HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:21:17 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 bear arms shall not be abridged."  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 bear arms in a well
>regulated militia, e.g., a state militia.  

I hate to bring old Noah into this discussion, but accoring to Webster's
NewWorld Dictionary (second edition), a militia is

...
2.  In the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years
old who are _NOT_ (emphasis mine) already members of the regular armed
forces.  Members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the various
branches) constitute the ORGANIZED MILITIA; all others, the UNORGANIZED
MILITIA (emphasis Webster's).

Therefore, the fact that the term militia is used in the second amendment
in this context, does not invalidate the "right of the people", it affirms
it (at least for men between 18 and 45).

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate, ... things.         - VP Dan Quayle

If God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.  - Anon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 20:13:51 GMT

Summary:
Expires:
.4274@gvl.unisys.com> <1992Aug21.235026.2652@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: na
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Keywords:

In article <1992Aug21.235026.2652@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford
.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> "Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
>>> lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
>>> PREDATES the Clinton campaign.  They've asked him repeatedly to
>>> get his own slogan, to stop using theirs for his ends.  He's
>>> blown them off.
>>>
>>> He's raising money using their name.  Should they raise money using
>>> his?
>>
>It show that Clinton doesn't respect other people's property when it
>comes to pushing his agenda.  Like his buddy Joe Biden, he steals his
>best slogans, only Biden had the decency to stop when exposed, even
>though the author gave him permission to continue.  Clinton continues
>even though the PPF organization has asked him not to.  He's
>effectively destroying the name and reputation they've built up by
>tieing it to his partisan activity.
>
>We're willing to believe that Bush is dirty; Clinton seems determined
>to prove that he is too.  It's an interesting tactic.
>
>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu


Okay, first off - is the "putting people first" trademarked (I don't _think_
you can copyright a phrase)?  If it ain't, this PPF group has nothing they
can do.  I find it very hard to consider using a phrase which the Clinton
campaign most likely came up with independent of this group as "dirty."  Even
if it is trademarked, you'd have a hard time proving (again, I _think_)
infringement.  Sounds more like PPF is trying to get some free publicity.

"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2491 talk.politics.guns:19801
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:37:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <183162@pyramid.pyramid.com>, glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:

> Then I would suggest violent means.  The problem with this whole argument is
> that nobody I know or talk to on a regular basis has any fear of a military
> coup in the US.  Nobody.  If someone were to take a poll, you would not find
> this to be a common fear of the US citizen.

Not if you consider the military the only armed force that could be used
for government repression.  However, from the point of view of the founders'
original intent, a permanent, professional police force composes just as 
much of a "standing army" as a uniformed military.

If someone were to take a poll asking whether or not citizens feared
the growing power and political un-accountability of police forces such
as those in LA and Chicago -- and Federal "police" such as the DEA --
do you not think this fear might be more common?
-- 

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.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:32:57 GMT

In article <l8vfjmINNeu4@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Who are these "they" you refer to.  There are certainly people who
>are trying to get rid of the 2nd ammendment -- as well as the 1st, the
>14th, and many others.  If you think that there is a chance that 2/3
>of the states would ratify such an ammendment, you are more paranoid
>than talented.

     I'll say one thing about this.  When an anti-flag-burning amendment
was proposed, the headlines screamed "First Amendment Threatened!" for
months.  This amendment got one story in which it was referred to as
"The NRA is in a fight for it's life," as if only the NRA out of the
whole country gave a damn.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:54:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns



|There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
|of.

Bullshit. The Chicago Housing Authority is one place where _ALL_
guns are illegal.

Enforced with security guards, metal detectors, and periodic searches
of apartments; Hail the Democratic Party! The purveyors of the New
American Order!

|You pro-gun people are something else.  You'd argue that down was
|up ...

As Einstein would say, it's all a matter of _Perspective_, eh?

Or is everything that is the Intuitive Truth (tm) the bottom line?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2620 talk.politics.guns:19901
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:33:02 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) 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?

The first thing they teach you at armor school is to *never* outrun
your infantry. A tank without close infantry support is *dead meat*.
A buttoned up tank has nil visibility to the sides and rear. Someone
with a gasoline bomb can fry you, someone with an iron bar can wreck
your road wheels, and if you stick your head out to see what's happening,
they'll shoot you.

Tanks are great for fighting other tanks, or attacking fortified
positions. They are worthless fighting an irregular force. Irregular
forces don't fight set piece battles against conventional troops.
They hit and run, they snipe, they make it necessary to patrol in
large convoys. If troops can't patrol in pairs, they can't pacify
a population. 

>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?

Tell that to the Afgans or the Viet Cong. When the lady with the baby
stroller has a grenade or a pistol, you can't patrol the streets with
your troops. If you can't patrol, you don't control. Big war toys are
good for fighting forces with other big war toys in stand up battles, 
nothing else. They can't pacify an armed hostile population. That
takes foot soldiers. It's a maxim of the foot soldier that forces
on the attack must outnumber the defenders by at least 3 to 1 in
order to prevail. 2 million troops don't have a numerical advantage
over 250 million people. Only if the population is unarmed sheep
can the military patrol and control.

Gary
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2138 talk.politics.guns:19438
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:26:53 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
 <1992Aug17.175828.15383@infonode.ingr.com>
 <1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>

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?

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2282 talk.politics.guns:19641
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:05:10 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1992Aug18.154422.6971@bluemoon.rn.com> grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
>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?
>
> Nope. We would point them at the tank crews, fire them and watch the
>tank crews drop. Then the tank won't be a problem anymore.

Gee, now we didn't we try that during WWII?  We wouldn't have had a problem
with those Panzers then! 

Hold on, there, I think them thar tank crews stay in the tank, lotsa armor,
and your lil ol' pea shooters operated by them thar lil' ol' pea brains are
gonna find out what a REAL "well regulated militia" is all about, bubba.
>
> Ooops, sorry. Didn't mean to inject reason, logic and tactics into
>the debate. Carry on with your senseless ranting...
>-- 
Don't worry...you didn't, and Crisp will.

George Lambert
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1883 alt.politics.bush:1485 talk.politics.misc:39532
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: NPC (was Re: National Health Care)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:12:19 GMT



In article <1992Aug11.180605.9290@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
}   Don't count on any savings on the 100,000 jobs he wants to cut from the
} federal government.

In fact in his "plan" he calls for the creation of a "National Police Corps"
with 100,000 new police officers.  Just a coincidence, I suppose.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: NPC (was Re: National Health Care)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:28:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <19294@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>
>
>In article <1992Aug11.180605.9290@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
>}   Don't count on any savings on the 100,000 jobs he wants to cut from the
>} federal government.
>
>In fact in his "plan" he calls for the creation of a "National Police Corps"
>with 100,000 new police officers.  Just a coincidence, I suppose.

    This is not a new idea: the Soviets have had a national police
    force for decades.  Ever heard of NKVD?

    The next logical step will be the creation a "National Correctional
    and Labor Camps Administration".


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2129 talk.politics.guns:19425
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: RKBA
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:43:29 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <14106@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.181150.4911@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>|In article <sc0LPB2w164w@opus.mcds.com> speers@opus.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>|>   I support the right to bear arms, but what about arming bears?
>|>
>|>   Where do we draw the line?  Rocket Launchers to hunt dear?
>|
>|Hunting, hunting, hunting.  You keep talking about arms in relation
>|to hunting.  THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!!  The colonials
>|weren't hunting when they rose up against their oppressor to gain
>|freedom.
>
>Hmmm. Did they have rocket launchers and semi-automatic rifles when the
>second amendment was passed?  Just wondering?

They had cannons in colonial times, which were more powerful than "rocket 
launchers," and many cannons were privately owned.

Plans for FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms were published in the mid 1700's
in England, and the Founding Fathers, being very well read and
intelligent men, could be presumed to know about these plans.

Were computers, television, telephones, or electronic printing
presses around in 1791?  No, you say?  Does this mean that
the FIRST AMENDMENT doesn't apply to these media?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2287 alt.politics.bush:2210 talk.politics.misc:40726 soc.culture.usa:6684
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:35:26 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

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

Militia: N., US: all able bodied males who are or intend to become
citizens and are more than 18 and not more than 45 years of age,
that portion of the militia * not belonging to the National
Guard or the Organized Reserves or the Naval or Marine reserves.

(i.e. people who have their own guns and are called up in times
of emergency in the spirit of the minutemen. The reason
the word militia is used in the definition is because outside
the US it tends to mean the entire military force. It has
always been the understanding if one looks at the intent
of the framers of the consitution (found in letters and 
records of debate) that they meant a state can call
a group of civilians together to form a militia in
an emergency -such as defense of the state- a la 
War of 1812 or *to overthrow the government* 
Washington and Jefferson in particular were worried 
that that the people maintain the same inherent right to 
overthrow the government- as they themselves did- if in the
future it became to oppressive. The right of the citizens to 
bear arms is the only thing to ensure that right remains. 
It is also a right that predates the Constitution and thus
is a right reserved by the people according to the Constitution 
(as are property rights) Anyone who thinks the current
wave of crime and killing due to guns is unheard of 
has not studied American history. The Old West and 
the 20's gangsters are too examples of comparable crime waves.
Just instead of pushing the criminals out west we've
run out of room, so we fence them in the inner cities. 
We need to solve the problems that are the root cause
of society- guns and killing are mearly a symptom.
:-)
Kristin


>
>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.
>
>-- 
>Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
>School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
>University of Hawaii at Manoa
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:38:11 GMT

In <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 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.

As well, some of the citizens at the Russian Parliament (AKA the White House)
were definitely armed. CBC just ran a documentary on the whole
situation. Film taken during the siege clearly shows non-military
plain clothes personnel armed with carbine versions of the AK74
assault rifle. I saw citizens locked arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder,
carrying metal rods and pipes, blocking the path of Soviet APCs.
I have seen in other reports Molotov cocktails landing on
other Soviet APCs. Some Army units sided with the original government,
against army units loyal to the Coup makers.

All in all, the people showed a willingness to fight, and had
the methods to do so. There were several army assaults on the Russian
white house that were driven off.

Mr. Lambert hasn't got his facts right.
-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2382 alt.politics.bush:2310 talk.politics.guns:19735
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: AMERICA'S BULLSHIT WATCH
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:30:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug19.202344.3242@gvl.unisys.com> eds@gvlf5-q.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Skladany) writes:

<    The Scene: The Republican National Convention at Houston's Astrodome

<    The Bullshit:  A wall of lies.  An oppressive cloud of distortion.
<      Vicious lies.  Insidious lies.  A conspiracy of lies not seen since
<      Joseph Goebbels so effectively used his vision of The Big Lie.  Lies
<      so offensive to people who strive for the truth that it makes one
<      want to buy an NRA-sanctioned AK-47 and massacre every Republican
<      leader he can find.  While listening to one lie after another, I hear
<      the echo of George Bush in my head: "I will do whatever it takes to
<      get reelected."

	Feel free to buy an "NRA-sanctioned AK-47". 

	Bear in mind that a true, full auto AK-47 is
	expensive, will require an FBI background check,
	approval in writing from your local police chief,
	a $200 tax and will take several months to obtain.

	However, you might want to reconsider this in light
	of the posting; publicly proclaiming a desire to
	massacre people you disagree with might not make
	for a good FBI background check.

	And have a nice day.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns