops didn't feel like killing
>unarmed civilians helped a lot. When the troops are ready to shoot
>civilians, you get Tianamen Square.

A big part of the reason that the troops didn't feel like killing
civilians was because the troops were from areas near Moscow
and many had friends and relatives in Moscow.  The coup plotters did send
orders to have more remote troops pulled in but that was at
the end when it was all falling apart.


All in all, if the coup plotters had been more intelligent and
less concerned about world image, a lot more blood would have
been shed and the coup might have suceeded.  Then we would
have really seen what happens when unarmed civilians try to
stand up to a coup.

Julie
#include "std_disclaimer.h"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:35:39 PDT

cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
> [ Bandini Hill deleted... ]

Another Canadian who doesn't understand and never will.  First
Aussieland now our northern border.
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : jadpc!thewall!jca@nosc.mil | 13 + 1 = 228... 
 ** INTERNET: jca@thewall.cts.com        |
 **           jca@thewall.uucp           |           SIG-Sauer P228...
 ** UUCP    : nosc!jadpc!thewall!jca     |
 */