HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Whose Ox Is Gored? (was: democratic platform)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul21.184349.19291@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Jul22.214214.29127@adobe.com>
	<1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:24:37 GMT

<In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
<   > = (Phil Ngai) writes:
<   >> = (Mark A Zabel) writes:
<   >>> = ? (You'll have to ask Phil):

<   >>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
<   >>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons

<   >>It remains to be seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
<   >>platform above work.

<   >Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
<   >before a woman could get an abortion?

<   Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.

	Really? The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out
	in the Constitution in plain text; the right to an abortion
	is an "emanation of a penumbra", invented in the 1970's.
	
	However, both are generally accepted as Constitutional
	rights; therefore, both are apples or both are oranges.

<Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
<records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

	Ah, you mean the way the Kalifornia DOJ "spotted" Patrick
	Purdy? You recall Purdy; the man who received Social
	Security checks because he was "mentally disabled", the
	man who was arrested for attempting to sell illegal machine
	guns...the man who bought FIVE (5) handguns in Kalifornia,
	each time being approved by the DOJ?

	Waiting periods have a rather bad track record for preventing
	crime.

<   Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
<   goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

	Oh, you mean like a black single mother in Los Angeles not
	too long ago? You mean like a woman whose ex-husband has
	been making death threats? You mean like an elderly man
	who calls the cops on his crack-house neighbors, then
	receives death threats from the criminals? You mean...well,
	maybe you've gotten the point, here?

<   Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
<   sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
<   wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
<   abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?

	Who knows better than she if she wants to buy a gun, to
	keep her abusive husband from tracking her down and killing
	her TONIGHT?

<   Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.

	It appears to be a Swiftian "modest proposal", to me.

<   >My opinions are my own.

<   Yet you wish to make those opinions everybody's, by force of law.

	HAHAHAHA....no, he wants to point out to folks like you
	just how hypocritical you are.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:919 talk.politics.misc:36193
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?
Date: 27 Jul 1992 22:35:38 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> }Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?
|> 
|> To wager a guess - because he is afraid to steer?  Seen the responsible
|> positions that he has run for?
|> 
Maybe because the paying customer has more say over where the bus goes
than the driver does.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:817 talk.politics.misc:36038 sci.econ:6555
From: Robert_Ryan@brown.edu (Rob Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:08:48 EDT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <EIVERSON.92Jul22202642@mykene.nmsu.edu>, eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric
Iverson) said:

>Extremely unlikely.  If Bush dumps Quayle his standing with the
>conservatives will plummet.  Spelling a speedy end to his chances of
>re-election.  Someone on CNN referred to Quayle as Bush's heat shield.
>Sounds about right to me.

I'm sorry.  Are you suggesting that all these conservatives are going to
vote for Clinton if Bush dumps Quayle?  No, of course not.  Are they going
to simply not vote (and risk Clinton winning)?  Probably not.  If you are
conservative, Bush is probably your only real alternative.  At this point,
for a conservative to express discontent by voting with his or her feet
and not vote for Bush isn't very clever (the situation is too close for
conservatives risk losing Bush).

Personally, I think that Quayle should be dumped now.  That gives Bush
enough time to remind conservatives that the alternative is Clinton and
probably keep the conservatives voting for him.  It also gives Bush
some respectability for finally getting rid of Quayle and possibly woo
some fence sitters if he got someone like Kemp or Baker.  The downside
is that he'd lose his assassination insurance (kidding).  Bush seems to be
worried that any change of VP would be tantamount to confessing that he made
a mistake and had to change his mind.  Personally, I think that the damage
due to that will be less than the damage incurred by keeping a liability
like Quayle around.

-- Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rob Ryan, internet:   Robert_Ryan@brown.edu or robr@brownvm.brown.edu
           bitnet:     ROBR@BROWNVM
           Compu$erve: 70324,227
 Brown University, Providence, RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: "dal" <p00056@mail.psi.net>
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: 1st Penn Pacific Life Ins.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:30:50 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.01)

>DATE:   27 Jul 92 18:50:34 GMT
>FROM:   Ken Konecki <kenk@sdc.com>
>

>Poppycock.  The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens
>to "keep and bear arms".  If it had, there would have been wording such as
>"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
>The first clause of the amendment is indeed a restrictive clause because
>it spells out the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.  The second
>amendment was written to prevent the newly formed national government from
>disarming the state militias.  In the past, Congress has, using their
>powers to regulate commerce, enacted legislation restricting firearms
>sales.  None of this legislation was vetoed by the Supreme Court.
>
>In addition, the Bill of Rights was also never intended to apply to the
>states; only to the national government.  It wasn't until 1940 that the
>first amendment was "interpreted" to apply beyond the federal border and
>only then by virtue of the 14th amendment.
>
>Cheers,
>    -Ken K
>-- 
>Ken Konecki
>e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk

Excuse me .... Why dont you get stuffed? Why is it that most of the 
signers of the Bill of Rights have written about the right to bear arms
as a personal right? In what flim flam reality do you exist? The domain of
our Bill of Rights is entirely and utterly the province of the individual.
Because of sickening rationalizations like yours, our lives are slowly being
dictated, decided and determined by the few and not the will of the individual. 
The hell with the courts, the law, idiot politicians and especially you...
Ill will defend my right to exist as a free man, and not a slave to ignorance.

We are men, not chattel for you amusement.

Dave
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry)
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:15:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

Anthony Koumis writes:
>Taxing the rich at a higher rate doesnt automatically mean that 60K
>will equal 24K.   Anyway, I believe Clinton is looking at 100K
>for higher taxing rates and a small cut for the middle class.

Clinton has been saying 200K.  Ross Perot's plan (or, at least, the
list of items described as his plan on the news the other night) says
100K.

alan



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:33:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.213421.22066@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
}In article <1992Jul27.190231.28652@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
}>>Really?  I'd like to see everybody voting.  
}>>
}>>    - Dave Borden
}>>      borden@m5.harvard.edu
}>
}>Does this include children?
}>
}
}Does Quayle count?

Register fetuses.  No abortion without representation.
Register baboons -- get the right-to-liver vote.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:841 alt.politics.elections:9218
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:21:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul26.220426.20758@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> Like I said, I'd be fairly sympathetic to a universal RKBA, but I just don't
> think the 2nd is up to the task as written. Please propose another Amendment, 
> instead of trying to twist the 2nd to your political agenda. Constitutional
> revisionist tinkering tends to make me uneasy...

Senator Chafee, by a wild chance, HAS another amendment proposed.  It would
REPEAL the Second Amendment.

Funny.  Why would he want to do that, I wonder, if it really meant what
YOU say it means -- and not what WE say it means...?
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:762 alt.politics.perot:1084 alt.politics.marrou:198 talk.politics.guns:17983
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:26:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

So speaks thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman):
>>I don't own a gun.  I never have, and I probably never will.  However, 
>>I definitely consider myself strongly on the supporting side of the 
>>right to keep and bear arms.  Maybe there is more careful wording 
>>than "gun owners" when refering to that kind of political support.

So speaks sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman):
>pro-RKBA'ers
>pro-gunners
>Second Amendment supporters
>?

I think that "pro-RKBA'ers" is the best wording to use.  It separates
the principles (protection of freedom, self-defense, militia use, etc)
from the tools used to defend those principles (the guns themselves).

Of these two facets, I think that the principles are more important
than the tools, yet the principles are undefendable without the tools. 
The two are inseperable, but I think that the distinction need to be
made.  Hence, I favor "pro-RKBA'ers."

Anyone else care to add to this little bit of political philosophy?

--
David Winters  
dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

          Illigitimi non carborundum.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:668 soc.women:14068
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.224818.18580@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>Just to piss you off :).  Let's see, how many 21-year-old gang members do you
>think go in and buy guns for their younger friends?  Totally zero?  Get real.

So a waiting period is going to affect this? Right...

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:444 talk.politics.misc:35538
From: casey@zorro.lexmark.lex.usa.na (Patrick Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:51:58 GMT
Reply-To: pacasey@lexmark.com
Organization: Lexmark International, Lexington KY

In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:


>   Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
>   its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
>   operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
>   manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.

This doesn't have anything to do with politics (at least I don't
intend it to), but the company I work for still manufactures
typewriters (for IBM) right here in Lexington.

And I just found out that Lexmark has made a press release talking
about all this.

Patrick
--
Patrick A. Casey      pacasey@lexmark.com         Hi, I.S. big brothers!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:781 alt.politics.elections:9176
From: bm125@eng.cam.ac.uk (B. Maxwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: THE DEBATE CONTINUES (read this please!)
Summary: Congressional salaries
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:57:32 GMT
Organization: Cambridge University Engineering Department, England

In article <1992Jul24.123818.163@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:

>I suggest a cut in Congress' absurd salaries...do you know just how much they
>rake in????
>

Just to clarify things, they 'rake in' around 120,000 per year.  To
have a flat in Washington, DC is not cheap, around 20-25,000 per year.
Plus they have to have a home in their district/state at probably
another 15-20,000 per year (modest sized house).  Plus car payments
and the usual, plus flying back and forth (the government doesn't pay
for all of their plane trips), plus if they have a family, etc., etc..
120,000 doesn't go that far when you're expected to have two homes,
one of which is in a very expensive city.

Furthermore, these are people who could easily make 2-10 times that
much in private practice.  Is it any wonder that Congress relies on
its honorariums to make some money.  They even tried to cut out the
honorariums and give themselves a small pay raise to balance it out,
but the public said NO.  That bill would have REMOVED some of the
influence peddling that goes with receiving money for speaking to
groups.

Finally, cutting Congress' salaries by 50% wouldn't even make the
deficit quiver.  That's 60k * 535, which is around $3 million, which
is about 1/33 of the price of a B-2 bomber.  And cutting Congress'
salaries would make the place even more of a rich boys club because
only the independently wealthy could afford to be in it.  Don't go
blaming the deficit on Congress' paychecks.  Perhaps if we paid them a
little more we'd get some better action because they wouldn't have to
be on the speaking circuit all the time peddling to make a living.
(No, I'm not saying they're poor guys, sacrificing their incomes for
their country.  I am saying their incomes, due to the government
paycheck, are nowhere near extravagent and potentially restrictive if
some average Joe is interested in running.)

>Also, cut our defense spending. The Cold War is over and our Generals must
>pack up their bombs and go home...time to deal with matters on the home front.
...much more...
>
>Christopher

I like this idea much better.  Run with it.

Bruce Maxwell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:14:52 GMT

In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>But you're right.  Anyone who really, really wants a gun can probably get
>it.  But what the waiting period attempts to do is stop people like
>David Chapman and John Hinckley, who walked into gun shops and minutes
>later came out with the guns they used to kill John Lennon and attempt
>to kill Ronald Reagan (oh, if only I could switch that around).

Chapman passed a background check before getting his gun.  Hinckley
would have passed any background check.  Both bought MONTHS before
use.

In other words, the "solution" doesn't even have any relevance
to the examples.

>>>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>>>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

Yup, people who find out that they're in immediate danger deserve to
die for not planning ahead.

>>So would the woman who started getting death threats from her abusive ex-
>>spouse.
>
>This is a problem that perhaps the waiting period is designed for.  By
>preventing the abusive spouse from running out and buying a gun and
>killing the other person in the heat of passion, that person now has
>to wait seven days.

Abused wives know that abusive husbands don't need a gun to kill.
Clubs and knives work, but so do fists and feet.

>OK, let's assume that the abusive spouse already has a weapon, or chooses
>to commit havoc by another means.  This is what police protection and
>injunctions are for.  I'll admit that these methods are not what they
>should be, but (being the bleeding heart that I am) I think there should
>be more emphasis on it.

Police protection?  Police protection implies that police protect.
They don't.  They come around after the crime and clean up the mess.
Maybe they even look for the perp.  That's not protection.

>I'm sure most people would rather be sequestered or relocated
>than suffer through the trauma of killing another human being, not to
>mention a trial and media attention (remember the Burning Bed?).

Since sequestration and relocation isn't an option ....

>What's your point?  People that wanted guns those days in LA had only to
>bust into the front of the store and take one.  Obviously the waiting
>period wouldn't have been a problem there.  People that already had guns
>were a threat, people that didn't were threatened.  But in no way did this
>affect anyone's prospects of shooting or getting shot at.

Really?  The shopowners who couldn't get guns weren't affected?

Hmm.  Some stores are still standing and some aren't, and the
difference isn't just who owned what.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: whh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (william.h.havanas)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:15:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.152744.2023@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>>[]
>>Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
>>its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
>>operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
>>manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.

	What's the market for typewriters in the USA?  I would think that
it's small by now given the growth in Computers and Word Processors,
even my mother who's 69 got ride of here typewriter and bought a
word processor.

>
>Also, General Motors is reportedly planning to open a factory in
>Spain, one of the cheapest European labor markets.  It's not
>necessarily Bush's fault entirely, but it couldn't hurt
>to continue to blame him.  Hey, it makes more sense than talking
>about less relevant issues!
>

	Is GM planning on exporting the cars from Spain to the USA or
are they going to sell in Europe?  If their target is Europe will they
be replacing jobs in the USA or is this an expansion?  Will they be
using US auto part or Europians parts?  Without the whole story
it's hard to determine if this is good or bad for the US economy.

	BTW it can hurt to blame somebody wrongly.

	Bill Havanas


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM>, Rod Williams writes:
<Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the Founding Fathers knew
>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
<and personal nuclear devices.  To claim that their 1789 view of
>"arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
<conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction that
>are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
>flam reality".  The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
<actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.

OK, I can buy the argument that the founders had no clue what life would
be like today and that their opinions about guns are hopelessly outdated. 

It seems to me, though, that the law of the land, as articulated in the 2nd
amendment, is that we can all have guns if we so choose. 

The answer, then, is not to argue over shades of meaning in the words of the
second amendment, about what constitutes a "militia" or the strict definition
of "arms" but to change the law entirely. 

All this mealy-mouthed grumbling about definitions ignores that fact that 
for our entire history we have been a gun-totin' nation. If you don't like it
then change the amendment, but until such time as you can get a 
majority of the states to ratify your amendment, I have the right to my
guns and you have no input to my decisions about which guns to own. 

JZ
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:899 alt.politics.bush:298 alt.politics.elections:9250
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:02:31 GMT
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

>Really?  I'd like to see everybody voting.  
>
>    - Dave Borden
>      borden@m5.harvard.edu

Does this include children?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns