HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:06:23 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
> 
> It strikes me that most of the people who champion the cause of gun 
> control are the same people who are kind of liberal on most issues, 
> and seem to lean toward the liberal mindset. Except for this issue, 
> where they want the govt to step in, and tell us all what's best.
> 
> On the other hand, it seems to me that most anti gun control folks
> tend to be conservative on other issues, such as abortion. They 
> want government control, except where the issue of guns is 
> concerned. These folks want us to decide for ourselves about 
> whether or not to have a gun, but not about other pressing societal 
> isssues.

actually, the net is kind of unique on the second point. (i'll agree
with you that it's true in general.) there is a high concentration of 
libertarians on the net who defend the -whole- Bill of Rights. on the
net, most anti-gun control folks i've seen also tend to be pro-privacy,
free speech, etc. (consider the crossposting about regulation of
guns and regulation of crypto technology that's happening on sci.crypt
and talk.politics.gusn.)

> I just thought it was kind of interesting...

indeed.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
	"Are you hallucinating?" "Oh yes, but not right now." 
	  - Ed Chigliak & Joel Fleishmann, Northern Exposure
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.223100.5500@u.washington.edu>, mvickers@orca.fhcrc.org (Mark Vickers) writes...
>In article <1992Nov20.192228.18759@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>>In article <MCCARTY.92Nov19184331@aphid.add.itg.ti.com> mccarty@add.itg.ti.com

[~130 included lines omitted]

>If you have strick gun control laws only people who break laws will have guns.
> 
>-Mark
>f

Wow, it was really worth wading through 5 screens of included text to get to
this insightful comment.

Thanks!  I never would have thought of this!  Have you considered putting it
on a bumper-sticker?


Dave

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:602 alt.politics.elections:24201 alt.politics.clinton:17553
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:45:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.173318.20580@leela.cs.orst.edu> casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:
>>
>If these letters are to be believed then the Democrates and Bill Clinton
>are personally responsible for every disaster since the War of 1812.
>
It's true. I have evidence that they were involved in the bloody TaiPing
rebellion in the 1870's. Don't tell me the liberal media doesn't know
about this.

Alan

Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:507 alt.politics.perot:5558
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Summary: I'd like to see something different
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:14:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <1992Nov16.184728.4005@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> 
> I disagree.  I voted for CLinton because I thought that he would be a
> much better president than Bush is BUT I'm worried about what gun laws
> he might enact.  And I REALLY hope I did the right thing!
> 

I kind of agree with Don...

I like the idea of having a gun around my house, because if
someone breaks in, I can do more than just pray that I get
a phone call off. If I'm caught asleep, chances are that I'm
not going to live long enough to get killed by my own gun.

Many people talk of accidents, etc., but barring silly things
like kids getting a hold of a gun, I wonder how many of those
shootings are really accidental (ie: anger or botched suicide).
I do agree with gun control types that when children are pre-
sent, extra precautions should be taken (trigger locks, etc.).

Perhaps if crimes using guns were punished FAR more harshly
than they are now, people would understand the impact of using
a gun one someone, before they have already blown a hole in
them (At least they might think twice). I just have a hard
time believing that guns cause crime, just by their presence.
Using that logic, we should ban cars (carjacking, vehicular
homicide), sneakers ("teen" thefts), and just about every
other thing we know of that either has value, or can be used
to injure another.

A person who is determined to kill someone is going to kill.
If not with a gun, perhaps a knife or any of a thousand other
things that are common in most households. When are people 
going to realize that bad people are bad people, regardless
of their chosen vehicle?

BTW, I don't really believe all that paramilitary "defend our-
selves against the militia" stuff... Having known many special
forces troops in my lifetime, I'd say that anyone who thinks
they can stand up to trained covert operations people is a bit
whacked, unless they used to do it themselves.

It's not the guns, it's the hands they're in.

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - not my employer's
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:53:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.004237.14669@wam.umd.edu> nuke@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:
>In article <TOM.92Nov8134455@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
>>On the off chance there are any Perot supporters out there who actually were
>>(and are) interested in deficit reduction, you might want to write the
>>Clinton campaign and explain to them that they have gotten a mistaken
>>impression somewhere...
>
>Well, here's one.
>I think that was pretty much the only issue on my mind during the elections.
>Heck, we can always just sell off a few states if our tax income exceeds 
>interest payments.  At the current rate of overspending, (not considering
>Clinton's promise to increase overspending), how long before this actually
>happens?  I've heard folks say that we might see this within 20 years.
>Is this BS or an understatement?


     A book that I read, Bankruptcy 1995, says that the US government will be
bankrupt by 1995.  Read the book because it should clear up some of your
questions.

>
>I was upset about it for about three days after the election... now I'm just
>musing that it will be interesting to witness the complete collapse of the
>economy.  I'm not going to tell you that Perot was a God who was going to 
>save us... Perhaps everything's peachy... I just don't think our economy
>is particularly bouyant.  I dunno.  Tell me how I should feel.  
>
>Someone convince me that Clinton will bring us into economic nirvana.  Really.
>I wanna hear the plan... I wanna feel the warm glow of this election that
>so many people seem to feel.  I'm told that the election was a victory
>in itself.  The crisis is mostly over. 
>
>4 trillion.  How abstract.  How much do we collect in taxes, yearly?
>What happens if we can't pay-up?  Are there any terms to our loans?  
>Who do we owe the money to?  Japan?  Germany?  US banks?  What are 
>the percentages?  
>
>These are real questions... I want to hear real replies.  
>Please.
>
>Take Care..
>


-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:596 alt.politics.perot:5598 talk.politics.misc:61106
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:05:38 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <19NOV199221305485@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
(CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>Example that point to other countries are irrelevant.  Switzerland has a
>>higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet their crime rate is a tiny
>>fraction of ours.  Mexico has togher gun laws than we do and their crime
>>rate is HIGHER than ours.
>
>Just thought I'd point out a few missing facts about the Switzerland claim.
>It is slightly misleading as stated.
>
>First, Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world.  Hence the
>motive for violent crime is rather less than in, say, South Central.

Switzerland is not a rich paradise.  There are people who are not very well
off and there are drug abusers there.  They are simply not very violent.

>Second, all those weapons are "owned" by people in the army or reserves (part
>of the "well-regulated militia" which the Bill of Rights mentions, but which
>gun control opponents always seem to ignore).

No, not all of those weapons are owned by people in the the army.  It is
not too hard to get your own rifle, shotgun or handgun.

However, despite the low crime rate in Switzerland, it is now under pressure
by other members of the EC to adopt stricter gun laws, guns being the
bugaboo of those who don't look for complex solutions to complex problems.

Also, the "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment consists of all able-
bodied men (should be people) between 18 and 45 or so.  And the "People"
mentioned there is ALL the people, as the Supreme Court said in a 1990
decision.

>If you use your military issue weapon to commit a crime in Switzerland, they
>court-martial you (i.e. in a military court) and then execute you by a firing
>squad when found guilty.

All well and good.  If you commit a murder in the US with your gun, you
will also go to prison for a long time or go to death row.

   don
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:616 alt.politics.perot:5609 talk.politics.misc:61201
From: mccarty@add.itg.ti.com (Rick McCarty)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:44:15
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin, TX
	<MCCARTY.92Nov18203808@aphid.add.itg.ti.com>
	<1992Nov19.185445.22510@igor.tamri.com>
	<1egujqINNnss@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aphid.add.itg.ti.com
In-reply-to: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM's message of 19 Nov 1992 15:48:58 -0500

In article <1egujqINNnss@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:

>	   [tons of stuff about gun control deleted]
>
>  Does anybody else see the paradox here?
>
>   These are bretty broad-based generalizations about conserva-
>   tives and liberals, but in the general sense, they seem to
>   fit pretty well. Please don't flame about how you may or may
>   not fit either mold perfectly, I'm just talking in general
>   terms here.

>   It strikes me that most of the people who champion the cause
>   of gun control are the same people who are kind of liberal
>   on most issues, and seem to lean toward the liberal mindset.
>   Except for this issue, where they want the govt to step in,
>   and tell us all what's best.

>   On the other hand, it seems to me that most anti gun control
>   folks tend to be conservative on other issues, such as abort-
>   ion. They want government control, except where the issue of
>   guns is concerned. These folks want us to decide for oursel-
>   ves about whether or not to have a gun, but not about other
>   pressing societal isssues.

>   I just thought it was kind of interesting...

>   -- Mike

I assume you're referring to me as one of those liberal types.  You
might be surprised - I come from a conservative Republican family and
was raised that way.  I'm pretty much a straight ticket Republican
voter.

I guess the point is - I'm a conservative.  But in the case of guns,
I've concluded that there's "something wrong with this picture".

--Rick

===========================================================================
Rick McCarty                                      mccarty@add.itg.ti.com

My views do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.  But they will
someday!
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:19:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.004007.49@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoled
o.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>
>> The Democratic Platform says:
>>     We will relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by
>>     forcing the rich to pay their fair share.
>
>"forcing", eh? why does this conjur up images of a highwayman with
>a mask and a pistol?

The IRS coming to collect with the backing of the federal marshals to take what
they want IS force. The "mask" is the laws which allow this, and the "pistol" 
is the prisons you will be sent to if you resist.

>                      ahh, but why should i worry, i'm a poor, underpaid
>student, they won't bother me...

Will you be a student all of you life?
Most students must get into the real world sometime.
At that time your views might change.

Also, if something is wrong, it is wrong no matter if it effects you or not.
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: CONCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO CLINTON
Keywords: Clinton hate die
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:17:34 GMT

Oy.

A nice, sound criticism of policy would be more constructive, you know.



A cartoon found in last week's New Yorker:
Picture: Middle-aged man talking to another middle-aged man in a bar.
Caption: "I just heard that Superman is going to die.  He's the same
	  age I am!"
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (root)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:23:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.033310.2066@adobe.com> yost@adobe.com (David Yost) writes:
>
>I wonder if they would have written 2nd amendment as it stands
>were the state of weapons development 200 years ago as advanced
>as it is today...
> --dave yost

Most likely.  See, each generation views the weapons of the day as some sort
of consumate plateau of killing capacity.  For instance... it was written of
the crossbow that "Surely the threat that this device poses will mark the 
end of warfare for any civilized society."  I'm misquoting horribly, and I
forgot who said it... but the idea is the same.  I'm sure the authors of the
constitution thought the weapons of their day were pretty effective tools of
death, be assured.  In fact, our civil war relied on the use of guerrilla
tactics (frowned upon by the brits), so they were aware of the danger of 
weapons used in ambush, as well.  <shrug>  

I would assume, plainly, that the risk from the misuse of weapons was secondary
to the risk to personal liberties if you disarmed the populus.  I guess they
also had this wacky idea that criminals would use whatever tools were available
to them, and that dealing with a criminal is a matter seperate to the concerns 
of posessing the means for personal defense.

Woa, what extremely large leaps of logic... hardly.

Take care.  

Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Guns(and Abortion (was Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check)
Keywords: Guns, knives, ban
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:42:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.200123.444@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
>>first .... Admittedly I feel stronger about a woman's right to choose
>>over peoples right to bear arms, but that's another story ...
>
>This is one of the contradictions that I see in the "liberal" agenda. I can 
>choose to kill an unborn child, but I cannot choose to protect myself from 
>someone who is trying to rob/assault/kill me.

Sorry, generalizations like this are incorrect.  I'm a liberal. I'm pro-
choice and I _like_ guns.  I know a good number of other liberals who
either shoot or at least respect the Second Amendment.

   don
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:447 alt.politics.clinton:17201
From: rr@chem.ucsd.edu (Roxanne Rohmann)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re:  PROVE IT
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:45:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: chedccf0.ucsd.edu

nuke@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:
 > vincent@nb.rockwell.com (Bret Vincent) writes:
 > 
 > > But, let's get one thing straight.  The present condition of the 
 > >economy is not a Reagan-Bush failure, but is a Reagan-Bush-
	Democratic Congress failure. 
 > 
 > I disagree.  Personally, I think the Congress is *always* "to blame" for 
 > economic condition (good or bad).  The President does not hold the purse-
 > strings, at best he can wave his hands... and make suggestions.  In all
 > cases, Congress must either give him the green light, or at the very *least*,
 > do nothing to stop his propositions.  
 
Certainly it is true that the President does not hold the purse-
strings.  However, he has two powerful tools, one of which is
mentioned above.

"Making suggestions" is the essence of leadership.  Those 
suggestions come in many forms, and the more successful a 
President is at "suggesting", the more effective a leader
he is.  

One method of suggestion-making at the President's
disposal is his annual presentation of a proposed budget to
Congress.  Not once in the last 12 years was a budget presented
that was even close to being balanced.  In fact, the greatest
deficits in history were those *proposed* by Reagan and Bush. 
And *then* Congress got their hands on the budget.  I find 
it absolutely reprehensible that a Republican President, 
knowing he was facing a semi- hostile Congress that would 
add lots and lots of items to his proposed budget, didn't 
at least start off with a "Republican-looking" budget.  I 
see this as a major, major failure of Presidential leadership.

The second tool that could have been used by a determined
President during the budget process is the veto.  *If*
Bush or Reagan had been serious about wanting a lean and
mean budget and Congress failed to give them one that was
even somewhat satisfactory, they should have vetoed the 
damn thing, and let the country grind to a halt for a few
days.  The politicians in the House are up for re-election 
twice as often as the President, and would have fallen all
over themselves to get the country moving again.  (Of course,
this would have been most effective in the first two years of
the presidential term.)

However, for Reagan/Bush to have used the veto in this manner
would have required that they had very clearly informed
Congress of what they wanted to see out of them, and what 
the consequences would be if it wasn't forthcoming.  Since
a clear message of that sort never did happen, I must conclude
that the recent Republican presidents weren't serious about
their vaunted economic plans, and that all the hand-wringing
that has gone on the in the last few years is simple theatrics
designed to impress the electorate.  

We weren't impressed.

   ---Roxanne Rohmann
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Guns(and Abortion (was Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check)
Keywords: Guns, knives, ban
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:54:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.184233.19963@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Bal
dwin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.200123.444@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
>>>first .... Admittedly I feel stronger about a woman's right to choose
>>>over peoples right to bear arms, but that's another story ...
>>
>>This is one of the contradictions that I see in the "liberal" agenda. I can
>>choose to kill an unborn child, but I cannot choose to protect myself from
>>someone who is trying to rob/assault/kill me.
>
>Sorry, generalizations like this are incorrect.  I'm a liberal. I'm pro-
>choice and I _like_ guns.  I know a good number of other liberals who
>either shoot or at least respect the Second Amendment.

I understand that generalizations like this do not apply to individuals.
I am pro-choice & pro-gun and I consider myself a conservative.
I am speeking to the overall liberal agenda, not individuals' agendas.
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc