HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:35:38 GMT

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

>In article <susan.703122943@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>
>>>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,"?
>>
>>	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
>>can't control their dicks?

>Because if you don't, those men will be using their physical strength
>to control your behavior.  Utopia, BTW, is not an option.

	So?  Should we never aim to achieve Utopia simply because you
keep discounting it as an option?

	Or is it that case that you as a man refuse to think that perhaps
there could be alternatives which would make men less subject to their
hormones and more subject to their higher-order thought processes? 




--
|  *   |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____________________________________|
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ohio House Bill 709
Keywords: ohio, hb 709, parents criminally liable for childs actions
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:20:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr9.042001.1004
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

The Ohio House Judiciary and Criminal Justice Subcommittee meeting
of April 8th discussed H.B. 709.  This bill would make PARENTS or
guardians criminally liable [jail time!], if their CHILD takes a gun
belonging to his or her parents to school!

This bill was not listed in the Legislative Hearings schedule in the
Sunday paper!  I must have been wrong about legislative hearing
announcements having to be in the paper ...

The NRA didn't say anything about it, PRO didn't say a thing about
it.  The anti's did a great job of keeping this bill under wraps!
The only thing I saw on it was on the local NBC affialiate station
11:00pm news.  The broadcast did show many people protesting IN FAVOR
of the bill!

Just the way for a child to stick it to his parents that he doesn't
get along with.

I'll get a copy of this bill as soon as possible.

There is not any form of gun registration in Ohio [except the 4473].
So, if my child takes a gun of mine I bought privately how the hell
can it be proven to be mine anyway!  My child and spouse are hostile
witnesses in court, so their testimony can't be used against me.

I want to break something.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"Fight fire with fire, I always say." -- Bugs Bunny
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx03.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:51:21 GMT
X-Bytes: 

In article <aiF9iB4w164w@upchrch.UUCP> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )  
writes:
> 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 or glove
> > compartment qualifies.
> 
> Do I understand this correctly? I have a CCW for Florida. Am I commiting
> a federal crime every time I drive past a school? It would be hard to
> drive any distance in my part of town without driving past a school.
> Both the major cross streets in my sub-division have schools on them.
> My house can't be more than 2000 ft from the nearest school as the crow
> flies.

<WARNING:  I am not an attorney>  ...
My reading of the FEDERAL GFSZ statute is that IF you have a state or  
local issued carry permit (CCW or LTC or whatever) you are legal to carry  
a firearm through a school zone.  If you do not have such a permit you can  
transport a firearm through a school zone only unloaded and locked away.   
You should be OK; but you might want to ask a lawyer!

RIK
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 1000 feet
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 01:39:38 EDT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) writes:

> >Washington is pretty free as far as firearms regs go, so I would imagine tha
> >most places in the US it is illegal to have a firearm on school grounds.
> There is nothing in Washington State law prohibiting carry on college campuse
> (with an easy-to-get concealed weapon permit).

It is illegal in Florida to carry a firearm into any college or
university facility (790.06(12)). I'm a little curious about what
facility means. Does it mean I would be in violation of the law
as soon as I stepped on campus or only when I entered a building?

I think I'll call and ask for a clarification. I sometimes pick my
friends kids up at elementary school and it would be useful to know
if I should leave my gun at home or if it's okay as long as I stay
in the parking lot. What if I don't get out of my car? Under Florida
law I may not technically be carrying, since a permit is not required
for carrying a loaded firearm in a car.

Speaking of parking lots, how is the federal regulation interpreted,
are you okay if you leave your firearm in the car at the post office,
or is it a federal crime as soon as you pull into the parking lot?

Another restriction in paragraph 12 is any school, college or professional
sporting event not related to firearms. I think it is kind of funny
that it is legal to carry a concealed weapon to the arena for a concert,
but not for a basketball game.

(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Ann Landers
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:49:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Bytes: 

An idea regarding letters to Ann Landers.  It seems well established that  
Ann will not print any reasonable, intelligent pro-RKBA letters.  The  
solution may be the tried and true political / literary weapon:  Satire.   
I wonder what would happen if someone wrote a really blatantly obnoxious  
and bogus anti-gun letter to Ann!  Perhaps a clever person could even  
include some pro RKBA anagrams or something in the text.

Just an idea

RIK
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: And they called it a "Police Riot!"
Keywords: rodney king / chicago '68 convention
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:33:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.#!wj!7+.feustel
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

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

> 
>The Chicago Police used their bataans fairly freely in that melee,
>and even a reproter or two were hit, but there was nothing approach-
>ing the systematic beating administered to Rodney King that night

This is incorrect. Hundreds, if not thousands of people were clubbed
by the police. Many victims were not involved in or even aware of the
demonstration; they were beaten by police chasing fleeing
demonstrators. Some people were knocked through plate glass windows.
Very few of the people beaten by the Chicago police were as big as 
Rodney King. One baton blow to these people was more than enough to
split skulls, break bones and cause concussions. Hitler would have
been proud of the Chicago police on that day.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:01:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr13.220127.19250
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <susan.703123142@coombs> by susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald):

> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> 
> >As quoted from <susan.702534694@coombs> by susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald):
> 
> >> >First of all, you must be pretty spineless to allow such acts to go
> >> >unpunished. I personally would have knocked the guy out (or teied).
> >> 
> >> 	Yep, rather proves my point now doesn't it?  Another of the boys
> >> who likes to talk tough.......
> 
> >You sure do.  The very idea that somebody would resist a criminal assault.
> 
> 	Yep, you just would have to protect your "honour" now wouldn't
> you Chris?  Couldn't just swallow your pride and not provoke a fight?

It has nothing to do with honor.  It's about my right to exist without being
assaulted.  You of course don't recognize such a right as evidenced by your
imposition upon gays and minorities of a duty to allow themselves to be 
murdered by fascists.  Couldn't you just swallow your ego and allow people to
survive?

> 	Another male poster proves the point about their testerone levels....

Another unilateral pacifist condemns OTHERS to die for her corrupt "values".

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:12:15 GMT

hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

>In article <brian.703209351@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) 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;
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> ...  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?

>  Are you accusing Davie of discussing a *hypothetical*?  That's
>even worse than getting tense with the future.  Oh, by the way,
>why do you think that this guy hasn't killed lots of people so far -
>not enough pennies or what?

	Perhaps because someone hasn't yet been so unlucky as to be caught
raiding his piggy-bank?

	I have no idea Henry, and don't particularly care.  I was simply
correcting Andy's usual mangling of other people's posts, nothing more.


--
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
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:46:29 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr9.223829.14524@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.064732.947@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>> ...
>>No Australian or American has posted anything along
>>the lines of blaming the victim. I don't know why you keep saying it.
>
>  Perhaps because it is true?  At least two Australians have taken
>the position that if an innocent person (victim) is attacked and
>uses force in a defense that the victim is to be blamed, and that
>the attacker is not to be blamed.  It was also stated that the

These two are saying it depends upon the type of attack. You
are oversimplifying and you know it Henry. Nobody has said
that the original attacker is not at fault. What we are
saying is that the attack may not warrant force.


>attacker is not to be blamed (or harmed by defensive measures, or
>even potentially harmed by defensive measures) because crime is 
>the fault of society, not of the criminal.
>
>>Maybe you think if you say it often enough, someone will believe
>>it.
>
>  I hope so.
>
You hope in vain.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Article "APRIL 21, 1935 (New World Order?)"
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:11:44 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.

In article <8jqj-0q.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>The real threat to democracy in America is that President Bush will
>use the emrgency powers executive order to take over the country on
>the pretext of some national emergency - like losing the next
>election, for exampl.


Has anyone ever put the text of this EO on electronic media?

I have never seen this order, and would really like to see it, before
I decide whether it is just hot air.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Newstates of America.  Just say 'nyet!'
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-239-8993  or  703-764-0527  To log in for trial and account info.
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:25:54 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr9.065647.1227@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <9204081804.AA04894@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>... The police can't protect
>>you, and they won't let you protect yourself -- what protection does
>>the individual _get_?
>>
>The individual gets protection of the police and protection by
>others in the community. We do not have the same problems as you
>have in America. 

  Perhaps you just have fewer of them - so far.

>We have Neighbourhood Watch and there are
>programs for people to learn how not to be a victim. 

  We also have these.

>There are also
>classes in the martial arts.   

  You mean you teach *violence*?

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:43:29 GMT

>	So?  Should we never aim to achieve Utopia simply because you
>keep discounting it as an option?
>
>	Or is it that case that you as a man refuse to think that perhaps
>there could be alternatives which would make men less subject to their
>hormones and more subject to their higher-order thought processes? 

Mankind has been trying to acheive this utopia for a long time and
has always failed (I guess they forgot to take human nature into account).
I tell you what...you keep working on your utopia and let me know when
you have acheived it. Then we will talk about me giving up my right to
1. Self defense
2. Arms
3. Self determination
etc.

Time for a reality check.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: LA LAW FAIR TO GUN OWNERS?  NOT!
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:37:43 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na

In article <1992Apr10.032749.720@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>Just in case you missed it, we pro-gunners have been raped again by
>the anti-gun nazis controlling the media.  Tune in LA Law.  (NOT!)  There's
>a case brought by a black man who's been denied the RKBA by the "housing
>authority."  The rich boy lawyer working for the LA LAW firm makes cracks about
>how the black man has received free defense from a "white"--the representative
>of "Americans for Firearms."  (He insinuates that this organization is 
>exploiting the man.)  He spews out the HCI propaganda about how a gun
>is "42 times as likely to kill someone in the house than someone you don't
>know" and all that load of shit--and the pro-gun attorneys don't object
>and counter with their own evidence.  (Yeah, right!)  The script writers
>then have the black man get shot by gang members when reaching for his
>pistol.  Like gangs would be affected by gun control in the first place!!
>The black guy is also accused of shooting at random shadows assuming they're
>burglars--a smear on all gun owners.  This really takes the cake, and not
>a week after a "redneck" wearing an "NRA-type" cap walks into a restaurant
>on "Beverley Hills 90210" and threatens some lead bitch on the show with
>his shotgun.  At one point she said, "All I saw was a monster with a gun."
>Sarah Brady must be wet with pleasure.

What struck me is that if I was sitting in a CAR, surrounded by gang
members, I wouldn't be using a gun-- I'd be using the more deadly
weapon-- the one with the trigger under my right foot.

Note the decision by the judge, though-- the firearm ban was
overturned, on procedural grounds-- the gun-banners had rammed through
their regulation without going through the proper process.  Just as
they do now.  The proper process, of course, involves a
constitutional amendment removing protection for the right to keep and
bear arms.  If only there were judges like the one shown on LA LAW.

-- 
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: achaboty@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: CNN's report on gun control????
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:12:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.53301
Organization: Wright State University


	On Friday night/Saturday morning there was a story on CNN about
some sort of gun control.  Did anyone happen to catch what it said...I
only saw the tail end of it and didn't see it again.  They were reporting
from Columbus, Ohio and since I am located in Dayton, I figured it may
directly effect me.
	Thanks a lot for your help.

+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|                             Andrew Chaboty                            |
|                       achaboty@desire.wright.edu                      |
|                                 KB8LUQ                                |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:23:16 -0500

In article <1992Apr7.032205.5971@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.064206.3672@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.053750.22925@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>>>>>Re Salmon Rushdie,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And when that Hezbollahi comes walking through the door, in the seconds before
>>>>>>Rushdie gets his brains blown out, I'm sure that he'll reflect on how fortunate
>>>>>>he is to live in a country where he didn't have the means to defend himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are a bit behind the times, aren't you. Salmon Rushdie is guarded
>>>>>24 hours a day by experts. His country pays for this service.
>>>>>He is indeed fortunate to live in England.
>>>>
>>>>Well, fantastic, everyone in England has their own bodyguard. Why didn't
>>>>we think of that?
>>>>
>>>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard? Do you think
>>>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
>>>do you think he should be left to defend himself?
>>>
>>Nooooo, I just can't understand why he simply doesn't run away when
>>someone threatens him instead of relying on men with *gasp* GUNS.
>>He could rely on non-violence, you know, but I guess he just doesn't
>>want to reason instead of force. I can't see how a situation like his
>>could come about in an enlightened, civilized country like England
>
>I really suggest you do some reading. Salmon Rushdie's life is
>endangered due to fanatics from Iran. Nothing to do with England.
>

So do they PRAY him to death from outside the country, or what?

-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: The Right to Defend Oneself  (was Re: Manhood, talking tough, life, universe and
Followup-To: soc.women,talk.rape
Keywords: the weather
Organization: Rice University, Houston Texas
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:33:06 GMT

In article <susan.703122943@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
- >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. 
- 
- 	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
- can't control their dicks?

	You don't "have to" do anything.  

	However, why are you so quick to deny other women the right 
   to defend themselves against a rapist?  Are you so uncaring? 


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |   kossack@rice.edu  |  +1 713 270 9056  |  N5QVI     
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns