HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:09:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.211933.2639@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>>The ACLU position paper on the subject contradicts historical facts
>>and ignores Supreme Court rulings, to conclude that it is ok for
>>them to ignore the subject.

>Unfortunantly, I am unfamiliar with this position paper. Could you supply
>more information? BTW, the only Supreme Court ruling that I am aware
>of on the Second Amendment comes from the 30's (1936?) that says that
>the Second Amendment doesn't protect the citisens right to bear arms 

The case in question, US v. Miller, says nothing of the sort. However,
the ACLU position paper (and supporters of gun control in general)
implies this. If fact, the ruling _does_ consider the Second Amendment:
The Court ruled that the Amendment should be applied as a means to
preserving the militia, which they said includes everyone "physically
able to act in cencert for the common defense" (that is, just about
everyone.) Specifically, the Court asked if Jack Miller's ownership
of a sawed-off shotgun had a "reasonable relationship to the 
preservation or efficiency of the militia." If so, his right to 
own it would be protected under the Second Amendment. Miller was clearly
a member of the militia (e.g. physically capable of military service.)
However, the Court found no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was
a usefull militia weapon. They based this on past laws regulating
the militia and on the sort of weapons issued by the Army. Therefore,
the Court sustained Miller's conviction. The ruling, essentially,
was that the Second Amednment protects a citizen's right to own
militia-usefull weapons, but a sawed-off shotgun isn't such a
weapon. Usually (as I believe is the case in the ACLU position
paper), the Miller rulling is summerized as "limiting the Second
Amendment to the militia." That's partially true, but the 
ruling also defined the militia as including just about everyone...

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder




Newsgroups: soc.history
From: durham@mpr.ca (Paul Durham)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 21:37:13 GMT

In article <1dmjr5INNatj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>No, other countries do not have the same restrictions.
>For example, Irish and British citizens can vote in one
>another's elections.    In Canada, resident aliens can
>vote in local and Provincial elections.
>
>jon.

This is wrong with respect to Canada. In BC, and every other province
I'm familiar with, you must be a Canadian citizen to vote in a provincial
election. It used to be the case in BC (and perhaps elsewhere) that
commonwealth citizens who were landed immigrants (that's the Canadian term,
not "resident aliens") could vote, but that was scrapped about 10 years
ago. W.r.t. municipal elections, perhaps somewhere, not BC.


Paul



-- 
Paul Durham                    |      durham@mprgate.mpr.ca
MPR Teltech Ltd                | durham%mprgate.mpr.ca@ubc-cs.uucp
8999 Nelson Way                | ...uunet!ubc-cs!mprgate.mpr.ca!durham
Burnaby, B.C., Canada. V5A 4B5 |      phone: (604) 293-6035
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Silence...
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:20:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov12.200021.15416@pellns.alleg.edu> twiddyd@pell1l12.alleg.edu (David Twiddy) writes:
[first he said:]
>> 	I see that someone has taken the nescessary steps to remove Senar  
>> Argic from the Net.
>> 	How nice.  It's like waking up the day after the Armistice and  
>> listening to the silence of the guns...

[and then, a day later, he realized:]

>	I should have know it was too good to be true.  

Actually, your "armistice" analogy was very appropriate.  Argic decided
to celebrate Armistice Day (Veterans day, now) by a one-day cease fire.

Actually, he probably had the day off.

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 92 07:45:01 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:         SERA ZUMA
Newsgroups:   soc.history

I would like to thank Sera Zuma for once again wasting bandwidth with
the same old crap.  From the responses I've seen to your postings, most
people don't care what you think anymore, very few responses.  If you
feel so strongly about all this, why don't you make a real big nuke
and wipe out the Jews, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and all whoever?  Then,
you wouldn't have anyone to bitch about anymore.  Therefore, you wouldn't
have to keep posting the same redundent bull shit.
Xref: sparky soc.history:9301 soc.culture.italian:4573
From: aa748@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Karl Kimpo)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.italian
Subject: Renaissance execution...
Date: 11 Nov 1992 12:58:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa748@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Karl Kimpo)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu



	A high school teacher that teaches one of my classes is doing some
research on a man named Savonarola that was executed during the Renaissance
in the year of 1497 or 1498.  My teacher would like the exact English
translation of the bronze plaque which marks the spot in Florence, Italy
(on the Piazza della Signoria) on which Savonarola was hanged and burned
-- 
Please stop by at Virtual Ignatius|Karl Kimpo '93 <aa748>  |"Uhmm...are there 
at MicroMUSE! @teleport to #35716.|St. Ignatius HS Co-SIGop|  eggs in this
Thank you!|-----------------------/type "go cats"|---------/ omelette?"--Jeff B
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Copernicus and Heliocentricity
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:22:13 GMT

Copernicus was said to have "invented" a heliocentric universe simply because
it was more appealing to him.  Being that he believed that light was a symbol
of God, he would put that representation of God at the center of the universe
and hence put the sun at the center of the solar system.  However, the
Protestants, being literalists of the Bible, rejected this notion because the
Bible specifically stated that the earth was at the center of the universe.
However, if they were such literalists of the Bible, then wouldn't they
actually agree with Copernicus?  The Bible first starts off  "let there be
light" and thus light was created.  It would seem that the Protestants would
say that this creation would be the center of the universe and later God
added earth.  Hence, the sun should be at the center because God would not
create "light" somewhere "out there" and then create the earth at the center.
Instead, his first creation would be found at the center of the universe and
then the earth was secondary, so to speak.
Any comments?  Criticsms?  There obviously should be some criticsms because
this is not what the Protestants believed.  However, doesn't my arguement
make some sense?


--

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thursday, 12 Nov 1992 13:19:23 PST
From: Patrick Clancey <CLANCEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Geneology

   >From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
   >Subject: Geneology
   >Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:35:33 GMT
   >
   >
   >        Sorry to waste bandwidth, is there a forum around for
   >        the discussion of geneology?
   >
   >Respectfully,
   >Brent Irvine
   >
   >--
See:  soc.roots

                                                                               E
Patrick Clancey
CLANCEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: twiddyd@carn21.alleg.edu (David Twiddy)
Subject: Silence...
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:25:47 GMT



	I see that someone has taken the nescessary steps to remove Senar  
Argic from the Net.
	How nice.  It's like waking up the day after the Armistice and  
listening to the silence of the guns...
--

David "master of obscurity" Twiddy <twiddyd@alleg.edu>
"Small wheel turn by the fire and rod
 Big wheel turn by the Grace of GOD"
 			-Jerry Garcia
From: cohen@cumuli.vmsmail.ethz.ch (Mark Cohen)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Queen Boadicea
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:11:52 GMT
Organization: Dept. Chemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Originator: mark@agnew

In article <Bx63uL.LFs@ccu.umanitoba.ca> tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Tommy Che Vorst writes:

> Hi out there!  I'm a grad student  at the University of Manitoba.  I'm
> working on a research project that involves  Boadicea/Boudicca,
> Chastity, and (believe it or not) Calvin and Hobbes (by Bill Watterson).

Forgive my curiosity but could you just give us an outline of your project
so I can understand exactly what the connection between the subjects is.
Sorry if it is obvious, I simply can't figure it out.

Mark Cohen
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Geneology
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:35:33 GMT


	Sorry to waste bandwidth, is there a forum around for
	the discussion of geneology?

Respectfully,
Brent Irvine

-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ ^  ^  ^
| Brent L. Irvine         |  "Love is blind ... and stupid." | {\{|}/} CLAN
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |                      -M.P.       |  {{|}} IRVINE
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+  o/|\o OF DRUM
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:50:04 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:


>Unfortunantly, I am unfamiliar with this position paper. Could you supply
>more information? BTW, the only Supreme Court ruling that I am aware
>of on the Second Amendment comes from the 30's (1936?) that says that
>the Second Amendment doesn't protect the citisens right to bear arms 
>(I personally disagree with that). I know that that ruling violates the
>intent of the Second Amendment (based on historical wrightings).   

Boy, you sure *are* unfamiliar with the relevant Supreme Court
Rulings.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
If convicted felons can't own firearms, then why in Hell
do we let GE make nuclear weapons?
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: U.S. BORN NOVEMBER 15, 1777
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:54:23 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire




                      UNITED STATES BORN NOVEMBER 15, 1777

               Most people, including Astrologers, believe that the 
          United States was born on July 4, 1776.  But the Declaration 
          of Independence did NOT create a "union" of any kind.  It 
          created thirteen independent colonies, independent from Great 
          Britain AND INDEPENDENT FROM EACH OTHER. 

               What DID create the United States was the signing of the 
          ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.  And this occurred in YORKTOWN, 
          PENNSYLVANIA on NOVEMBER 15, 1777. 
          
               And THAT is the date that must also be used for CORRECT 
          Astrological considerations of the birth of the United 
          States. 
          
               NOVEMBER 15TH should be made another NATIONAL HOLIDAY! 


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 
          
                                          
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
From: co@bildsun1.mednet.gu.se (Christer Olsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Monday, 26 October, 1942
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:05:01 GMT
Organization: MedNet, University of Gothenburg

In article <Bx7C2F.Dnx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
|> 
|> damage as well.  The Japanese aircraft take heavy losses; over 100 Japanese
|> planes have been lost in the last few days.

How many japanese planes was shot by american fighters and by AA fire? 
Was the AA on the carriers efficient enough against enemy planes?
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: slavery and the founding fathers
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:21:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov4.214056.28640@cc.gatech.edu>, hernan@cc.gatech.edu (Hernan Astudillo R.) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.172041.4705@ncsu.edu> mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS) writes:
> > An interesting fact that few Know about. When blacks first came to 
> > this country they were indentured servents. It was not until one 
> > "master" sued in court to keep African servants for life that slavery
> > was formed. This "master" was himself African.
> 
> 	I'd like to see proof of this.  So the Middle Passage was all about
> indentured servants?  Yeah right...
> 
> Hernan Astudillo R.	|  nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin".

He's got that part right -- the first Africans brought to the American
colonies were indentured servants.  When slavery first became common,
it was a humane replacement for the traditional practice of killing
all members of the opposing army.

African slaves included many Africans who were prisoners of war, or
convicted criminals.  Selling them as slaves made more sense than
killing them.  Of course, when the demand rose dramatically for
slaves, many African rulers started to engage in slave raids just
to meet the demand.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Summary: Corrections  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:46:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.040909.625@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov11.211933.2639@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>>>The ACLU position paper on the subject contradicts historical facts
>>>and ignores Supreme Court rulings, to conclude that it is ok for
>>>them to ignore the subject.
> 
>>Unfortunantly, I am unfamiliar with this position paper. Could you supply
>>more information? BTW, the only Supreme Court ruling that I am aware
>>of on the Second Amendment comes from the 30's (1936?) that says that
>>the Second Amendment doesn't protect the citisens right to bear arms 
> 
>The case in question, US v. Miller, says nothing of the sort. However,
>the ACLU position paper (and supporters of gun control in general)
>implies this. If fact, the ruling _does_ consider the Second Amendment:

[stuff deleted]

 Usually (as I believe is the case in the ACLU position
>paper), the Miller rulling is summerized as "limiting the Second
>Amendment to the militia." That's partially true, but the 
>ruling also defined the militia as including just about everyone...
> 
Sorry about the confusion. I got my source from a quick blurb in the
newspaper. I guess I shouldn't believe so much of what I read.

>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder
Garrett@Ingres.com
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Copernicus and Heliocentricity
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<BxoEEy.29p@news.ucs.mun.ca>
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:19:09

The Ptolomaic system had all the planets circling the earth so that
Venus was always nearer the earth than the sun,  I suppose it wasn't
considered to be lit by the sun but to shine independently.  Its
phases showed that it went around the sun and was lit in such a
way as was explained by its shine being reflected sunlight.

However, there were other geocentric theories in which the sun
went around the earth, and the planets went around the sun.
I don't think the Catholic Church demanded the Ptolemaic theory.

These other theories could not be refuted by observation.  The
estimates of the distance of the sun and therefore of its size rose
steadily in the 17th century.  Newton's estimate of the solar
parallax, i.e.  the angle subtended by the earth's radius at the sun's
distance was 10 seconds of arc, only 25 percent too large.  The first
real measurement was in 1761 when Venus crossed directly in front of
the sun.  Measuring its apparent position from somewhere in the North
and somewhere around the equator, which the French did in 1761,
established the solar parallax as 8. something seconds of arc and
established its distance and the fact that its diameter was 100 times
that of the earth.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: For Key McVay
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:02:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

Ken, 
   There doesn't seem to be a way for me to send you messages directly.
They all are rejected because of a bad address. I wanted to get on the
distribution list for your Facism newsletter. 

   Please sent it to jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org, thanks.
-- 
jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org                                (214) 235-7161 x4100
John E. Spence                                                  CompuTrac, Inc.
"I don't speak for CompuTrac, and CompuTrac doesn't speak for me!"
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Queen Boadicea
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:29:36
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: mem@mv.mv.com's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:59:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.045947.4320@mv.mv.com> mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes:

   In article <Bx63uL.LFs@ccu.umanitoba.ca> tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Tommy Che Vorst) writes:
   >Hi out there!  I'm a grad student  at the University of Manitoba.  I'm
   >working on a research project that involves  Boadicea/Boudicca,
   >Chastity, and (believe it or not) Calvin and Hobbes (by Bill Watterson).

   Hmm.  I know who Boadicea was, and who Calvin and Hobbes are (and were)-
   but who is Chastity?  Or are you speaking of the attribute and not some
   person?

Hmm, this one had me puzzled for a while, but at last a common
thread is revealed, the topic clearly being "slimy girls"!

:-)


Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:48:24 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:

[...]
>	When I became a member I had an unfortunantly naive 
>perception of the ACLU. I soon began getting junk mail from politically
>correct groups. I wondered about the timing, but I refused to believe 
>that the ACLU would sell my name. 
[...]

The ACLU does mail stuff from other organizations to some of its
members and it does seem selective as to which organizations.

It does not, however, actually give or sell the names of its members
to those other organizations. Also, you can opt out of all such
mailings.

I'll post "About the ACLU" on Monday (to at least
alt.society.civil-liberty). If you want to get it early access
information is enclosed.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
civil-liberty/aclu.aclu
=================
* Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union -- ACLU Briefing Paper #1

Contents:
The ACLU Mandate
What rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?
A Brief History
How the ACLU Chooses Its Cases
How the ACLU Works
The Financial Picture

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/civil-liberty/aclu.aclu

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/civil-liberty aclu.aclu
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:59:58 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

[...]
>The ACLU has sold its name list to HCI.
[...]

Recently? I thought they had left HCI.  Also, at least as long as I've
been a member, the ACLU doesn't sell it's name list to *anyone*. The
worst that it does is to mail other folk's material (for a fee) to its
members. The other folks never get to see the name list.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: mcgeegt@eng.auburn.edu (Gary T. McGee)
Subject: American Indian History?
Reply-To: mcgeegt@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:38 GMT



Xref: sparky soc.history:9310 alt.society.civil-liberty:6529 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1013
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 19:58:45 EST

In article <1992Nov11.040004.22725@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

> (By the way, it is
>>also inaccurate for the ACLU to claim they defend the Bill of
>>Rights: They defend the parts of it which their members find
>>politically comfortable and make specious arguments to ignore 
>>other parts...)
>
>I'm going to call you on this one Frank. Are you saying that the ALCU
>agrees with the KKK? The neo-nazis? Anarchists? I think you are wrong
>Frank, but I will give the chance to back-up your statement. I'm
>waiting.

Actually, that's probably something that most ACLU members find very
politically comfortable--even if they don't agree with it.

Having spoken with Frank before, he's probably refering to the ACLU's
position on 2nd amendment issues.  He could just as well have been
referring to a number of other issues, however--most notably (to me), the
ACLU's rather perplexing positions in numerous "affirmative action" matters.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky soc.history:9295 alt.revisionism:784