HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:55:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <2213@transfer.stratus.com> by cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares):

> < >That's EXACTLY what she's saying.  She's already explicitly said that gays and
> < >minorities should "pity" skinheads trying to kill them rather than resist. It's
> < >obviously her point of view that one's mere existence can be a provocation. It
> < >is that sort of assumption which underlies the holocaust and a dozen other
> < >egregious acts of wanton slaughter....
>  
> < 	Did Susan explicitly state that "minorities should "pity" skinheads
> < trying to kill them rather than resist" Christopher or are you assuming 
> < something which she never said?
>  
> < 	I think its the later.  As far as I can tell, Susan has never 
> < suggested that.  What she has suggested is that indeed, people who do
> < attack others because of some imagined prejudice should be pitied, _not_
> < that they shouldn't be resisted.
>  
> < 	If you can't provide a direct quote, as someone has suggested to
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> < Dave upon occassion, "put up or shut up" Christopher.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> In article <susan.702167234@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> < cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> < >2) If somebody just wants to beat you up, "not getting into a fight" is kind
> < >of moot advice.  Or do you think that homosexuals and minorities who are 
> < >attacked somehow bring it on themselves?  Is a homosexual unnecessarily
> < >provoking his assailant by BEING homosexual?  Am I inciting violence by being
> < >Black?  Should I stop being Black to avoid violence...?
> 
> < 	Stop bring in unnecessary complications Chris.  We are talking about
> < a brawl, you know a "fight" where it takes two or more people to tango?
> < Even so, in most of the cases you cite, the person who is being picked on
> < usually has, at a very early stage of the altercation a chance to walk away.
> < Such bigots should be pitied and ignored, not physically fought against.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> < All that will do will inflame the situation even worse.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 'zat clear enough for you, cobber?

Kamsahamnida ojissi!  I posted the same quote a few hours ago.  You know what
they say, "There's no liar like a BAD liar".... :)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:52:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32207
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <susan.702533007@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>	Really?  Gee, then Australia must be really unique then?   
>In Australia, our two largest natural disasters (Cyclone Tracy in 1974, 
>where the entire city of Darwin was destroyed and the earthquake in 
>Newcastle which destroyed the centre of the city in 1989) there was not 
>one reported case of looting.  The troops were not called out to protect 
>life or property, they were not needed.  Perhaps I do live in utopia after 
>all?
>
If the entire city of Darwin was destroyed by this cyclone, there would
hardly have been much to loot, would there? Besides, I seem to recall
reading something about the city being _evacuated_ pre-storm, in which case
there also would have been no one around to do any looting. Of course, I
could be wrong (after all, I was merely four years old in 1974, so this
really isn't first-hand knowledge. You have my curiosity piqued, though, so
I plan to go to the library and search for contemporary accounts.).

As for the earthquake in Newcastle, again I don't see where there would
have been much opportunity for looting. Santa Cruz was also badly hit by an
earthquake in 1989, and there was no looting reported. The local National
Guard _was_ called out, but only to assist in cleanup and rescue efforts.

>>How do YOU tell a "petty criminal" from a "professional" - no, wait - let me
>>guess - the professional is the one who stabs or shoots you when you try
>>to reason with him, right?
>
>	No, the professional is the one who doesn't care about the 
>consequences of their actions, whilst the petty criminals are not yet so
>hardened by the society around them that they place so little value on
>human life as they appear to so much in America.

What an interesting definition. The prevailing definition of "professional"
criminals in the USA seems to be those that go for crime on a grand scale,
such as extortion, skimming of union pension funds, smuggling drugs by the
ton, etc. "Petty" criminals, on the other hand, are your average garden-
variety mugger, robber, rapist etc. Therefore, "petty" criminals are the
ones you're most likely to meet up with in everyday life, which is why you
should be able to have at least one gun handy to defend yourself.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:58:18 GMT
Organization: UEA, Norwich, UK

In <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
>to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
>firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.

No?  Do you outlaw private ownership of smoke detectors and fire
extinguishers?  You may not demand it of every citizen, but - I hope -
you do not forbid it either.  An excellent analogy to private firearms
ownership, "don't you think?"

--
Richard Kennaway          SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk		uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 3 Apr 92 23:37:36 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1827@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.075715.7017@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>> I don't think non-violence works *all* the time. I am
>> saying it *can* work in some situations and should be
>> considered as one alternative. I was also threatened
>> by an ex-friend with a chain saw and non-violence worked then ,too!
>
>Great!
>
>Now, how about some postings from people who were threatened by
>chain saws and for whom non-violence DIDN'T work.  Speak up!
>
If you read a previous posting of mine, you would
have read that I *have* been threatetened by someone weilding
a chain-saw! And non-violence worked for me in that case
too!

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Hypothetical - 3
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:02:35 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University


    Should a pre-emptive strike take place upon these  states united, by
    their own federal government; (domestic enemy) which naturally would
    void all claims of leadership by that government, are these states
    secure enough in their individuality to oppose conquest,
    and retain their autonomy ?

    Are the regular and inactive militia trained to recognize this pos-
    sibility a priori, and make preparations ?

    Please reference legal cases having to do with this political sit-
    uation.  Please limit to the USA.

    If this question seems more than just hypothetical, and you have
    answers that demand autonomy, please send your information to
    the appropriate publication/authority.   Route appropriately.

    Otherwise, what do you think ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-19.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Bomb control fails in Europe.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:48:48 GMT

>   murder is both immoral and ineffectual.  It is on par with banning 
>   newspapers to prevent libel or castrating all males to prevent rape. 
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*This* is what man-hater Susan *really* wants.  She wants to cut down the
number of tallywackers "out there."  Her man-hate comes in the form of
a desire to crush all forms of masculine entertainment and diversion.  If
some women are disadvantaged by this, "too bad," Susan says, "Got them
men good!" 


  Q: "How do you say goodbye to a prowler?"
  A: Kla-chunk!  (The sound of the pump action on a Mossberg 12-gauge
                  chambering a slug cartridge.)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Australian Criminology
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:59:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Saw the below on rec.humor.funny today.  Note the poster!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.  On the way he fell
among thieves, who took all his goods, beat him savagely and left him
dying by the wayside.

As it happend on that same day two social workers passed that way, and
looking upon him were filled with pity and concern.  Whereupon one
turned to the other and said

	"The person who did this needs our help!"


Bill Venables, Dept. of Statistics,  
Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia. 
-- 

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: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:26:32 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.220728.19382@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>> 
>> Henry, I am astounded! I thought you would have some understanding of 
>> this case. Rushdie is under a death sentence. There is a price on his
>> head. He is in known danger because some people find a novel he wrote,
>> offensive. He is in a different category that the rest of us.
>> If you can't see this, I pity you.
>
>So he has a greater right to life than somebody else ONLY because he pissed off
>the Ayatollah Khomeini?  Mind you, there's nothing WRONG with pissing off

Now who said that? Nobody. Again you are making things up because
you know you have not a leg to stand on.

>Iranian fundamentalists, but you don't make a case that that gives you a       
>greater claim on protection than someone who merely calls the police to report
>a drug house next door.  Obviously, you don't have a clue here.

I think that someone calling the police to
report a drug house next door, has less to fear than Rushdie in his present
position. The UK police also think this. You don't...but
you think a lot of weird things, don't you Christopher.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ross Perrot *for* gun control
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:04:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: gte

In article <52478@mimsy.umd.edu>, andy@sail.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) writes:
# In article <52371@mimsy.umd.edu> you write:
# #This is an add-on note to the previous post about politicians' views
# #on gun control.  Just heard on the radio that Ross Perrot is *for* 
# #gun control. 
# 
# The NRA is *for* gun control, so that particular disclosure is
# meaningless.  Precisely what kind of gun control does Perot favor?
# (I've seen him leap away from opportunities to say "I support the
# Brady Bill", but he didn't offer any details.  I basically have no
# idea what he does support.)
# 
I called the H. Ross Perot for President hotline [(800)685-7777] and
asked specifically for info on Perot's views on gun control.

What I got was something like "Well, sir, Mr. Perot has not established
an official platform.  Right now we're trying to get him on the ballot 
so you can hear his platform and *have*an*additional*choice* in the 
election."  (emphasis theirs)

To which I responded, "Yeah, but I want to know where this guy stands
before I sign a petition."

He said he'd mail me some info.  I post again if I find sufficient info
to warrant posting.

Suddenly, I'm interested in reading more about the rise of the Third
Reich (sp?).


-- 
It's a wonderful feeling when you voted for the winner, but the time to vote for
the guy who "could win" is past: vote your conscience - Marrou/Lord in 92!
Andrew Ford INTERNET: gtephx!forda@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
            UUCP: !uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax!gtephx!forda
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:40:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <susan.702616434@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> >>	Yep, rather proves my point now doesn't it?  Another of the boys
> >>who likes to talk tough.......
>
> 	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
> brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?
> 
> 	No, it was just some more whimperings from a little tough boy who
> likes his cap guns.
> 
> 	Oh!  I am so hurt, I really am.  Is this the best you can do?
> 
> 	Could it be that you don't like assertive wymmin little boy?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!  This is too, too rare.  Hey, "Susan," why don't you draw
a line in the dirt, dare him to knock a chip off your shoulder, tell him he
he was adopted, and that his mother wears army boots?  Then tell the rest of
us all what it's REALLY like to "like brawling for a living."

You're not assertive -- just offensive.  Welcome to my kill file, wumun.
-- 

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: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:22:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.204124.26228@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>Under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control
>Act of 1990, HR 3757, signed by Bush on Jan 29,1991 and unopposed by
>the ILA), it "shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor", punishable by 5
>years and/or $5k*, for non-licensees to possess a gun within 1000 ft
>of a school.  Unloaded guns in locked containers or in locked racks
>are okay, but none of those non-locking long gun cases qualify.  It
>will be expensive to figure out whether or not a locked trunk
>qualifies.

Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  What *is* this shit?

People live within 1000 feet of schools!  Does this mean they can
no longer keep a revolver on their nightstand?

Where was the NRA?

Where does the federal government get off telling local schools and states
how to conduct business not relating to commerce?  At least the 1968 GCA
was grounded in some way to commerce.  This is BULLSHIT!

What is a non-licensee?

And by the way, George, "fuck you," and thanks for screwing us.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:55:51 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>>would kill for a penny;
  ^^^^^^^^^^


>Said person doesn't seem to exist outside Bowman's head.

>I'll repeat the relevant put up or shut up.  I'll mail Bowman a check
>for AU$5 if he'll first send the penny (or even whatever sum Bowman
>finds appropriate) to that person and get evidence showing that s\he
>actually killed someone for that sum.

>Surely if the penny killer actually exists, Bowman can demonstrate
>that "fact"....
	
	Don't you think its time you learnt to read?  Dave was discussing
some who "said he WOULD KILL", not someone who, "said he HAS KILLED".  Learn
to recognise the past and the future tense will you?



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 03:19:13 GMT

aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton) writes:

><susan.702004163@coom>
>Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

>In a previous article, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) says:


>>
>>       US LAW DOES NOT APPLY IN AUSTRALIA.  I believe we fought quite
>>a large and loud flame war late last year over that little matter.  If
>>you'd like to provoke it again, do so.
>>

>Ahhh! You should have said so.  Wasn't aware of where you were.  Odd, your 
>address comes out on this end as being from Duke University.

	Perhaps you need to learn to read node addresses better?


>As I was not aware we were speaking of Australia, I retract my comments ...but 
>only as they don't apply to Australian Law.  Australian law is in an even worse 
>condition than the US legal system.

	It is?  Funny, we don't have plea bargaining, revolving door
prisons, a massive crime wave by recividists nor do we suffer from the same
levels of violent crime as does America.  To me, it appears that our legal
system is working just fine.

>How the Australians handicap themselves with ineffectual and worthless laws is 
>their own problem.

	And how Americans attempt to apply their laws now world wide through
kidnap?



--
|   *      | But I think Australians have a sort of independence, and I       | 
| *--\----*| think that, rightly or wrongly, they tend to make their own      |
|      \ ' | decisions as to how a thing has gone.  Pioneers are apt to be    |
|__________| like that. I think thats not a bad idea. - Dame Joan Sutherland__|
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:28:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr9.132852.27684
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <1992Apr7.032757.6227@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> >  Is civilian posession of fire extinguishers really restricted
> >in Australia (including the large red or yellow "assault style"
> >fire extinguishers?)  If so, then I would agree that my analogy
> >doesn't help my case - in Australia.
> 
> I don't know what's forbidden. I don't go around worrying about
> my property like you mob seem to. 

Do you HAVE any property?  Do you worry about your life?  Dismissing smoke
detectors and fire extinguishers would tend to lead people to believe that you
DON'T place much value on your own life....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:02:36 GMT

rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>In article <susan.703123520@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

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

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

>Let me refresh your memory.

>In article <susan.702534881@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:

>>>						I think, too, that you 
>>>have to appreciate that any physical threat creates enormous stress,
>>>and people under stress don't always think clearly.  In fact, those
>>>people who have consciously thought about their options in advance
>>>are far less likely to be affected by this sort of stress, and 
>>>I'd accept as valid the claims from a number of posters that people
>>>with training in any of the martial arts (including shooting) are
>>>likely to be more responsible in their approach to conflict than 
>>>those who are completely unprepared.  This does not imply that you
>>>go through life mistrusting everyone, of course.

>>	I think rather that you have made an excellent case for why NOBODY
>>should be allowed a gun Geoff.  We are all subject to our emotions and unable
>>to think clearly under stress.  Hence guns should be barred from everybody
>>in that case.

>Do you believe what your wrote, or not?  If NOBODY should be allowed a gun,
>because we are all subject to our emotions and unable to think clearly
>under stress, and guns should be barred from everybody, that would include
>my guns, now wouldn't it?  At least "in that case" - the stressful time when
>I need them for self-defense.  Therefore, you would take away my final means
>of self-defense.

	I'll ask you a question Roberta.  In that posting you quote, can
you point to anything where it states "I say....."?

	I said, and I'll re-emphasise it for you,   
>>          I think rather that YOU [meaning Geoff] have made an excellent case 
                                ^^^

  for why NOBODY
>>should be allowed a gun Geoff.  We are all subject to our emotions and unable
>>to think clearly under stress.  Hence guns should be barred from everybody
>>in that case.

	I didn't say that was my case, nor did I say that was my agenda.

	You ASSUMED that was what I said was my agenda WRT to gun control.




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