HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:18:33 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <2134.29E48755@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:
>DB>From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
>DB>Date: 8 Apr 92 01:14:08 GMT
>DB>Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia
>DB>Message-ID: <1992Apr8.011408.15761@matilda.vut.edu.au>
>DB>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>
>DB>Roberta, surely you jest? *All* fighting is wrong. I know you
>DB>really know this. You would do well to read Susan's postings more carefully.
>
>Pardon me, but it seems to me that we have for some time been engaged in
>verbal fighting, including yourself.  Is it that you and Susan approve
>of verbal fighting but draw the line at physical contact?  If so, why.
>Sometimes words can be extremely hurtful, maybe even more damaging than
>physical blows.  What is so sacrosanct about touching?  In a "civilized"

Words cannot kill, can they Roberta?

>world one would never utter a harsh or condeming word.  But I have read
>an unbelievable number of challenges, condemnations, judgements, and
>pejorative names addressed at individuals.  If you search your own soul

Your idea of perjorative is a bit wierd.

>(you too, Susan) you may find that "Oz" is not quite as civilized as you
>believe and would have us believe.  Get real!

I am real. I don't live in tinsle-town.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:57:18 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr7.064257.8833@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>
>>OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>>for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>>to have preventative equipment.
>>
>In frequent polls in the United States around 80-90% of police are very
>much in favor of private gun ownership. Police officers often counsel
>crime victims to arm themselves. Police CHIEFS, on the other hand,
>are politically appointed and are against gun ownership to a great 
>extent. They are not on the line and their views have to match the
>politicians on whom their jobs depend.
>-- 
Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
effect. That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
"self defence".


-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:42:45 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr8.124130.4038@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr3.233736.8959@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> 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!
>
>And look at how well it worked for the victims of sexual cannibal and serial
>killer Jeffrey Dahmer.  His last attempted victim used... VIOLENCE to defend
>himself.  Unlike the others, he's... ALIVE.  What a conundrum, eh?
>
I don't see any conundrum. I am surprised you do.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:20:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr8.092844.19769@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <32297@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Apr7.045843.7079@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>You also have to check your spelling , but that's a petty flame.
>I think you should check your manners.

Oh dear, David thinks I have bad manners. I shall have to write for Emily
Post's little book and bone up on proper etiquette.
Take off, you Aussie hoser.
>>>> I feel safe. :).
>>>You feel safe but you have lost your freedom!
>>See the little thing that looks like ":)", David? it's called a "smilie"
>>and is generally used to indigate that the preceding statement is
>>sarcastic. "It's a joke, son, a joke!" And as far as my freedom goes, I
>
>No. You mob need smilies. You don't seem to understand irony or 
>be able to understand humour without canned laughter and 
>"joke" signs. 

"No"? No to what? No, you didn't see the smilie, or no, you didn't
comprehend it? It's amazing to me that you ignored all of the substantive
points in my response to quibble about a point of humor. Actually, no it's
not. You have previously shown a wonderful ability to duck questions, twist
meanings, and otherwise completely miss the point of others' postings. Are
you by any chance studying to be a politician?
>>feel free to leave my belongings in an appropriately locked room, and I
>>feel free and safe in sleeping there, because I have protection (though not
>>of a firearm variety: I simply always have a baseball bat within easy
>>reach. :).
>
>I don't think you have any worries. People are probably glad
>when you are asleep.

Well, my roommate isn't so glad when I'm asleep, 'cause I snore.
My girlfriend isn't so glad when I'm asleep, 'cause... oh, never mind.
Some of my dorm-mates aren't so glad when I'm asleep, 'cause I live in an
alleged "quiet-study" dorm and have a rep for complaining when people are
too noisy at night. (No threats, before you assume that... just
complaints.)
>No. You still don't get it. Please don't bother trying again. It is too
>sad to read.

It's gratifying to see once again that you're paying more attention to my
percieved lack of humor than anything substantive, but I already addressed
that so I won't go over it again.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: LA LAW FAIR TO GUN OWNERS?  NOT!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:27:49 GMT

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.

   "Today Congress just repealed the Bill of Rights.  Gun owners, keep
    your mind sober, your aim straight, and your magazine full.  Everyone
    else, get ready to bend over." --T2
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue)
Subject: Re: Ann Landers
Organization: cisco Systems, Incorporated
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:10:02 GMT

well since ms. landers won't print my letter, i figure this is
a good place.

ms. landers,
since you believe that all guns should be outlawed, i challenge
you to tell Amy Gardiner your view.  after all, Ms. Gardiner
saved her own life by mortally wounding james michael barnes
who entered her home, uninvited and unannounced, brandishing
his own gun w/ premeditated murder being his only motive.

oh, call the police you say?  let the justice system do it's
job you say.  i'm sorry to say, that a restraining order
was already issued against barnes.  and the police would
of surely arrived too late since he was inside her apartment
after kicking in her door.  i'd say Ms. Gardiner had 5 seconds
to call the police and for the police to arrive for her safety
to be assured.

i also challenge you to state your views to parents of other
daugthers who live in areas where owning a personal firearm
is "outlawed" where the outcome was much more disasterous.
i challenge you to tell the ones who loved the unfortunate
person who did not have the basic God given right to self
perservation.  and most importantly of all, i challenge
you to tell the unfortunate soul at her gravesite how owning
a firearm for self protection is wrong.

if you have any compassion for your fellow human beings, i don't
believe you can truly agree w/ your view of gun control. 
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Perot on guns
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:54:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <12485@tamsun.tamu.edu>, n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu (James Johnson) writes:
> I keep hearing how  Perot is Anti-gun. But I just heard him on the radio and
> he said that if the laws were tough enough that you could make EVERY person,
> no matter how stoned or drunk he is, to think twice before using a gun (to kill
> someone). That doesn't sound anti-gun, it sounds like tough crime laws to me.
> 
> Well, if someone knows SPECIFICALLY how Perot is anti-gun, please inform me!

This is what's so dangerous about the guy.  "I'll tell you what my platform
is AFTER you give me an indication that you support me" is pretty damn lame.
Much like, "I'll tell you I love you, AFTER you marry me."  Perot is a sharp
operator who discovered that the current electorate is so pissed that they'll
vote AGAINST anyone who takes a stand they disagree with; so by being a new
face with no known stands, he's hoping to maintain the advantage as long as
possible.
-- 

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 Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:25:06 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <2254@sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>In <1992Apr6.053750.22925@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard?
>
>Well, you seem to think that Rushdie's police protection implies
>that citizens don't need forearms.  Perhaps you could explain
>your reasoning more fully, or explain what other relevance you
>think Rushdie's position has to this discussion?
>
>>Do you think
>>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
>>do you think he should be left to defend himself?
>
Rushdie was brought up as I quoted him re his insight
into American society. Others, not liking what he had to say, decided to
deride him and used the fact that he needs protection to
try to score points. 

>I believe that:
>	- the police should not ignore the threats against SR
>*and*
>	- SR and everyone else should be allowed to defend themselves
>
I agree. Out difference is in how.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 1000 feet
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 16:16:58 EDT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:

> I went and read 790.06(12) and though ambiguous, I think it
> probably means campus especially as it uses facility in the
> same way in the clause relating to "elementary or secondary 
> school" as it does in the clause relating to "college or
> university." At least it exempts college or university students,
> employees and faculty from the prohibition.

That exemption doesn't extend to firearms. If you read paragraph
12 closely, it only says they can carry stun guns and chemical
weapons, not anything that would fire a projectile.

(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: kossack@screech.owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Rice University, Houston Texas
Distribution: na,oz,au
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:49:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.045843.7079@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (Dav
id Bowman ) writes:
- Well I have to dosagee with you. I don't think I should waste my
- time thinking such things. They are so unlikely. If we worried
- about all these whatifs all the time, life would be so unpleasant.
- Personally I have better things to do.

	I guess "safe sex" hasn't caught on in Australia yet.  You 
   wouldn't, after all, want to waste your time thinking about all the 
   unpleasant things in life and taking precautions.  No worries, mate. 


Then, in article <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
- effect. That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
- Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
- the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
- "self defence".

	This is bizarre.  I would think that the police would want 
   to carry guns for self defense.  After all, they might encounter 
   some maniac with a machete running amok in a shopping mall.

	Different priorities, I guess.  

-- 
Jordan M Kossack  |  How do you define silence?
kossack@rice.edu  |  Bill Clinton and Dan Quayle swappin' war stories.
 +1 713 270 9056  |                -- Overheard at the local IPSC club
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Now it's what if car tyres catch fire! What next????
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:04:19 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr07.153808.9046@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.031848.5817@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.104946.15968@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:
>
>>>Gee, we have a fire department in my town, too.  But I still have smoke
>>>detectors in my house, and fire extinguishers in my kitchen and my car.
>>>To do otherwise would be pretty stupid, IMO.  Fire department response
>>
>>You must have a miserable life, worrying all the
>>time about what can go wrong. I would get such equipment if
>>I lived in the bush, but in the inner city, no way!
>
>No fires occur in the inner city?  Tires never catch fire in
>Australia?  Do you also not carry a spare tire because you don't want

I have never seen a car tyre catch fire! You can't worry about every
possibility in life. You guys are amazing. Well IF my car tyre
caught fire I would drive through a puddle.

>to worry about having a flat?

I have a spare in the boot. It is the law here. But what if 2 tyres went flat.
Deary me. How many do you carry?

>
>>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>>    was swatting at flies.
>
>An irrational quote from an irrational character.
>
Nope. It is showing the Australian sense of humour. That
you don't understand it is your problem. Maybe you should take
out preventative measures for this problem of yours...
>-- 
>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)


-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: CBS  *LIES*  vs.  Kileen motives
Reply-To: jimc@bartman.UUCP (Jim Cox)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:43:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.183144.3503@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.181959.18955@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>|> I also wonder if CBS mentioned that several patrons regularly carried
>|> before the law was changed to make carry illegal and could have
>|> stopped the killing except that they were obeying this stupid law.
>
>I might be mistaken, but concealed carry has been illegal in Texas for
>a long time.
>
>Anyone with a date?
>

I don't have a exact date, but I have references to court cases from the late
1800's that tested the law.   It has been illegal for a _very_ long time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                           Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182                  FAX: (512) 891-2974 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Hypothetical - 2
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:00:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ASUACAD.92102.220034ICDLJ
Organization: Arizona State University


    Re: 1. Defend the Constitution
        2. Obey orders.

    Can anyone state a case where these two orders
    have come in conflict ?  Was a priority set ?

    What legally took precedent, defending the word of  a document
    dated around (forgive my remission) 1776,
    or the words of a transitory government official ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 22:34:32 EDT
From: <UMASP@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: magazine limits
Distribution: na
 <1992Apr2.183152.11372@dg-rtp.dg.com>

In article <1992Apr2.183152.11372@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com
(Bill Meyers) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr1.010656.15089@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The
>Terminator) writes:
>[ ... ]
>>the result was that the people tossed all the old fucks out of office and
>>installed pro-gun replacements.  Perhaps all the ant-gun garbage will be
>>thrown out soon.  We can all cross our fingers.
>
>... while _working_ to change it back, of course.  Care to guess
>what will get done if you cross your fingers and sit on your ass?

I guess it depends on whether or not your fingers are IN your ass.
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:44:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

SM>From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
SM>Date: 13 Apr 92 00:05:20 GMT
SM>Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
SM>Message-ID: <susan.703123520@coombs>
SM>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

SM>>                                               BTW, why do you make sexist
SM>>comments like "too many of the *male* posters here..."?  Many people post
SM>>under aliases, or by their initials, so you don't know what sex they are,
SM>>now do you?  Aren't you making just a bit of an assumption, based on their
SM>>positions on lethal force?  And what about us women who are willing to use
SM>>a gun in self defense?  You're stereotyping again, Susan.

SM>        I make the assumption that they are "male posters" Roberta because
SM>of their debating style.  Your's compared to their's is like chalk and
SM>cheese.
SM>You aren't as aggressive, nor are you so into proving your manhood as a
SM>large
SM>number of the others are here IMO.

I think you have just been stereotyped, Roberta!  Soft as cheese or hard
like a piece of chalk?  BTW have you ever been into proving your
manhood?

 * SLMR 2.1a * We hold these truths to be self-evident.


3
--  
Clyde Spencer
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Clyde.Spencer
INTERNET: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Clyde Spencer only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: An interesting bulletin board
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:14:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <52866@mimsy.umd.edu> justice@panix.com (Michael Justice) writes:
[ ... ]
>#J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
>[...]
>#     Want to report illegal or corrupt activities by a federal agency?
>#        Call the Federally-sponsored Whistleblower BBS: 202.225.5527
>
>I called it;  there's a BBS there.  I don't know if it's for real or a hoax.
>With that disclaimer in mind:
>
>According to the sign-on screen, Congressman Wise, of West Virginia, has set
>this up.  Messages are private to the Congressman, and pseudonyms are allowed
>in case you don't want to leave your real name.
>
>Does anyone know Congressman Wise's gun rights position?  Would he support
>an effort to fight Operation Forward Trace? or am I wasting my time?

It's mixed.  Last year Congressman Wise voted _against_ the Brady Bill, and
_for_ the Volkmer-Sensenbrenner amendment -- both of which were considered
"pro gun" votes by Neal Knox.  But then he voted _for_ final passage of the
House "Crime" Bill, which was considered an "anti gun" vote by Gun Owners of
America (and I agree).  Bottom line:  mildly pro if pressed, but unreliable.

Then again, how much time would you be wasting?  Forward Trace _is_ illegal.
--------
CLEAN HOUSE -- AND SENATE