HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug18.194045.16957@mtu.edu> <183142@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:02:15 GMT

<In article <183142@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:

<   Hey, why stop there?  I'm not going to feel secure about a government
<   takeover by the military until I and every durn gun owner has 30 megatons
<   of H-bomb power to stop them damn pesky coups of the US Government.

	Since weapons of mass destruction are not appropriate
	militia weapons, Lambert's argument is moot.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:45:32 GMT

In article <BD.92Aug21085251@fluent.UUCP>, bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU
(Brice Dowaliby) writes:

> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
> 
> >OK, let's be rigorous about this.  I don't need an excuse, since it's
> >a Constitutionally guaranteed _Right_.  I don't need to make arguments
> >in support of *Rights*.
> 
> Yes, you do. 
> 
> To avoid some flaming, let me state at the outset that I support the
> 2nd Amendment.
> 
> But to say that you don't need to offer support for something because it's 
> in the Constitution is absurd.

This is a never ending argument.  A number of the anti-gun folks can be
told the reasons today, and tomorrow again ask "why?".  As long as it's
in the Constitution, the "why?" is not terribly relevant.

> There are numerous amendments to the 
> Constitution, and there is no logical reason why a new amendment couldn't 
> repeal the second.

The Bill of Rights enumerated certain rights, considered by the founders
to be pre-existing, and _inalienable_.

The logical reason for _not_ repealing it, is the war that will result
from such a repeal.

> There are reasons why the 2nd amendment was put into the 
> Constitution - those arguments are the ones you should be using 
> to support your right to keep and bear arms.

I do that, until I see someone who ignores all evidence presented, then
I point them to the Constitution.  Since they only believe in the force
of law, they may as well read the Constitution.  (I suspect they haven't
read it often, or recently).

> Does anyone know of an example where a well-armed population was 
> oppressed by its government?

The United States?....  ;-)  (they sure try hard, anyway...)

> Sure, people can come up with examples 
> where an oppresive government has been toppled without a well-armed 
> populace, but so what?

I can't think of any...  Anyone else know of any examples?

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2010 alt.politics.bush:1699 talk.politics.misc:39924
From: urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Demo Control Control
Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:00:16 GMT



In article <1992Aug11.140243.21645@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>The argument that gun control laws cannot achieve their intended
>purpose is a loser, in my opinion.  That's what I was saying.  If such
>laws were sufficiently stringent, and sufficiently enforced, I believe
>they would probably reduce death and injury to some (perhaps small)
>extent.
   You would probably see a reduction in the number of criminals killed and
injuried by honest citizens defending themselves from a crime in progress.
  The number of honest and disarmed citizens killed and injuried by criminals
would go up.

-- 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom   Boxborough, MA  These opinions are mine.
"Banning guns makes for great theater but it does nothing to address the 
real problem of criminals and criminal behavior,"
                            -- New Jersey State Assemblyman Frank LoBiondo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.election
From: jennyb@triton.unm.edu (Jenny Ballmann)
Subject: Re: Is it me...
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 13:46:03 GMT
Organization: UNM Janitorial Staff

In article <cgw.714363203@sol.acs.unt.edu> cgw@sol.acs.unt.edu (christopher williams) writes:
>...or does Herr Clinton look more than a little bit like Herr Professor 
>from Gilligan's Island?
>
Hmmm...to me he looks like Fred Schneider from the B52's.

Jenny
world-weary
-- 
"I have heard of people communicating with rocks. I personally prefer
dogs or trees." -J. Winston
"I hope you don't get as confused as I appear to be." -ibid.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2464 tx.politics:4314
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:28:50 GMT
 <1992Aug17.132446.9845@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> <1992Aug17.165722.13515@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Aug17.165722.13515@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.132446.9845@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>|>> 
>|>> Medicaire has to go, except for the poor.
>|>> Social Security has to go, except for the poor.
>|>> Housing subsidies, (like the housing mortgage interest deduction,) has to
>|>> go, except for the poor.
>
>Why should we keep making execptions for the so-called "poor"?
>
>|>> 
>|>> Poor means poor.  Not middle class.  Poor means rice and beans and no heat
>|>> in the winter.  I'm sick and tired of spending my tax money on retired
>|>> guys with two boats and an RV.
>
>I'm "sick and tired" of wasting my money on those too lazy to work.

Hey, Chris, I know some people so "lazy" they work 2 jobs and barely
get by. If IBM continues to operate the way they do now, YOU may`
get a chance to prove that you are not "too lazy to work" when you're
out looking for a job. Speaking of that, I've got information from`
a Chinese outfit that will provide me with a room full of
Computer Science Phds for less than IBM pays one of theirs.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2585 talk.politics.guns:19872
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:38:37 GMT
Organization: NC Microproducts, Inc.

In article <183141@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
}In article <1992Aug18.154422.6971@bluemoon.rn.com> grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
}>Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
}>
}>>...And I suppose all you conservatives will point your legally obtained
}>>firearms at the tanks, fire them, watch the bullets bounce off, and then
}>>be squished yourselves?
}>
}> Nope. We would point them at the tank crews, fire them and watch the
}>tank crews drop. Then the tank won't be a problem anymore.
}
}Gee, now we didn't we try that during WWII?  We wouldn't have had a problem
}with those Panzers then! 

Actually, I beleive hand weapons can be used with great effectiveness to
kill tanks.  The procedure is:

   1) Kill a soldier with your peashooter to get an automatic weapon.
   2) Use multiple automatic weapons, collected by other "gun-nuts" using
      method 1 to assault a weapons repository or convoy, collecting
      some anti-tank weapons.
   3) Shoot the tanks with what you got in (2).

In fact, I beleive the OSS dropped a shitload of singleshot pistols into
the occupied countryside during WWII, with the above procedure in mind.
Even had a little comic book that showed how to do it.

}Hold on, there, I think them thar tank crews stay in the tank, lotsa armor,
}and your lil ol' pea shooters operated by them thar lil' ol' pea brains are
}gonna find out what a REAL "well regulated militia" is all about, bubba.

Hell, they gotta come out sometime, if, for nothing else, to empty the honey
pot, fuel the vehicle or get a bite to eat.  Besides, all you really have to
do is toss something in to fuck up the treads...then either somebody has to
come out to clear it or they sit there till the end of the War, which, for
a Tank, comes fairly quickly when they sit still too long.

Another good tactic...paintball guns do a great job of messing up the
little periscopes and sights they use to drive and fire when they're
in there.  Once these are impared, somebody has to get out and wipe
the old windshield, eh? Hey, and paintball guns are legal, too.

Lance
-- 
Lance T. Franklin            +----------------------------------------------+
(ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org)   | "You want I should bop you with this here    |
NC Microproducts, Inc.       |    Lollipop?!?"                 The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas            +----------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2405 tx.politics:4266
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:32:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

>Hey Bill, a lot of folks think it was the BORROW and SPEND Republicans
>that got us into the present economic situation.  How about it?

If increasing spending is our mistake,
dump the big spenders:

	Like Al Gore, rated by NTU as the biggest spender in the
Senate in the last few years.

	Of the 100 top big spenders in the House (rated by the National
taxpayers Union) all but 4 of them were Democrats.

	Like Bill Clinton, who proposes billions in new spending on
*top* of the projected increases in Federal spending over the next
4 years.

If increasing borrowing is a problem, then:

Support the Balanced Budget Amendment, opposed by Bill Clinton,
opposed by the House and Senate Democrat leaders, and voted
against by a dozen hypocritical Democrats who claimed to support it
(as co-signers) but who voted against it.

*Oppose* Bill Clinton's disaster of an economic plan, whose tax
hikes and regulatory increases will stall out our recovery and *reduce*
tax revenues, while his planned increases in spending will only
contribute to a greater deficit. If his plan goes according
to plan (which it won't), he will add almost $1 trillion more
to the national debt. If it fails, which it will, we can expect
an even wider gap, with an even deeper hole to dig ourselves out of.
Bill Clinton is about to sell us down the river on "change", but
he wants more than change .... he wants the whole damn piggy bank,
to feed the plans of the borrow, tax and spend Democrat party.
	 
Republicans have proposed pro-growth initiatives that will
keep taxes low while revenues rise (shunned by the Democrats), have
bravely fought for spending caps and spending reductions (which have been
demagogued by the Democrats), have pushed budget deficit reduction
legislation like the Gramm-Rudman bill (which have been gutted by the
Democrats), and have recently overwhelmingly voted for the Balanced Budget
Amendment (which the Democrats voted overwhelmingly against).

We need to dump the big-spending Democrat majority in Congress,
and install a progressive pro-growth Republican majority.
*Then* we will end the tax, borrow, and spend binge, and restore
fiscal sanity to the Federal Government.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:15:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.182455.29917@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
 
>In article <1992Aug11.092811.1486@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>>One other thing that you fail to mention is that the double-digit inflation
>>during the Carter term was spurred by a *worldwide* energy crisis caused  by
>>the OPEC oil embargo.
>
>And, Carter had nothing to do with that embargo, right?
>
No, not very much.  It was in reaction to Arab-Israeli conflicts over
which Carter had very little control.  The lack of such conflicts since
then is largely the result of the Camp David accords, which were
probably Carter's greatest achievement.  Without Egypt's forces opening
a second front, the other Arab states are too weak to start anything.
 
>Maybe they'd have done it anyway, but the fact remains that only
>Carter managed to have an oil embargo during his term.  Reagan,
>the supposed boob, didn't, and he had twice as many years.  The
>Saudis won't pull that on Bush; Desert Storm guaranteed that.
>
The lack of an oil embargo since then is largely due to changes in the
oil market.  Since the embargo the increased production from the
ex-USSR, the North Sea and Alaska, along with widespread quota cheating
by OPEC members has caused an oil glut that lessens the impact of any
attempted embargo.  Reagan was no more responsible for these changes
than Carter was for the original embargo.  As for Desert Storm
preventing a recurrence, that is ludicrous, unless you mean it ensured
Saudi gratitude.  The threat "Sell us your oil or we will take it" is
not credible.  They would probably blow it up if we tried.
 
>-andy
>
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2612 tx.politics:4360
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:19:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug22.043502.17876@sdf.lonestar.org> 
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:

> As for the Balanced Budget Amendment, the only reason that Clinton didn't
> support the proposal is because *AS WRITTEN* he felt it was a bad proposal. 
> No realistic cuts take effect with the amendment until 1996, which so 
> happens to be the same year that Bush would be leaving office.  

It would take at least seven years for the states to ratify the
balanced budget amendment.  The Congress and the President would
likely have that long to get the budget balanced.  The amendment 
does not specify that no spending cuts should take effect until 1996.  

I believe that Clinton opposed the balanced budget amendment because 
it would have forced spending cuts in Medicare/Medicaid and domestic 
programs.  Clinton receives widespread support from the elderly 
and the poor, who would stand to lose from spending cuts in those
programs.  

>TIC (Tom Hyatt)      


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:05:12 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><How did the British get booted out of India?

>	Short answer: they left.
>	Longer answer: Ghandi wasn't the only person advocating
>	a free India; many of the others were armed.

 The best answer is to study the history, the Brits were on their
way out before Mohandas Ghandi came along. He just helped turn it
from a bloody and violent long event into a pacifist long term
event.

><you need a better  argument.

>	Disagree. The Constitution of the United States is
>	my argument; it's the best there is.

 If only the government were following it. They have decided they want
to be rulers rather than the servants they are supposed to be though...
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: fabian@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian)
Subject: Secretary of state Baker
Summary: If he's good, why let him go?
Keywords: partisanship unemployment
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:00:57 GMT

	I think if Clinton makes the white house that he should keep James 
Baker on as secretary of state.  It would probably be a first - putting
competency ahead of politics!  It would also be interesting if Clinton 
announced his intention to keep Baker if elected.  How would affect Baker's
handling of the Bush campaign knowing that his job was not at stake?
Would Baker accept? I dunno, but it would be extremely flattering.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1877 alt.politics.elections:10519
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:38:29 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Aug12.182455.29917@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>Maybe they'd have done it anyway, but the fact remains that only
>Carter managed to have an oil embargo during his term.  Reagan,
>the supposed boob, didn't, and he had twice as many years.  The
>Saudis won't pull that on Bush; Desert Storm guaranteed that.
>
>-andy
>
	Sorry, but the first oil embargo happened during the  Nixon/Ford 
administration, along with a major recession, and rising inflation. The
second embargo, under Carter, was less serious. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2584 alt.politics.perot:1327 talk.politics.guns:19870
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:56:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: locusts.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug22.141131.26034@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>Federal drug control restricts the supply of drugs to some extent, as
>compared to what the supply would be now without any controls.  So far as
>I'm concerned, this is practically a tautology, since the legal bans impose
>extra costs on production and distribution.  

This doesn't exactly apply to gun bans: Currently, about 5/6 of the guns
used in crimes come from the black market. Therefore, it is the supply
of guns on the black market that is relevant. In this case, all the
problems and extra costs you refer to _currently_ affect the black market
prices. It isn't clear that an illegal sale which brakes 5 laws would be
any more expensive than an illegal sale that broke only 4 laws.

Certainly, restrictive gun laws _strongly_ affect prices of _legal_
sales. But legally purchased guns are, in general, not used in crimes
and contribute very little to real problems of violence in America. If
the goal is to make live difficult on law abiding gun owners, simply
because you don't like guns, then such laws might be effective.

                                                   Frank Crary
						   CU Boulder
						   (even though I'm
						   still using my
						   Berkeley account)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:26:41 GMT

il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:

>Are we to assume by this thread, that a population armed with "legal"
>guns will be able to overthrow a despotic government backed by an army
>quipped with tanks, bombers, and the rest of the military goodies we're
>always buying for them?

	The answer is "Yes," if the government wants anything left to
govern over.  Don't suspect that Joe Bob with his .30-06 won't be
killed -- nobody ever said that.  Do expect that a patriot militia
will cause severe attrition to the Army, and that government will
have to decide between giving up power or destroying those people
who granted it power.  When you destroy the millions of gun owners
who believe in the RKBA, how do you man factories, farms, and
maintain the infrastructure of the nation?  The choice is
maintaining power over a wasteland, or giving up said power and
still being a member of a viable nation.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2540 alt.politics.bush:2451 talk.politics.misc:41174
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Secretary of state Baker
Keywords: partisanship unemployment
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:13:26 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

> In article <7ayuPB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >fabian@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:
> >
> >>       I think if Clinton makes the white house that he should keep James
> >> Baker on as secretary of state.  It would probably be a first - putting
> >> competency ahead of politics! It would also be interesting if Clinton
> >> announced his intention to keep Baker if elected.  How would affect Baker'
> >> handling of the Bush campaign knowing that his job was not at stake?
>
> If Clinton proposes to keep Baker on as Secty of State, it will be an
> abject admission that he is weak on foreign policy. After all,
> if he is for 'change' why will he keep the same Secty of State?
> Wouldn't such a declaration be an endorsement of Bush's foreign policy,
> and an admission that Clinton has nothing new or different to offer there?
>
> Though I doubt he'll choose the guy, Zbig. Brezinski (spelling? )
> would be a good choice. And he is a Democrat.
>

Why would it be an admission that he is weak on foreign policy?  He's going to
appoint someone to the post no matter what.  Clinton's change argument is
geared to the domestic agenda more than foreign policy anyway.

Zbig Daddy?  Nahhh.  He's another Cold War dinosaur.  While I doubt he'd be
interested in such a demanding job, Jimmy Carter would be an interesting choice
for State.  After all, his administration gets credit for the last real move
toward peace in the Middle East.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2629 bit.listserv.politics:12330 talk.politics.misc:41354