HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:28:14 GMT

>My concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases by minors,
>criminals, etc.  If a background check can be performed in, say, 20 minutes,
>then to me that is a long enough wait.  If the technology's there in terms
>of quick access to up-to-date data, great.

It's against federal law for MINORS to purchase firearms.  You must
be 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun, and 21 to purchase a handgun.  Even
in the MOST FREE state in the US--VERMONT--you still must have a valid state
driver's license to purchase firearms, and this contains your date of
birth.  A gun dealer knows how to spot phony ID's--he's seen lots of ID's
in his business--and he's not going to risk losing his license by selling
to minors with doctored ID's.

>I'm unaware it is now.  I figured in lieu of that, a 7-day wait is at least
>a _start_ at allowing enough time to check someone out.

You do realize that the Brady Bill is JUST a waiting period--THERE'S NO
BACKGROUND CHECK!  Do you now see what Sarah is up to?

>It's not gonna be
>a panacea for illegal gun purchases, no.  But again, it's a START - though
>I reiterate that the wait I mentioned is really for the purpose of a
>_background check_.

Every gun control proponent uses those words--"It's a START."  Gun owners
know what they mean--it's a START to more and more oppressive gun control
that only affects the law abiding.  It's another click for the RATCHET OF
GUN CONTROL.
>
>All those that argue a criminal can purchase a gun on the streets if he
>really wants one, I say (1) a thorough background check is _still_ going 
>to stop minors and impulse-criminals,

Minors are NOT going to buy legally from a store--see above.  Impulse
criminals?  Do you have any evidence that there are a significant number
of these so-called "impulse criminals"?  Remember that felons cannot purchase
firearms legally.

>and (2) maybe gun manufacturers
>oughta get more responsible and manufacture only the amount of guns that
>they know will be purchased legally.

This sentence seems quite silly to me.

>If you reply, "There's already
>millions of illegal or stolen guns out there", I say, "Just because we've
>allowed this to get so screwed up doesn't mean we lay back and accept it."

So you're with the Perot folk who say, "Let's get something done," without
worrying about how many amendments of the Bill of Rights will be sacrificed
to accomplish the goal?

 "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:204 alt.politics.elections:8833
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: wealth/income statistics
Date: 22 Jul 92 11:20:05 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <1992Jul21.184453.19350@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao):

>    I don't know the figures. But I do know America has the largest number of 
> billionares in the world, and the largest  number of people below poverty
> line. 

Is that a global absolute poverty line, or a per-nation one?

Also, let's distinguish "wealth" (capital) from "income".
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
>   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:11:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.064716.10878@leland.Stanford.EDU>, jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:
>
>Huh????  This makes no sense.  How can there be more people in the top 1%
>of the people?

Simple, there are more people (Americans) now.

>I mean, you take 200 people in 1977, the top 1% consists
>of 2 people.  In 1989 the top 1% of 200 people is still 2 people.  The pop-
>ulation grew a little, but not much, in that time.  I don't get it.

The population doesn't remain constant.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:09:11 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <veal.129@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
]     You misunderstand the intention.  The idea is *not* maximum protection
]of life for *all parties* involved.  The idea is to prevent *grave bodily
]harm* from coming to the victim.  To be perfectly honest, the individual
]initiating the violence must take his chances.
Don't forget bystanders. A properly loaded shotgun isn't going to kill
someone a block down the street.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:554 alt.politics.bush:171 alt.politics.elections:9047
From: djd33237@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Denny d'Alelio )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:19:01 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

athos@Apple.COM (Richard Eames) writes:

>It's all very simple, really.  If you are too stupid to register to vote by
>going to your local library and getting a card, then I don't want you voting.

>It's that simple.

Hmmm...Could it be that the people who don't vote, never go to the public
library?  And people blame the education "crisis" on Bush.

BTW, it is the responsibility of evry registered voter to at least persuade 
one non-voter to vote in his voting-lifetime.  If they don't know who to vote
for or like either candidate, tell them to a)pay attention to the news and
not the tractor-pull shows on ESPN or b)vote for a minor 3rd party.


Remember a vote for a loser is better than no vote at all.

-Denny d'Alelio
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose)
Subject: Re: Minimum wage: balancing job losses vs pay increases
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc, Cupertino CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:31:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.120629.20856@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
> 
> >crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> >>Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
> >>unemployment (state it your preferred way).
> 
> >That's one effect.  The other effect is to raise wage levels for those
> >who are working, which could (say) increase consumption and create new
> >jobs.  One sentence on the topic is not a useful analysis of the
> >situation.


Well, lets not gloss over the loss of entry level jobs & opportunity.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, hiking the minimum
wage to $5.05 an hour "could cause the loss of approximately 250,000
to 500,000 jobs ... especially among teen-agers" (quoted in the
San Jose Mercury News, May 5, 1988).  The Mercury article goes on to
say that "President Carter's Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded
in 1981 that each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage cuts
teen employment by 1 to 3 percent, as the least-skilledc workers are
priced out of entry level jobs.  By that analysis, hiking the
minimum wage to $5.05 would cost 325,000 to 975,000 teenage jobs".

And lets not assume that "most" Americans are forced into working
for minimum wage. "Only 3.4 percent of the American work force
now hold jobs that pay the minimum wage or less" (from Newsweek,
April 17, 1989).  "And of those 3.9 million person, some 80 percent
are second- or third- wage earners in statistically unpoor 
households."

Given that one of the main causes attributed to the LA riots is
pent-up frustration at lack of opportunity, and that starting at
a minimum wage job allows unskilled workers to begin to climb the
economic ladder, I wonder just how much effect pricing teenagers
out of the job market has in creating the type of frustration
that led to the riots. 
____________________________________________________________________
Ken Rose    (kenr@storage.tandem.com)
The Usual Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, not
those of my employer (who is kind enough to allow me Usenet access).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>[]
>Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
>its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
>operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
>manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
>
>Thanks, George.
>--
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

Also, General Motors is reportedly planning to open a factory in
Spain, one of the cheapest European labor markets.  It's not
necessarily Bush's fault entirely, but it couldn't hurt
to continue to blame him.  Hey, it makes more sense than talking
about less relevant issues!

-Mark
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:25:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.164106.29920@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen) writes:
>>And you get more dead wives.  Even the gun controllers acknowledge
>>that strict gun control, if it would affect dosmestic violence at
>>all, would reduce the number of murderous husbands being justifiably
>>killed at the expense of greater wife fatalities.
>
>The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is most likely used 
>against the occupants by an intruder.  The usage of a family member 

You've already gotten this argument torpedoed by others, so I'll
skip this one. 

>against another in defence is quite low.  And, I doubt that the gun
>controllers acknowledge what you say they acknowledge.

I don't have the exact reference handy, but that was taken from
a chapter by Philip Cook in _The Gun Control Debate: You Decide_.
The Cook chapter specifically acknowledges that a "succesful"
weapons restriction would move homicides away from those who
could defend themselves against most hand-to-hand combat (read: MEN)
to those who need firearms for defense against these types
(read: WOMEN).  Cook's argument is that the overall homicide rate
following a weapons restriction should drop, but that the corpse
count will be redistributed from perpetrating men to victim
women.  If you insist on followup, I will give you the exact
quote and reference (the chapter is taken from another publication -
the book is basically a collection of reprints).  Cook is, by
all accounts, a gungrabber.

Drew
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:23:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.125643.20077@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>I'm not really a Libretarian (yet anyway :-), but I feel I must point
>out that George Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court aren't
>necessarily pro-RKBA or pro personal rights at all. Look at the

Bush is far from ideal when it comes to gun rights, but Clinton and
the democrats (Ted "Uzi packing bodyguards" Kennedy) are much, much worse.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:25:12 GMT

In article <1496@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>Once again, and for the last time ever:  my original post was an
>attempt to come up with a more plausible scenario than this one for
>a domestic violence case.
>
>Original scenario:
>
>Your sister marries an abusive man, who gets thrown in jail, is paroled,
>and comes back after her.  She is prevented from obtaining a gun by
>some mandatory waiting period.
>
>My objection:
>
>This scenario is silly.  Your sister would buy the gun (if she chose)
>before they release the abusive man.

And if she didn't, she deserves what happens?

>My counterscenario:
>
>Your sister marries an abusive man, who gets arrested for the offense
>but makes bail, goes out and buys a shotgun, and shoots her then
>himself.
>
>My point:
>
>The easy availability of a gun in this scenario is more likely to end
>up with somebody (the woman in this case) being dead.  I would also
>submit that mere *possession* of the gun would not make the woman any
>safer.  You have to have the skill and the will to use it. (See
>below.)

But he could kill her easily with his bare hands, as well.  The gun is
only a crucial part of the scenario if the woman gets one.

>Which is my point.  This is great, but it is *clearly* dissociable from
>other NRA political activities, which I find extremely objectionable.
>Can you really defend all of the positions they have taken on gun-related
>issues?  Many of them are totally reprehensible, in my opinion.

Maybe you should educate yourself about laws the NRA fights, before you
condemn them.

For instance, the "teflon bullet" controversy.  NTA-bashers claim that
the NRA opposed legislation that would outlaw cop-killing teflon bullets.
The truth is that the original law would have also outlawd most hunting
ammunition; the NRA simply fought to refocus the law to affect only
armor-piercing handgun rounds.

This is one reason why I've written to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting
to get their take on the issue; they seem to be generally unbiased and
it's clear that there's a media smear campaign going on here.

   don
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 19:57:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.184519.14982@tamsun.tamu.edu>, fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul21.174022.23688@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, harlan@sulu.lerc.nasa.gov (Harlan Harris) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Jul21.095705.21029@imag.fr> turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk) writes:
|> |> >In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
|> |> >>[...]
|> |> >>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
|> |> >
|> |> >Can you back this figure up with a reference?  Sounds like folklore to
|> |> >me.
|> |> >
|> |> >	Matthew Turk
|> |> 
|> |> The figure I've heard, that I believe Boyan is misquoting, is that the top
|> |> 1% of the nation has more wealth than the lower 90% of the nation. I'd be
|> |> happy to get you a reference tomorrow. It's still an impressive statistic,
|> |> and one that needs to change, in my opinion.
|> |> Note the difference, however. 90% owns (I'd guess, but will look up) 40%
|> |> of the wealth. 1% owns 45%. The 9% between most-people and rich-people
|> |> might then own 15%. As I said, I'll come back with real numbers tomorrow,
|> |> if someone asks.
|> |> 
|> |>  -Harlan Harris
|> |> 
|> |> Clinton/Gore '92! Clinton/Gore '96! Repeal the ammendment! Clinton/Gore '00!
|> 
|> 
|> If the numbers are right, I have two questions for you.
|> 
|> 1) So what?  This is still America and anyone can tap into the wealth of the nation
|> 	by hard work and luck.
|> 2) How would you redistribute? We are already taking 15 to 38% of everyones income
|> 	via national income tax and close to 50% if you add state and local taxes.
|> 	Do you really expect that people will continue to produce if more that half
|> 	of their wealth is confiscated by the government?

Here's a couple documented relevant statistics.

Tax Freedom Day (starting January 1, the days needed to work just to pay
federal, state and local taxes)
	1977:  April 30, 1977				1992:  May 5, 1992

Top income tax rate (federal)
	1977:  70 percent					1992:  31 precent

Proportion of federal income taxes paid by wealthiest 1 percent
	1977:  13.6 percent					1989:  15.4 percent

Proportion of federal income taxes paid by poorest 40 percent
	1977:  9.2 percent of taxes			1989:  7.9 percent of taxes

Source:  Policy Review, Number 61, Summer 1992, pp 86-88.

Note that, although the tax rate on the wealthy is much lower than in 1977,
they still pay the same percentage of tax--amazing how that works, isn't it?

There are many more fun figures--I'll post more if there is interest.
-- 
| James W. Brown                | Grad school is like drugs--   |
| Chemistry Grad Student        | it's for those who can't      |
|                               | handle the real world.        |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 14:44:23 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul23.030642.2775@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>My question of the "pro-choice" crowd... what makes you think that the
>Supreme Court COULD take away your choice? I keep hearing that you folks are
>in the majority. If so, you don't need the supreme court to protect you -
>use the legislatures... so, which is it... is this a bogus issue, or are
>you afraid that the majority of the people really don't agree with you?
>
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu

There are two point which must be made here.

First: There have been many times in the history of the world in which
a minority has taken away the rights of a majority.  (For example, pretty
much every oligarchy.)  It is very possible that a minority in the court,
or in the presidency (look at how Bush-Quayle's competetiveness council
has refused to enfore Congress' laws -- no flames on this please, I only
use this to point out how the president can bypass the legislature) can 
take away rights.

Second: For the sake of argument, let us assume that the "pro-choice"
position is correct and a woman has a right to a safe abortion.  (Please
no flames on this, I am using it to prove a point.)  
Then whether or not the '"pro-choice" crowd' is in the majority is
an unimportant issue.  If it is a right then the majority may NOT take
away the right.  This is the point of the American constitution.  The 
rights of all people (even minorities) MUST be protected.  

david redish

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:174 alt.politics.elections:8786
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:06:01 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Jul21.095705.21029@imag.fr> turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>[...]
>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
>
>Can you back this figure up with a reference?  Sounds like folklore to
>me.
>
>       Matthew Turk


The figure I've heard is that 85% of the wealth is held by 5% of people.

These sorts of figures are well known to banks and insurance companies.

Ring one up and find out for yourself.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women,talk.politics.guns
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.135217.966@dragon.com> cts@dragon.com writes:
>
>That might be true if he wasn't so clearly trying to dodge around and 
>lie about it.  If he's not true to his wedding vows, why should I
>expect him to uphold his oath of office.

This is the biggest bullshit bogus issue I've ever heard of.  I'd like
to ask all the people who are thinking this way to consider a simple
question.  Have you ever violated ANY law, even by exceeding the speed
limit by 1 MPH?  Yes?  Well, then how can we know that you won't go
out and rape some six year old and then kill her?  After all, if you'd
violate one law you'd violate others, right?  

Silly, of course, but this is the sort of reasoning that people who
engage in the 'if he'd cheat on his wife you can't trust him for
anything else' sort of argument are using.  Wake up, folks.
Personally, I don't see why who he sleeps with makes any difference,
and if his wife doesn't have a problem with it (and she apparently
doesn't), then why the hell do you folks care?

>
>Yes, and for what nobel cause - because he wanted to maintain his
>ability to run for office.  What high standards.  What sublime feelings.

Still and all, better than what George Bush's fair haired boy Danny
did, wouldn't you say?  Once again, some rather odd reasoning.  If a
man like Senator Kerry, who served as a Navy SEAL (folks who know what
that is will know why I mention it) and won the Medal of Honor says
that Clinton's war record (or lack thereof) shouldn't be an issue, who
do all these folks who keep raising it think they are?

>
>Keep in mind that it's the democratic party that has stalled educational
>reforms, such as school choice 

Since what most people seem to mean by 'school choice' is that they
want to use tax dollars to send their kid to some fundamentalist
religious academy, then I guess you can put me down as being against
it, too.  What George Bush has proprosed with his $1,000 vouchers is a
JOKE, and would be certain to lead to an even wider gulf between the
poor people trapped in the inner-city public school system and the
rest of us who can afford to send our kids somewhere else, especially
if we can get a $1,000 subsidy to do it.



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns