HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:23:29 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

>I did read your post and as far as I remember you mentioned
>something about mere holding the gun will work as a deterrent.
>
>But the only reason guns work as deterrent is because they can
>kill and wound.

So?  That's still a use.  And there was another "use", one that didn't
involve any interaction.

>I am intrigued why you would not list (like 1.,2.,3.) the
>many usages of guns (saving of course the propelling of
>projectiles).

Because listing possible targets is boring, and largely irrelevant.
The most common target is paper.

>Once you do that it becomes apparent to all that the main function of
>guns is to kill/wound/destroy people/animals/things.

That's not true in any useful sense.  We could say that the main
function of knives is to kill/wound/destroy people/animals/things,
just as we could say that the purpose of marking/writing implements is
to deface things, but both would be dishonest, just as KAT's
"apparent" is dishonest.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:33:11 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: U.K. needs popular front

It would seem that the proponents of the loosers in a British election are
complaining on  how unfair the process to select leaders is.

How original.  That has been the story since 1066.

The US uses the same process for nominations.

Claiming that the election system is rigged because the looney liberals
cannot get elected is less about systemic problems in the process, and more
about the fact that the left cannot organize, cannot agree, cannot run
anything, less of all a country.

If the "left" in the UK were to band together, they could easily defeat the
torries. Until they do, I think that blaiming a system that is among the most
free in the world for the political inability of the left to either cooperate
with each other or win support is silly.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"I smoked pot, but don't worry, I didn't inhale."  - Bill Clinton
"I shot heroine, but don't worry, I missed the vein." - man at Clinton rally
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:06:04 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: one party control of both legislative and executive?

> ******************
> I don't know if any of you saw Face the Nation yesterday or not, but  a
> Republican Congressman made an interesting comment.
>   "I don't think we will be able to get this country out of the mess it is in
> unless we have one party wheter it is the Republicans or the Democrats
> controlling both the legislative and the executive branches."
> Any  thoughts?

> -Renee
> ******************

>    the congresscritter mentioned was vin weber of minnesota, who will
> apparently not run for re-election, due largely to a number of checks
> he wrote that people didn't like.

I watched the same Face the Nation and I thought it was Warren Rudman (sp?)
who said that.  But what do I know......

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:08:29 EDT
From:         Thomas White <GTW100C@ODUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: one redneck on gun control and hunting

Amen!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:28:29 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The House and the Presidency

Even if Reagan would have won (which I am accepting as gospel, even
while I recognize the source B), he would not have had the mandate
he claimed to have, and maybe the country wouldn't have swung so
far towards the right?

Who knows?

(Who knows that evil lurks in the hearts of Washington?)

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 17:30:28 EDT
From: Nicholas C. Hester <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

In article <13APR92.00627880.0140.MUSIC@SDSUMUS>, Type Faster
<T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET> says:
>
>Steve Jackson had a reply to this, which is the same as I feel
>about your comments about the 2nd Amendment.
>
>I admire your stand, and I will send flowers.

"...the valiant taste of death but once."

Nicholas Hester
ia80024@maine.bitnet
ia80024@maine.maine.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:38:05 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      a new approach

I have decided to take a new approach to Jay's postings regarding
homosexuals and their rights. Jay encourages us to substitute terms for
homosexual and apply the same reasoning.

I suggest replacing the term homosexual with people who can't spell.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 11:06:24 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>

Here's a laundry list of thoughts provoked by the recent postings on this
list. (Well what the heck, I can't make LESS sense than anyone else).

* 750,000 persons attended the pro-choice rally in DC last week. There would
  have been more, but some of them were aborted in the years since 1972. At
  least half of them were female and they weren't allowed any choice in the
  matter.

* Any questions about who is behind all of our candidates for President?
  1) Bill Clinton has received hefty contributions from Shearson-Lehman.
  2) Jerry Brown proposes a tax plan that will place an equal burden upon
     people who are in vastly unequal economic circumstances.
  3) Paul Tsongas is quoted as saying "I'll be the best friend Wall Street
     ever had."
  4) George Bush is currently Wall Street's best friend.
  5) Pat Buchanan has a stock portfolio that would choke Godzilla.
  6) Nobody puts much stock in David Duke.
  7) Quinn Brisben is a Socialist and, as the Reagan-Bush banquet-for-the-
     rich of the past 12 years proves, socialism doesn't work.

* British Liberal-Democratic leader Paddy Ashdown is raising hell over what
  he describes as election fraud and ballot cheating in the recent election.
  Paddy 'Pantsdown' knows a lot about cheating. Ask his girlfriend.

* There used to be some old-fashioned social mores about courtship and
  dating wherein men and women would enjoy each others' company, go to a
  dance, take in a movie, a dinner, relate to each other as human beings,
  maybe even fall in love. The guys (they called 'em gentlemen way back
  then) displayed kindness, consideration, and above all, respect for their
  dates (styled 'ladies') and the ladies generally gave the impression that
  they wanted to be respected.  Then came the '60's and with them, the over-
  throw of all those "hollow, irrelevant" schlocky, Richie Cunningham-Happy
  Days values. Everybody demanded more freedom, so down came the restrictive
  walls of corny social convention. The trend went from formal and coy to
  loose and familiar. Real familiar. A kind of arrogance developed on BOTH
  sides that eroded and cheapened the relationships between women and men.
  So now we have date-rape and sexual harrassment, which, together with
  a monumental drug problem and a host related epidemics such as AIDS, is our
  legacy from the period. What to do? Well, Congress will be very happy to
  pass to more laws prohibiting the results of what used to be regarded as
  extreme bad manners, but I think it's more effective if we start taking
  responsibility for our own behavior. Maybe some of those old-fogey social
  conventions were a good idea. Maybe there's more to them than just the
  arbitrariness of a kill-joy clergy. Gee, do you think they were intended
  as markers to delineate the mutual bounds of right and respect?  Nahhh.
  Too corny.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:38:56 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

In article <01GIOGMC5JR08WW1Y6@ITHACA.BITNET> you write:
>>>  The fact is you hunt with a gun, a tool designed to OBLITERATE THINGS,
>>>  not just to send some projectile at high velocities.
>>>  All else is secondary.
>>
>>Again, actual hunter behavior is inconsistent with the theory.  When
>>hunters ask "will this obliterate the animal?", if the answer is yes,
>>they choose a different weapon.  Within economic constraints, hunters
>>appear to try to hunt with the minimum gun necessary to cleanly kill.
>>(The economic constraints are that few can afford a different gun for
>>every different type of game, let alone different sizes of a given
>>species.)  The errors they make are in direction of "too little gun".
>
>    Sorry--my rhetoric got worked up.

I'm waiting to find if there's something else to the argument ....

>  but let me ask you-- if someone
>  were to shoot you dead, would it matter much to you after the fact
>  whether or not there were a recognizable portion of you left?

After I'm dead, I don't see how much of anything would matter to me....

I don't see a big difference between different ways to die, except for
those related to the pain involved.  If I had to choose between being
shot to death, with a quick death, vs a slow death such as being beaten
or sliced up, I'd pick the quick one.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:32:35 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

>> It seems to me that term limits and meddling with the Constitution
>> that has worked (more or less) for the past two hundred years
>> should be done only as a last resort not to kowtow to mob
>> mentality of disgruntled voters OR some Republicans that are
>> using this issue to increase their numbers in the Congress.

> Term limits for governors have been in effect in many states for
> quite a few years and have have done a fine job in achieving their
> objective.

I have to look at the reasoning that has gone behind each one
of those cases.

> We have had term limits on the president for almost fifty years now
> and, again, it seems to have done fine.

Same thing.

> Are you suggesting that the state term limit laws or the constitutional
> admendment limiting a president's terms are wrong or that they have
> done harm?  Seems to me that they are proof that term limitation works.

No I am not suggesting THAT.  What I am saying is: let's
look at the root of the recent discontent.  It seems to
me that people are saying that the incumbents have an
unfair advantage.  Never mind that the same people say that
their representative is OK and that only every other
representatives are bad, for now I am not gonna question
the voter's discontent.

Ok, the incumbents have unfair advantage.  Let's take it away.
If we try every avenue of taking the unfair advantage away and
we still fail then I probably would say we should look at term
limitations.

> Finally, each state can enact term limitations on their congressional
> reps without any change to the federal constitution, thus I don't
> understand your reference to 'meddling with the constitution.'  Could
> you explain a little further, please?

I am not at comfortable at this subject.  I have seen arguments
on the both sides.  I am convinced that term limitations imposed
on US representatives has to be a federal issue and is not within
states' jurisdictions.

> Andrew MacRae

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:48:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Rambo 'n andy

> What is the sound of one knee jerking?

How could you have been hanging around this part of cyberspace for so
long and not know?  :-)

> >* - The song IS funny, but so is Amos and Andy....
>
> It *has* to be, how insulting would it be prudent to be to a well-armed
> crowd? B)
>
> I assume that Jay will probably take umberage at this and point
> out that most gun owners don't have carry permits, do some patriotically
> correct math, and state that gun owners aren't really well armed because
> they are only really *armed* 30 percent of the time. B)

Umberage?  Is that what causes all that colorful rhetoric?  :-)
If we're not careful, pigments will start to occupy the prominent
place in local folklore that is currently enjoyed by shoes.

And by the way, that's one-third, or 7.178394725114 +- .00035618
(daylight savings, of course).  Or, after rounding, 92.    :-)

> >-andy
>
> -other Andy

-Kingfish
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:59:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: guns don't kill people, tv kills people

>Oh goody.  We've found yet another person who believes that if s\he
>had a gun, s\he would be a murderous thug, but lacking a gun means
>that s\he's a nice peaceful sort.  Or, is it that "other people" are
>transformed by gun ownership....  (Before making that argument, it is
>good to the gun ownership stats that it depends on, the stats that
>destroy it.  Similarly, knowing something about the psych research is
>also useful.)

   No.  You completely misunderstood me.  What I said was that having
  a gun on hand means that it is MUCH easier to act on violent urges.
  NOT that having a gun creates violent urges.

>>  Yes, we live in a violent society.  But a good way to make an immediate
>>  impact on the amount of vviolence is to reduce the means for vviolence.
>>  That means gun control.
>
>"A good way" suggests that "gun control works".  Perhaps someone can
>come up with an example of a gun control success.  You know, evidence
>that gun control actually helped somewhere, some time.  Hint: "after"
>numbers alone aren't sufficient; you have to show that things would
>have been worse otherwise, and showing that they were worse before
>would be a good start.  (In other words, if someone claims that
>England is a gun control success, I'll point out that gun control was
>not associated with an improvment in the murder rate in the UK; if
>anything, it got worse.  I'll then start pointing out how certain
>other gun control measures have been associated with drastic increases
>in the murder and crime rate, suggesting that gun control disarms the
>wrong people.  Yes, I'll point to DC because I'm familiar with the
>arguments for its "success"; look at population changes before you
>cite Loftin's work.)

     1. I'll work on finding the proof.
     2. Why don't YOU prove that areas that have had drastic increases in
            the murder and crime rate after gun control was put in place
            would have been better WITHOUT gun control.  After all, it's not
            enough just to prove that it was better before, either.

>So, who's going to pop up with "guns aren't useful for self-defense
>because ..."?

     I must have read your mind, because I gave that just before reading this.

               G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:04:09 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      More sin stuff

From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

>Well, according to the Monsignor who administered my pre-first-communion
>oral exam, a venial sin is one that lands you in purgatory, whereas a
>mortal sin lands you in you-know-where if you die unconfessed

That seems to be right, so far as I can tell. "Venial"
comes from Latin for "forgiveness," but of course
all sins can be forgiven. A mortal sin severs you from
your creator, so if you die in mortal sin, you're out of
luck.

According to my dictionary, a venial sin is by definition
one which merits only temporal punishment. But I'm told
that isn't really correct, since all sins must be
punished in the hereafter. Justice, you know.

>The distinction, he explained, was that a mortal sin was one committed
>knowingly and freely.  Guess homosexuality might qualify.

Agrees with my source, who says that you must know that the
sin is a sin, and commit it intentionally, for it to be a mortal sin.
But there are probably other necessary conditions, too.

Wouldn't homosexuality involve lust? So it would have to be
a deadly sin, at least. But maybe the mortal sin would be
sodomy. The only real way to be sure is to run some tests.
Who wants to volunteer?

>>Anger, avarice, envy, gluttony, lust, pride, sloth.

>Let's see, are those the cardinal sins?

There are cardinal virtues, but I'm not aware of cardinal sins.

It was pointed out to me that the proper contrast with "virtue"
is "vice," and not "sin." A nice point, especially since
the so-called deadly sins are really more in the "vice"
category. They are states of character or states of mind,
not actions.

It's really appalling that the Saved are not helping us
with this stuff, by the way.

From:         holzman@FNALO.FNAL.GOV

>Is that the universal Christian view, or only the Catholic view?

I doubt that there is any "universal Christian view" about
much of anything. (Well, maybe that Christ was the son of
God. But do Unitarians believe that?) But anyway, I think
the mortal/venial distinction is specifically Catholic.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:30:42 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: one party control of both legislative and executive?

It is true that carter ran as an outsider, against Congress.

can we think of another dem candidate that is trying to do the same thing?
If he succeds, will he fare any better?

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:01:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

In article <tfilt203159@drew.edu>, Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KEN
   T.EDU> writes:
> Is the real purpose of this discussion to find a basis for the...
>
>     A)  Regulation of guns?
>     B)  Ligitimacy of?
>     C)  Outlaw of?
>     D)  Moral use of?
>     E)  Other  ______________________________
>
> -Greg
>
Being the cause of this discussion [a response of my post on Jay's
response of my post on a desegregation Supreme Court decision lead
Dave to comment on my point that people are inclined to not take a
middle ground.  He in passing offered the idea hunting was essential
for wildlife management, and I disagreed.  This reminder of how this
whole discussion started for those who forgot], let me offer my
opinion.
    I started by saying that hunting is not really needed for animal
management, or at least that those who get so self righteous that they
are hunting for this purpose are not being honest (at least one
pro-hunting person agreed).  Then, a big discussion was begun with the
imho weird problem of if killing was an intregal part of hunting; one
rather perverse (again imho) response was that killing in hunting is
as incidental as if you go out for a stroll and kill snails on the wet
grass you walk on.  This lead to a discussion of guns in general, as
well as the second amendment with morality thrown in and people
supporting limiting the use of guns for hunting (esp. in populated
rural areas) and for militias.  This discussion highlights the adage
of the kingdom being lost by a loose nail on a horseshoe of a knight
defending it...

                -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 11:08:11 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Moving the Capitol

>I'm just afraid that Providence is next on the list! We could
>use all that money, sure, but what we DON'T need is more
>politicians hanging around in bars.
>Jamie

  Indeed!  We need those politicians hanging around behind
bars, where they belong!

                        -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:10:24 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

other Andy asks about his reply to my homosexuality post.

I am waiting to see if the new members of our list (derrick, et al) reply.  I
told them that I would wait a few weeks.  Then I will respond to all the
posts.

I am glad to see you so eager.  Perhaps you are hoping that I will change
your attitudes?

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton - Best Demo Pol since JFK
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:33:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: OHSTVMA.POLITICS%92040911412356
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Thomas White <GTW100C@ODUVM.BITNET>

> What we don't need is a democratic president with a democratic congress.
> But, we do need the congress and the president from the same party.
> So this year go out and vote for the Republican representative or
> senatoral candidate in your district or state.

> Tom White (GTW100C@ODUVM)

The cynic in me was almost sure that you were gonna say that
we need a president and a congress which are both Republican.
But thank God you did not say that.

Now that you told us what to do will you trust us with telling
us why?

This is the *discussion* of politics not ordering/directing it.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 10:21:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting
              10 Apr 1992 13:35:04 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>> Yes, part of the hunting is killing.  Part of walking barefoot in
>>> wet grass at night is killing also.  That's just as "real".
>
>>    Difference-- hunters are trying to kill something, barefoot walkers
>>  are not.

> No difference.  Hunting involves killing, just as barefoot walking
> in wet grass does.

Look the intent, the purpose, is different.
Now, all of a sudden the purpose -- as in the real purpose of
guns is to propel projectiles -- is no longer important???

>> the fact that most hunters don't even consider not having the kill as
>> a final outcome?

> The "fact" given isn't true.  Hunters do consider that they might not
> kill, that's even the typical result in many/most cases.  It doesn't
> seem to bother them that much, but they do have to try as part of the
> experience.

The "honest fact" is that the original poster does not seem to
suggest that most hunters are so gullible that they don't consider
the probability that they may not be able to kill -- to which
you conveniently responded.  I think the suggestion was that most
hunters do not consider not killing AFTER the point that they are
able to kill.

And don't respond by saying "....but that is not hunting."  I agree
with you on that.  My point is that you amazingly misunderstood
the posters point.

> -andy

--KAT