HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:03:00 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr12.033014.25042@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.211334.18518@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>> ...
>>  Will everyone who is in danger of being attacked be provided with
>>armed bodyguards?  If that service is available to all then I see
>>no inconsistency in Rushdie being provided these services.  However
>>if bodyguards are not provided to all, and the government prevents
>>people from effectively defending themselves, then inconsistencies
>>abound. 
>
>Henry, I am astounded! I thought you would have some understanding of 
>this case. Rushdie is under a death sentence. There is a price on his
>head. He is in known danger because some people find a novel he wrote,
>offensive. He is in a different category that the rest of us.
>If you can't see this, I pity you.

  Oh, now I see - Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than
others.  Rushdie is clearly in a different category than others
who are "in danger of being attacked" because, um, er, well, it
is clear anyhow, and I can see it.  You can cease your pity.
> ...

--henry schaffer
From: ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Hypotheticaly Speaking
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:56:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: ASUACAD.92102.215604ICDLJ
Organization: Arizona State University


    During the swearing-in process for all enlisted men and women
    who agree to put their lives on the line and enter military service,
    American (USA) military personnel swear to:

        First:  Defend the Constitution of the United States of America
                from enemys both foreign and domestic, and
        Second: To obey the orders of their respective officers in
                accomplishing these goals.

    Lets assume for the sake of the statement, that all US Federal gov-
    ernment employees swear a similar oath.
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Australian Government and RICO
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:46:00 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Apr6.070858.10269@cs.uow.edu.au> phil_herring@itsus-gw.uow.edu.au (Rev Dr Phil Herring) writes:
>
>Concern about restraint of government powers? It exists, though not as part
>of the general flux of political "debate". I quote that word here to indicate
>that I think such debate as exists resembles the inane name-calling of
>schoolchildren. (Citizens of the USA should not take comfort from this,
>though, because we seem to have the same standard of political debate here
>as you do over there. Different tone, but the same intellectual level.)
[snip]

>Currently, our government leaves us alone, though it isn't
>legally bound to do so, and may indeed change its collective mind in the
>not-too-distant-future; whilst the US government, though legally required
>to do the right thing, is manifestly prepared to ignore its obligations. 
>If we are to conclude anything from this, it's that you aren't being 
>vigilant enough, and that we continue to be luckier than we deserve.

Listen to this person Brian Ross, he has, as he is from Australia,
taken care of the old debate you and I had from last year.

No, I still have you in my kill file, and you won't get out until
a RKBA'r I know on the net suggests that you have become reasonable.

Thank you Rev. Dr.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Oh, Boys (Was Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!)
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:12:52 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Organization: m4


 Thankyou, Susan, for pointing out the boyish behavior of some posters to
 this newsgroup.

 I certainly hope you meant me. At my age, any suggestion that
 that I've got something youthful about me is most appreciated.

 ---lee KC6KXI   Support the NRA/ILA/PVF---
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Perot quote heard on the radio.
Summary: It doesn't sound like he is on our side.
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:11:24 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

"I can't believe the gun lobby wants the crazies to have machine guns.  If
they do they'll vote against me."
	- H. Ross Perot on Evans & Novak

Either he is uninformed, or he is dishonest.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef		I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:34:54 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.151931.5954@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:
>
>>>that the use of lethal force is *always* considered an extreme measure,
>>>to be used only as an absolutely last resort.  Most, if not all, of the
>
>>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>>would kill for a penny; like in the case of the Terminator
>>saying OZ should be nuked; like in the case of the guy who said he
>>would attack the guy who tipped beer on me. There are none so blind...
>
>...as those who continually take things out of context.  Go back and
>re-read those postings, and try to comprehend the context, this time.

I just did exactly that. And my opinion is the same. I don't think
saying, Nuke Australia, for example means anything other than that.
>
>>>the stage of discussing guns, we have dismissed the other alternatives
>>>as inadequate for the particular situation.
>
>>Yes.... always the non-violent ways are dismissed. You live
>>in a violent society. You know no better.
>
>Always?  Come now, Davie, that's an extreme statement, even for you.  Note

That is what is so charming about you mob, you are the first
to take offense at words like ratbag, but think that using
childish versions of people's names is OK. So childish!

-- 
   "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: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 23:42:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au
(David Bowman ) writes:
[...]
>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

You got it man!  I LOVED those MAD MAX films!  But if that's an
Austrailian balanced perspective, you people are really sick...
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:43:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.232909.12087@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.154757.21316@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>>>would kill for a penny;
>>
>>Said person doesn't seem to exist outside Bowman's head.
>>
>Have you been asleep, away or something. The guy has written in 
>owning up. You've lost the plot mate!

No, he didn't own up to "would kill for a penny".  He said that he'd
defend himself from an attack even if all he had was a penny, which is
a very different thing indeed.

Ross doesn't know tenses and Bowman has problems with reading
comprehension.  I'm sure that's my fault, perhaps because "my" CIA
overthrew an Oz govt just like it was some third world country and not
a toady looking for a master.  Oz "virtue" is incapacity.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: And they called it a "Police Riot!"
Keywords: rodney king / chicago '68 convention
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:02:13 GMT

>One baton blow to these people was more than enough to
>split skulls, break bones and cause concussions. Hitler would have
>been proud of the Chicago police on that day.

Everyone in favor of gun control raise your right hand.  (Picture of
Hitler appears without his right arm locked in the Nazi salute.  Behind
him, three huge flags bearing swastikas hang in a row.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 15:38:08 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

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
to worry about having a flat?

>   "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.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:37:32 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr9.133601.27927@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> >But does your government encourage or discourage each household to buy
>> >and keep their own fire extinguishers around the house or in their
>> >car, against the 'what if' of a fire starting that they are able to
>> >put out by themselves? Are you claiming that the best response to a
>> 
>> Yep, moderately. The govt has better things to do than worry unduly
>> about it.
>
>Then I submit that they're negligent in promoting the public safety and 
>welfare.  Encouraging people to buy smoke detectors and fire extinguishers 

Read what I said..."moderately". And even then it depends on
the season and location. There is a larger concentration in summer
when bushfires are more likely.

>costs little or nothing and saves lives.  Maybe lives aren't that important....
>
>> >grease fire on your stove is for you to run off and call the fire
>> >department, then run out of your house and let it burn until the fire
>> >crew shows up?
>> 
>> No. Why do you postulate such a silly thing. But of course all
>> things in moderation. No use being a hero and getting burnt. 
>> Houses can be rebuilt; people cannot.
>
>Are you REALLY so dependent on others that you're incapable of putting out a   
>small grease fire?  Are you so incapable of fending for yourself that you

I didn't say I wouldn't put out a grease fire? Why do you insist
on misreading? I said you were being silly by suggesting I
would run out of the house and not put it out myself.

>would rather endanger the lives and property of others, than exercise a MINOR
>amount of personal responsibility?
>
>Are you also against civilians knowing CPR?  After all, there are para-medics
>who know such things.  A person dieing of a heart attack MIGHT live long
>enough for them to come.  Then again they might not, but what the heck, all
>things in moderation eh?  Including survival....

You are being silly again!
>
>> >
>> OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>> for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>> to have preventative equipment.
>
>Most of the INDIVIDUAL officers that I've known WEREN'T.  Chiefs are in 
>POLITICAL posts who must follow the POLITICAL dictates of their superiors.

OK. So your police system has its problems. I am talking about Australia,
where I am  getting gladder I live in, by the minute. This group
is convincing me that there is something seriously wrong with
the American system.
-- 
   "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: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:58:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.011046.15577@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>You dust your fire extinguisher!

Let's see if you can follow this complex thread:  It sits in the corner of
my kitchen counter.  There is dust in the air.  Some of that dust, over
time, deposits on the fire extinguisher (as it does on everything in the
house.)  I like my house to be clean.  Therefore, I dust all those objects
that have an accumulation of dust on them.  Is that really so hard to
comprehend, or do you just live like a slob?

But then, I keep my guns clean, too...

>Nearly every one I know manages without a fir extinguisher. You
>don't need one to put out a tiny greese fire! You guys
>are hung up on consumerism.

At least we can spell. :-)  Nobody I know uses a fir extinguisher, though
most of them own a *fire* extinguisher.  Very rarely does anyone need to
use it, but it's good to have in that isolated case where it's necessary.
BTW, what would you recommend to put out a greese (actually, it was a
"grease") fire that's very close to the wall and threatening to ignite
the wallpaper?  It was on the stove, not confined to a pan where I could
just smother it by putting on a lid.

>Fair enough. If you live in a place prone to bush fires
>your attitude seems just fine to me, in this respect. I
>was talking about cities, not little towns in bush fire territory.

Who's talking about bush fires?  I'm talking about house fires in towns
and small cities.  You know, places with apartment buildings and sidewalks
and public transportation and all that...

>>around, do you?  You're really getting ridiculous lately.  But thanks for
>>the laughs!

>That's OK, you repay me a hundredfold.

Good...does that mean you're starting to recognize humor when you see it?
You should, you post enough of it.  Oh, were those articles meant to be
serious?  Sorry, they failed miserably.

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:58:43 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <32211@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>In much the same way we have police to worry about
>>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.
>
>Hate to shoot down one of your pet theories, Mr. Bowman (no I don't.
>"PULL!" <*BLAM*>), but your analogy about the police worrying about
>"what-ifs" on the criminal front holds about as much water as a burst
>balloon. The police probably don't sit around thinking "what if David
>Bowman's house gets burglarised? What shall we do?" Rather, you should be
>thinking "what if someone breaks into my house while I am at home, and I am
>unable to get police assistance? what if said intruder is armed and
>threatens me with bodily harm if I don't submit to his demands? what if the
>criminal, having ransacked my house, abused my loved ones, and generally
>made a nuisance of himself, says he is going to kill me to prevent my
>describing him to the police and potentially identifying him if he is
>caught?" This sort of situation is where having some form of self-defense

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.

>weaponry, preferably one with a greater range than arm's length, becomes
>quite desirable, and I for one plan to invest in such weaponry as soon as I
>move off campus (firearms are not allowed on campus because theoretically,
>as we live in buildings which are patrolled at night by police officers and
>have all entrances locked after 7 p.m., we don't need firearms for
>protection. Just last quarter, there were five burglaries in my building
>alone, and several assaults and one rape on-campus. I feel safe. :).
>>-- 
You feel safe but you have lost your freedom!

>>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>>    was swatting at flies.
>
>And while you preach tolerance for one's fellow man, your signature seems
>quite contradictory.

No, it is just that you don't understand it. Maybe if you worried
less you would gain humour.

>
>Marc Reeve
>cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us


-- 
   "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: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Text of House Joint Resolution 438
Keywords: 2nd Amendment, repeal, U.S. Congress
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:25:29 GMT

This was taken from the Bullet-N-Board, (703) 971-4491. 

Well, folks, it's finally happened!  When I saw this, I couldn't believe
it, then I thought my heart stopped!

Either way, the alarm must be sounded and the word must be spread as never
before to stop this nonsense!

THE FOLLOWING IS THE ACTUAL WORDING TAKEN FROM THE U.S. CONGRESS OF A BILL
TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!
===========================================================================
                         102d CONGRESS, 2d Session
                  ---------------------------------------
                              H. J. RES. 438
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing
the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
                  ---------------------------------------
                      IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                              MARCH 11, 1992
Mr. Major Owens of New York introduced the following joint resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
                  ---------------------------------------
                             JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing
the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring
therein),

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission
for ratification:

                                 "ARTICLE
"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States
is repealed.".
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Reply-To: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 21:14:08 GMT

<2247@news.duke.e>


In a previous article, Susan McDonald says:

>
>       Perhaps you need to learn to read node addresses better?
>
>

No, Susie, dear......Duke.edu, which is the way the msg header reads on this 
end, is quite clear.  Surely you have more of a life than to sit about and carp 
about such things.



>
>       It is?  Funny, we don't have plea bargaining, revolving door
>prisons, a massive crime wave by recividists nor do we suffer from the same
>levels of violent crime as does America.  To me, it appears that our legal
>system is working just fine.
>

It DOES???? <chuckle>    Maybe you should investigate surgical extraction of 
those rose-coloured glasses, dearie.



OK, Susie.....we all surrender.  Every last one of us gives up and admits the 
errors of our ways! You have convinced us all that you are indeed the saviour 
of the modern world.  Without your altruistic guidance Autralia would have gone 
down the toilet long since.  However, solely by your divine provence, Australia 
is now the only place on the planet where heaven can be attained prior to our 
meeting with the Grim Reaper.

Indeed, Australia must now surely be the Common Man's Paradise!  (How utterly 
Stalinesque of you, Susie dear!)

Now ...go play someplace else.





Again..... Australian law is in an even worse condition than the US legal 
system.  How you and your country saddles itself with impotent, knee-jerk, 
mentally bankrupt statutes is completely up to you.  I really couldn't care 
less.






--

"1935 will go down in history!  For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration!  Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

                                                 ....Adolf Hitler, 1935.
                            ---- * -----
"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country!
Common sense wins out.  I'm just so thrilled and excited. 

"The sale of guns must stop.  Halfway measures are not enough."

                                            ...Sarah Brady, 1 July 1988
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns