HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 23:52:27 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

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.

Haven't you been listening?  Australian law doesn't apply in the US.
In most states of the US, you "become before the law a man" at 18.
I'll let Termie respond to your immature little dig.

>>Some girls haven't completed the eighth grade and don't know how to
>>spell "adolescent."
>
>	Tsk, tsk, tsk, such lack of charity towards a dyslexic person
>T(w)ermie.  Tell me, do you kick the crutchs out from under cripples and
>steal the money out of blind beggar's cups?

Funny thing is, when we kick YOUR crutches out, we find you can walk
after all.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: jvh@nature.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: A Question or two (was Re: (In)sanity arrives)
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:33:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sb2tuINN1ds
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu




[first part of post deleted]

R = Roberta      S = Susan  (hoping I have the attributions correct)

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

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

R Your gun-control agenda would take away my final means of self-defense.

S	Who said I was interested in taking your guns away Roberta?  As far
S as I know I haven't even mentioned my gun control agenda.  Who is now
S stereotyping?  Perhaps you are presuming a lot, aren't you Roberta?

	Do you have a gun control agenda?   If so, would you please 
tell us what it is?  Or, if you do not have a gun control agenda,
your thoughts on the issue?

R You, Susan, by desiring to ban guns, are saying I have no right to use
R lethal force even if it's the only way I can prevent myself being killed.

S	Who said I wanted to "ban guns"?  I didn't, nor ever have.

R You, Susan, by desiring to ban guns, are saying I have no right to use
R lethal force against a rapist.  You are no friend to wymmin.  You would
R disarm us, thereby reducing our chances of successfully defending ourselves
R against a larger, stronger assailant.

S	Fine, Roberta you can take on the responsibility for controlling
S the behavior of that rapist if you want to.  I don't.  I prefer to make
S them responsible for their own actions BEFORE they occur.

	What you are talking about isn't clear to me.  Roberta's
last-ditch rape (and very possibly murder) defense, using whatever means,
you are describing as "take on the responsibility for controlling the
behavior of that rapist if you want to."  By using those terms you must
be making a point, since most people I know would call it defending
themself.  Then you say "I prefer to make them responsible for their
own actions BEFORE they occur."  It sounds like you are saying this
is not "controlling the behavior of that rapist..."  What do you mean?
I assume it is Australian policies you are referring to?


S |  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
S |*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
S |    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
S |   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stantoni___________________________________|

	Well at least you're proud to be a womyn!  The quote does strike
me, though, as unnecessarily hurtful to those males in this newsgroup
who, even you said, have not engaged in any obnoxious posting, not to 
mention the large number who read only.  

Joan V

| We have no time to waste condemming people for not doing great works. |
| We must get on about our own business. -- Emma Curtis Hopkins         |
From: malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:56:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: skinner.9204131756.AA00704
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego

In article <susan.703122943@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>In article <susan.702687861@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>>	Wanting equality does not mean that we want to become the _same_ as
>>>men.  We don't want the male (violent) solution to our problems because all
>>>it causes in the long run is just more grief and suffering.  Wymmin seek an
>>>alternative _peaceful_ solution.  
>
>>Fine; you can let your 'alternative _peaceful_ solution' be lying down
>>and spreading your legs when a rapist isn't willing to listen to you,
>>but don't try to force _your_ idea of the _right_ solution on someone
>>to whom lying back, gritting their teeth, and accepting it is a
>>completely _unacceptable_ solution. Coercing everyone else to follow
>>your ideal of 'peaceful solutions' makes you different from men only
>>in that you're employing a different _kind_ of violence.
>
>	A rather typical male response IMO.  Have you ever considered that
>it might not be possible to reach the point where its no longer necessary
>for anybody to have to, "lie back and grit their teeth,"?

What you state is a distinct possibility. However, on the assumption
that you were too _careless_ to proofread what you wrote, and what you
_meant_ to say was "... it might be possible to reach the point ...",
then suppose you answer the question of what we do until then. While
_society_ works toward your utopian ideal, _individuals_ are being
victimized. But, then, sacrificing the individual to the great god
Society has always been popular, on both sides of almost any
argument.

>	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
>can't control their dicks?

Fine; if you want something that doesn't poke your 'women as victims
of men' kneejerk, then let's modify the above situation to having a
mugger corner you and threaten to use a 6" switchblade to perform some
amateur plastic surgery on you if you don't turn over your purse, then
decides to do it anyway because he didn't like your hesitation. Of
course, it's _completely_ unacceptable for anyone to be permitted to
choose to defend themselves against this, and to make sure that they
don't, we have to make sure that nobody has any legal way to obtain
the tools to make that defense easier.

That way, society divides itself neatly into the criminals (who will
be armed to prey on their victims), the police (who are armed because
the criminals are dangerous), and the victims (who aren't armed
because the police will protect them whenever they get around to
showing up).

-- 
random sig #10:
Sean Malloy                                  | Anything you say will be
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | recorded, edited, distorted,
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | re-mixed, and used against you.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        |
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: KILLEEN KILLINGS: I think I have a clue
Keywords: homosexual harassment
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:44:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

akcs.kennedy@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Edward A. Kennedy, Jr.) writes:

[i'm not going to even consider dealing with the many issue
raised in this article - there seems to me to be altogether
too much empathy at work here. There is ***NO*** justification
for what George Hennard did, period. yes, there may be *reasons*
for why he did it, but that does not excuse the actions. This
article seems altogether too wrapped up in finding *justification*
for his actions. He may indeed have been severely harrassed -
one does not kill 23 innocent people in response.]

>    I do think he planned the attack in his mind.  Could I be wrong
>     about that?  I do not think so because he managed to kill 23
>     people despite the fact that there were three plain clothes 
>     cops in the restaraunt to return fire.

There may have been three plain-clothes cops in the restaurant, but
they were not armed. There were no shots fired in the restaurant
save those the murderer shot by his own hand.

-- 
paul theodoropoulos                                         damiel@netcom.COM
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:39:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr9.062249.4254@rice.edu>, kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack) writes:
> In article <susan.702616935@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> > 	How likely are you to encounter such a "petty" criminal in the
> > US?  Whats the chance you will be robbed, raped, assaulted, murdered?
> 
> 	I've been robbed - it wasn't pleasant.  Anyway, I guess that 
>    makes me 100% likely.  Any more questions? 

Gee, I guess I have a perfect score, for a male who can still post about it.
-- 

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: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Constitutional Gun Banning
Date: 9 Apr 1992 16:13:52 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu
Keywords: HCI

In article <1992Apr9.033457.15727@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:

>>This is out of date: A federal court in Illinois has overturned the
>>National Friearms Act of 1934, on the grounds that Congress has no
>>power to regulate firearms sales, except as part of enforcing a tax. 
>>Since a 1986 law prevents further taxes from being collected, NFA 1934
>>is viod, as it enforces a non-existant tax.

>!!!Wait!!! Don't leave me hanging! What's the background of the case,
>opinion, implications. How about Title II, still valid? I hadn't heard
>about this one. 

Someone posted the full text of the ruling a few months ago. The case was
(I think) US v. Rock Island Arsenal, and was ruled on in 1990. It's 
certainly going to be appealed. The ruling cited the debates around the
National Firearms Act of 1934. The Congressmen cited were basically saying,
"We'd like to ban machinegun out right, but we don't have any legal authority
to do so. We can, however, put a prohibitive tax on them, and make lost of
restirctive registration laws to help enforce the tax." (Apparently, in 1934,
Congress was still concerned about the Constitutional limits on its powers...)
Since 1986, Congress has barred BAFT from collecting (some of?) the taxes
specified by NFA 1934. The federal district court for northern Illinois
has apparently ruled that, since the tax is no longer collected, there is
no legal or Constitutional justification for the registration laws (E.g.
they are justified only to collect a tax, and are no longer valid since the
tax is no longer collected.) 

IMPORTANT NOTE: A ruling from a district court is valid _only_ within that
court's district. This ruling applies _only_ to northern Illinois. If you
are arrested for owning an unregistered machine gun any where else, your
lawyer can cite the case as a precident, and the judge may concur, but
not automatically.

					      Frank Crary
					      UC Berkeley

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:38:47 GMT

In article <susan.703389203@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>>Well, let's see.  When you keep on about how guns should be unavailable in
>>society, it doesn't seem to be much of a reach to presume that you would
>>take them away from those of us who currently have them.  But, if that's
>>not your desire, what is?

>	Better regulation of guns.  Removal of guns from the home and getting

"Better" regulation than where?  New York City, or Washington, DC, where
private civilian handgun ownership is completely banned?  Sure has helped
in those cities...How much more can you "regulate" guns, than a total ban?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, they're importing them from the evil suburbs, where
"people can buy full-auto weapons over the counter".  I guess if we outlaw
them everywhere, that will do the trick, eh?  Just like it did with drugs?
If you honestly believe that further regulation of gun ownership is going
to affect anyone besides the law-abiding gunowners, you're even more naive
than I thought.


---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
From: jcocon@hubcap.clemson.edu (james c oconnor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Now it's what if car tyres catch fire! What next????
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:02:08 GMT
Organization: Clemson University

sybok@m4-035-13.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:

>In article <2045@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.010419.15361@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>> I have a spare in the boot. It is the law here. 
>>
>>Thank heavens someone in Oz had the foresight to make it mandatory for
>>you to carry one -- otherwise it would be forbidden, eh?

>I bet they have a law that makes it a crime to eat without washing one's
>hands. . . .  If daddy government didn't watch out for them, they'd all get
>into a lick of trouble!

I am surprised they don't force the government to take responsibility
for their highway safety - after all the department of highways (or
their equivalent) should really be worrying about this for them.
Imagine, all of that boot space wasted, all of that time being sure the
tire is inflated so it is usable when needed, all of the gas spent
lugging the dead weight around.  All for the "what if" of getting a flat
tire in the middle of no-where.  I know that maintaining my spare tire
almost drives me mad with worry (NOT!).

It is interesting to see a culture that actually succeeded in replacing
trust in God or trust in self with trust in government.  Individuals
don't have to think about their own fire protection - the government
does it.  They don't have to think about their own violence protection -
the government does it.  Apparently though, the government has mandated
that they do have one area of personal responsibility - their spare
tire, but it is mandatory - they don't even get a choice about that one
area.

I have always wondered what goes through the mind of a person trusting
in the government for their safety when it fails - "well, they won't get MY
vote in the next election! (Assuming they allow absentee voting from the
grave)"  I think it ultimately comes down to laziness and a desire to
avoid responsibility for ones actions and well being.  If the government
has to do it for them then they don't have to shoulder the
responsibility/blame when it fails, they never run the risk of having to
make a decision and have it go wrong - as they get bludgoned to death
with a piece of lead pipe, "It isn't MY fault!  Someone (anyone who
isn't me) should have stopped this!"

Jim
-- 
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Bomb control fails in Europe.
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:54:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.070824.6079@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
- >prohibition. If world-wide prohibition of bombs doesn't work, how will
- >nationwide prohibition of guns work?
- 
- From what you are saying, it follows that you believe that
- if something doesn't work, it should be given up on. Do you
- think that because we can't control some men raping women,
- we should legalise rape?

	I have no objection to rape being illegal, just as I have no 
   objection to murder, assault, libel and slander being illegal.  I 
   do, however, feel that disarming civilians as a method of reducing 
   murder is both immoral and ineffectual.  It is on par with banning 
   newspapers to prevent libel or castrating all males to prevent rape. 
                                             ^^^   

	Now, given that disarming civilians doesn't reduce crime and 
   infringes on the civil rights of those citizens, why do you so 
   adamantly support such disarmament?  Gun ownership is victimless. 
   Rape isn't.  If you can't see the difference ...  
	

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  My life makes perfect sense 
 kossack@rice.edu  |  Lust and food and violence  
  +1 713 270-9056  |                             --  Dire Straits    
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: NRA excludes Libertarian
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:50:07 GMT

In <2125.29E44022@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leroy Pyle) writes:

>-> From: cavasin@convex.com (Vince Cavasin)
>->
>-> This sort of policy is EXACTLY what keeps Joe Average American ignora
>-> the LP and its views.  And Joe Average American includes a hell of a lot
>-> owners who have never heard of the LP and would probably be quite
>-> enthusiastic about our cause if they were exposed to it.
>->
>Why do you think it is the NRA's responsibility to publicize the LP and
>its views? You think the policy stinks because NRA membership monies
>are not used to promote the LP? You blame the NRA and its policy for
>the LP's lack of exposure?

>You do a disservice with your agitation.
>         Leroy Pyle    (NRA BOD)

Mmmm, I think you're being unfair here.  Vince's complaint is not that the
NRA should be publicizing the LP, but that the NRA is engaged in irresponsible
reportage.  It's debatable, but (at the risk of putting words in Vince's
mouth) how about: "To report on the positions of only the two-party candidates
when significant alternatives exist in many races is as much a disservice
as Election News Service's rounding-up of the vote numbers to allow non-
reporting of alternative party results.  Libertarians are already a 
significant political force (take a look at Alaska) and could be more so
if they were more widely known."

Under the same logic, it's also arguable that the feature should also note 
that the American Nazi Party candidate is pro-control, the ACP candidate
is pro-control, etc.  However, based on the (presumed) orientation of the
membership, we may also say that it is in the interest of the membership
to learn about pro-rights candidates, and that omissions may be assumed to
be anti-.  This would imply that pro-rights candidates should be reported,
whether they're Republican, Libertarian, Vegetarian, or Hippopotamus.

Note that I didn't say *supported*, just reported.  After all (being 
intentionally offensive to make the point) is it the NRA's intention to 
*inform* their members, who are capable of making an educated decision,
or to lead sheep by the nose to conform to the board's agenda?


>3
>--  
>Leroy Pyle
>UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Leroy.Pyle
>INTERNET: Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
>"The views expressed above are those of Leroy Pyle only."
-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: using guns to stop rapes
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:56:31 GMT
Organization: Sarah Brady Fan Club

In article <1992Apr11.011709.9258@crash.cts.com> dbarber@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) writes:
>>This is not necessarily true. I believe, and perhaps some of the women here
>>on the net can give their input, the following: An woman who is concerned
>>enough about her safety to be armed is typically more aware of her surroundings,
>>and more likely to avoid high-risk situations. In short, I believe unarmed
>>women are not only more likely to have an attempted rape against them
>>completed, (We agree so far I assume, per your own stats) but she is
>>also more likely to have attempts against her. While not a woman myself,
>>I can relate to that personally. I own and carry a gun, and am concerned
>>with my own safety. As such, I avoid places known for high crime, etc,
>>and I find that, especially while carrying, I make an extra effort
>>to avoid any confrontations, certainly much more so than when I am
>>unarmed. I find this common among gunowners who carry.
>>
>Have you considered that the *most* likely reason that an armed woman may be
>raped less often than one who isn't might be that the armed woman does not
>walk or act like a victim, but rather someone who has the situation under
>control.  The signs may be subtle, but people do pick up on them.

Thats exactly the point I was trying to get across, but you did it 
in many less words than I. 

I hate it when I see some young college girl jogging at night, wearing a
walkman radio. She might as well wear a tee-shirt that says 'victim'. Whenever
I see someone like this if I'm driving home from work or whatever, I always want
to pull over and explain a little common sense to them. Oh well :( 
-- 
begin 644 .signature
M+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM+2TM
M+0I))VT@=&AE('9I8W1I;2!O9B!%2B=S('-I9VYA='5R92!V:7)U<R$@3V@@
$3F\A"FT@
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns