HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Rubbish!
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:16:23 GMT

In article <Qf_eE=y00iV1A4SdZu@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Rikiya Asano <ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> Mr. Hays writes:
> 
> >Every other paragraph of Rikiya-san's postings makes a distinction
> based on >race
> >- he may not be screaming "kill the lesser races", but he's certainly a
> >racist, and not a particularly subtle one.]
> 
> Yes, I stand by all that you put down that I said. And, I would take
> anything back! These things are not racist. But, observations! Whether
> true or not, depends on time. I'm a little disappointed in two  of the
> things that you presented on my account: 

He posted far more than two accounts.

> (2)
> >"Japanese should be protecting them[sic] themselves from you."
> 
> This was a personally directed!
> 
> Oh! I see that you meant to put my statemnet "out of Context" well only
> two were grossly out of context.

He stated that these were posted without context.  It's bad enough
that we have to read your ravings in full text once, but to impose
it twice would be inhuman.  ;-)

> You should think about taking one's statement out of
> context. It's like lying! Where are you morals!

Kirk presented no lies.  All that was re-posted was from you previous
mailings.  It adequately presented the evidence of your racism.

> Now, usually, I would be
> highly insulted and looking for "blood" but I'm so use to this news
> group doing this that I have grown insensative.

I don't know if you should be insulted, but you are very insulting
and rude.

I'm not sure if your name really is "Rikiya Asano", nor if you are
from Japan.  If not, stop insulting the Japanese people with your
childish tirade.

If you are from Japan, then you know what your duty is; You are an
embarrasment to yourself, your family, and your country.  If necessary,
there are several people on the network that are skilled with a Katana,
and can assist you in seppuku.  Try posting a request on rec.martial-arts
for an assistant.

> Prejury! Ya know, prejury is a crime!

Perjury is the act of lying while under oath (as in court).

> And, it is punishable by civil suit too.

This is called "libel", but requires that the person has actually
presented false information about you.  Since all the information in
question actually came from your postings, you *will* lose.

> I'm positive that there is some other form of my
> rights(you know that the federal government protect my civil rights
> also) have you have eigther slandered, abused and/or denied me thereof.

Afraid not, Rikiya.  Present one point where you were denied your civil
Rights.  It's not slander if *you* actually said it, and there are no
laws against pointing out the erroneous biases of your statements.

-- 
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
From: yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:10:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


>No, I'm not a policeman, don't even know any. I know there's been people
>mistreated by police, but I've been mistreated by many people, in many walks
>of life, I don't have to brand them all as 'bad'.

One important point.  If I mistreat you, I do so as your equal.  The police
have been given powers over you.  When he mistreats you, he does so from a 
position of power.  With power comes responsibility.  It is reasonable to 
hold a policeman to a higher standard of conduct.

We hold commercial airplane pilots to a higher standard of alcohol ingestion
for the same reason.

-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: registered gun confiscation examples wanted
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:56:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <urbin.138.724087631@interlan.interlan.com>, urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:
|>    A New York City Police spokesperson said that the NYCPD would be running
|> `spot checks' on those who claimed the weapons were removed from NYC.  I 
|> wonder if the Police will feel a warrent is required enter and search those 
|> homes.  My bet is that they will claim that a possiblity of an illegal 
|> firearm provides enough `probable cause' to pull a warrentless search.

I'm not gonna take that bet, BTW. After the confiscation the ONLY method
left against crime is a PRO-ACTIVE police force. I'm sure you can think
of some organizations in other countries which go out and seriously
search for people who MAY, IN THE FUTURE, commit a crime. 

Do you know what to call someone who doesn't have the ability to break
the law?

CADAVER

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: jjas@acs.nntp-read.bu.edu (Jason Stephenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Date: 18 Dec 92 05:09:47 GMT
Organization: Boston University Information Technology Boston, MA USA
In-reply-to: merritt@macro.bu.edu's message of 17 Dec 92 18:11:34 GMT

I will, if I can get some nuclear land mines in the bargain.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:07:36 GMT

OK Ladies and Gentlemen. The origin of the term SNS meant those
small guns used by the uppity niggers (no offense it is not my term).
It has now been redefined (just like assault rifle/weapon) by the
left so that they can vilify them without betraying their racist
roots. So now SNS means small and inexpensive. They also hope that
you will equate inexpensive with cheap and cheap with dangerous.

So can we give it a rest? No. Oh well I tried. ;-)

				mike
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Date: 9 Dec 92 09:23:43 GMT
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Leave the $#%%$#M By-Laws Alone.

As Earl says:


> Now, ask yourself what the REAL problem is!

> It's pretty amazing when you watch these shows, since they give the
> disposition afterwards.  Typically the violent criminals get
sentenced
> to less time, and serve less time, than the straight non-violent
> drug dealers. "Joe Blow shot 12 people, and served 3 months in
> sunnyside resort. He is now on parole", "Fred Blow imported 30kg
> of coke, and is now serving 20-30 years at Statesville".

Consider it from the courts point of view..the career criminal
is repeat business, what good are individuals who only commit
one crime. They dont raise any revenue, dont pay any lawyers
or court costs, now the repeat offender..hey he's a meal ticket.
They know he'll be back through the court system, we just have
to let him out on the street. Now the drug guy they have made
their 30 pieces of silver on when they seized everything he 
owned. You think the court system in this country is not a
business, hell, The good old US GOVT is the biggest business
in the world now and growing at a rate that would make any
corporation green with envy.

-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Kids and Guns
Date: 18 Dec 1992 07:44:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) says:

>I was just listening to the news and the newsbabe said that a kid
>gets killed by a gun every 3 hours.  I presume that she means in the
>US, since the info came from a US gungrabber group.

>That's 2,920 kids per year.  Anybody got any stats on this?  I don't
>believe it.

That works out right if you count all kids under 60 years old.

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25142 soc.culture.japan:12262
From: ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rikiya Asano)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Rubbish!
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:09:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.of_fSLK00iV1I4SVYJ
	<Bz2o4H.A0@newsserver.technet.sg>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


 Mr. Ipser writes:


> 
>Indeed, even the harshest critic of the American institution of slavery must
>admit that American blacks, the descendants of those slaves, are far better
>off than their African counterparts. It would be no small stretch to say
>that slavery did blacks a service but certainly it turned out that way.

Get the f*ck out out of here! You must be crazy! This is how Most White
Americans think that slavery did something for something "positive" for
the Black American. "Look where we brought you from", People like you
will say. You Di*k! How dare you insult my friends like that! "Slavery
did Balck A service", You said. You brown stain! Baster! Ignorant,
low-life! Shithead! I owned dogs that have better morals that you
asswipe! I wished that yopu were in front of me now. I'd learn you how
to respect!
From: romigr@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Price Hike
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:02:05 EST

The anti gun climate is driving the price up on the semi-auto's
AR-15 was $650 now $875 and up. Mini 14 up $150.

If they are banned outwright, what will the black market pay?
[tax exempt of cource].

			RDR/NRA/ILA/USMC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:16:58 GMT

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

>Probably so.  I agree if the US gov't was more along the lines of
>what the framers had in mind it would be freer, but the constitution
>doesn't constrain the gov't enough and Uncle Sam takes advantage of
>every possible lopehole.  I don't see a way around that.  And I don't
>know a way of forcing the gov't to obey the constitution or it's own
>laws.  If someone has any good ideas on this I'd like to hear them.

	My plan is to make enough to retire first and run for Congress.
If I ever happen to soil my good name, I won't wait for the money but
strike when the free press and publicity is hot.  I've nothing to lose,
that way, and frankly I don't see how I could do a worse job if I
stayed here in my den and read news instead of going to D.C.

	High on my list of plans is to flaunt and generally make like
a true asshole and take advantage of every perk a Congressman can get
away with, and having gotten away with it call a press conference to
explain how unfair the law is and promote my new bill to make these
same privlidges available to the public as they should be. CCW in 
Washington D.C., perhaps in the halls of Congress itself, let alone
the sound bites!  "With all due respect to the honorable Senator
Snort's opinions on the matter, anybody who believes such tripe
is obviously a festering fuckstain, which means a rotting mass of
ejaculate that only shows the best part of his genetic material was
strained through a sheet.  I move the bill be tabled, if not inserted
sideways into his rectal orifice."

	I think I'd be impeached.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice/pro-gun stuff
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 06:13:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.235905.27131@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C) writes:
[...]
>Why can't we in the pro-gun crowd learn from the legal tricks used by
>the pro-choice crowd?
[...]
>When the Govnr of Penn signed into law a bill that required parental
>notification before a minor could have an abortion, the pro-choice
>group took less than 10 month's to get that bill trotted up to the
>Supreme Court (where I believe it was upheld).
[...]
>The point is, why doesn't some enterprising ACLU champion of Justice
>start a similar process for a resident of Chicago or New York who
>has been arrested for the unconcionable act of carrying a pistol?
>If, as I suspect, it is because the ACLU thinks of the 2'nd 
>as a mistake, why doesn't the NRA finance some high-powered lawyers
>to represent citizens convicted of "illegal" possesion of 
>firearms? Do they fear that the current Supreme Court would actually
>uphold gun bans? I sincerely hope not.

Could be.  The courts can have the wrong attitude as easily as the
legislatures can.

In fact, during the Bush administration, the ACLU and other similarly
aligned groups have been less than satisfied by the decisions of the
courts.  They attribute this to the judicial appointments of Reagan
and Bush.  Consequently, they have been redirecting their efforts away
from the courts and toward the legislative branch, where they feel
they can be more effective.

Pro-gun groups, however, seem to have concentrated on the legislatures
all along, perhaps assuming that the courts would treat them poorly.
Perhaps they were right.

While 12 years of Reagan/Bush may have stacked the court against the
ACLU, it is possible that they have stacked the court in favor of the
right to bear arms.

Somehow, I doubt it.  I have the sick feeling that many of the
Reagan/Bush judges are statists who prefer the government over the
individual in all areas.

I hope I'm wrong.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
 
"The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to
 'keep and bear arms'.  If it had, there would have been wording such as
 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
-- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Crime prevention by citizens
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 19:12:46 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <1godblINNlrl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
[ ... ]
>but I sure could use some verifiable accounts of recent instances, as
>a couple of anti-gun nuts on my local BBS have taken to posting reports
>of every firearm homicide they can dig up, and I would like to respond

There's a whole page of them every month in your copy of American Rifleman.
Oh, you're not an NRA member ...?

        "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"
                            -- Eldridge Cleaver
800/368-5714
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Rep. Schumer letter regarding FFL's
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:44:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.211206.19106@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>
>>As far as I can tell, local law enforcement would have complete
>>discretion on whether or not to sign the FFL application.
>
>  This is obviously the case, as demonstrated by our attempt at getting
>  Class III signitures here in Lexington Kentucky (where our Cheif of Police
>  and Mayor know more than our Founding Fathers).
>  Did you ever get that letter from Wayne Miller added to the archives Larry?

No not yet, I've been carrying it in my briefcase for the past week
though ...  I'll add it in the next few days.  Sorry for the delay.

>  In this letter, the head of the BATF NFA branch comes right out and says so.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:00:23 GMT
Organization: :noitazinagrO Organization: :noitazinagrO ...


  >...
  >The pigs have spent the last 30 years making the bed they have to lie
  >in now.  They started thumping the heads of the hippies in the 60s,
  >the anit-war protesters of the early 70s, became the state's agents
  >of theft in the mid 70s under the guise of enforcing the national 
  >speed limit and have waged the Drug War against the Constitution
  >for the last 10-15 years or so.  They now get exactly what they
  >deserve - zero respect and an occasional bullet.
  >...

The problem is this: cops start dropping because of the "occasional bullet"
from the citizens, then citizens start dropping because of the occasional
bullet from the cops.  Want to guess where this will lead to?  Do you think
the cops (read: GOVERNMENT) will just sit around and complain?  You can expect
the police to be granted even more authority (and laws to back it up), then
the abuse will really start.  It's so simple.  Why can't people see this?

If I were a cop and knew citizens would pull their guns for any old reason,
I would have mine out and be ready to shoot if I saw *anything* I didn't
like.  Like what we have today :-)

The solution is to get the congresspeople, politicans and the other rulers of
our society to fight these battles for us.  That's their job.  If each
citizen trys to "correct the system" on their own -- it will never change.
In a country of 250 million people, I'm sorry to say that you can't do
it alone anymore.  We have to work together and use the tools for the
90's: Faxes, Phones, Computers and Letters.

Use the gun for target shooting, hunting and self-defense.  Don't even
*think* about using it to correct society's problems.  You just give ammo
to the anti-gun groups!  I would like to keep my gun, thank-you.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: GUN CONTROL WEANIES
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:28:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.182842.23780@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>I must just say I am amazed by how uneducated and illogical the arguements  
>for gun control are.  But then again it would be hard to argue for if you  
>had to use reasoning and hard facts

       Oh, this is going to help.  Good job.  Maybe if we insult them enough 
they'll *never* listen to what we have to say.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:27:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.000100.22277@cs.mun.ca>, robin2@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Robin Collier) writes:

|> Boy, you really seem to think its everyones[sic] God given right to bear arms

After a lifetime of careful reasoning, I've come to the conclusion that any
organism that can't defend itself is best described as ... "prey."

"Bearing arms" is a human's best bet for not achieving the status of "prey."

|> Thats Right!  The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is the only police
|> force in North America that doesn't carry arms.

Oh, another made up "fact."  Many, if not most, of the college police forces here
in the U.S.A. are unarmed by default.

|> Robin Collier
|> robin2@garfield.cs.mun.ca

Another ignorant anti-gunner speaks out, in an act of personal courage.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Dec8.202958.4957@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Dec15025409@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec14.211033.16861@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:12:21 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:10:33 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:

> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>> (Andy Freeman) said:
>>> That's an interesting leap by Lambert.  A dictionary has a definition
>>> so he assumes that "everyone" uses it that way.  The dictionary's
>>> definition is wrong BECAUSE usage does define meaning and the usage is
>>> "guns owned by niggers".
>>
>>Everyone I have seen has used the Random House definition.

> Then Lambert is unfamiliar with the gun control debate and the
> usage of SNS in that debate.

Lets see:

1. Andy Freeman: guns owned by niggers
2. Random House: a cheap, small caliber handgun that is easily obtainable
3. Webster's: small, cheap, short-barreled handgun that is readily available
4. Wright and Rossi: small cheap low-quality handgun (defined in "The
Armed Criminal in America")
5. Kleck: cheap small-caliber handgun (defined in Law and
Contemporary Problems v49 p50)
6. Cook: cheap small handgun (defined in "Crime and Justice v14 p21)

Which definition is the odd one out?  If you want me to take you
seriously then PROVIDE A QUOTE FROM SOMEONE USING THE WORD WITH YOUR
DEFINITION.  How many times do I have to ask?

> Random House's SNS definition is like defining "nigger" as "poor black
> person".  A few people use it that way, a lot of people will try to
> claim that they're using it that way, but they're not.

Oh I see, Random House, Webster's, Wright, Rossi, Kleck and Cook all
really mean "guns owned by niggers" but are unwilling to admit it.
Please present some evidence for this remarkable claim.

>>>  Guns for "niggers" are no more available than guns for anyone else.
>>
>>Again, irrelevant.  The Random House definition says nothing about
>>"niggers".

> Sure it does.  That's what the term SNS is all about.

Oh I get it.  The Random House definition (a cheap, small caliber
handgun that is easily obtainable) "doesn't make sense" because they
REALLY mean "guns owned by niggers" and "Guns for "niggers" are no
more available than guns for anyone else".  I'm glad you cleared that
up for us.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns