HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Effecting illegal gun supplies (Was Re: "Demo Gun Control")
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:59:58 GMT

In article <171eaqINNdv0@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>At issue is the price of guns on the black market. Making guns 
>illegal (or restricting legal access to them) would certainly effect
>the _legal_ market, but it isn't clear that they would have any
>effect on illegal transactions. Further, it isn't clear that such laws
>would effect the supply to the black market (thieft from police and
>military, illegal manufacture and smuggling are major sources, all
>of which would be uneffected by a gun ban.) 

You say that a gun ban would fail to effect theft, illegal manufacturing, and
smuggling of guns?  If a gun ban fails to cause gun smuggling, theft of guns
from police and military, and illegal manufacture, that sounds to me like
three more reasons to support it.  Because without a gun ban we certainly
have all three problems already.  Oh, btw, there already is a legal gun
market, so a gun ban can't *effect* it at all.

Graduates of the J. Danforthe Quayle Schoole of the Englishe Language can use
their own dictionaries to find a clue.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Where a man's mind is, there is his treasure."    - Clement of Alexandria |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2453 talk.politics.guns:19779
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:53:04 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

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

[quotring others]

>>If your assertion is correct, how was the military backed coup of Gorbachev
>>overthrown by an unarmed population?  Keep in mind that the conventional
>>forces of the USSR were the largest of any nation in the world. 

>> 	The simple answer is, "it wasn't". The coup against Gorbachov
>> 	failed because too much of the Army chose to oppose it.
>> 

>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?

If smallarms are insignificant, how come the US was unable to defeat
the VC, if all it takes is this heavy weaponry? How come the Russians
didn't succeed in Afghanistan?

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:53:30 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <2r0m0xr.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Hell, sounds good to me!

So do us a favor and get thee there.  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)  

George Lambert
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:50:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.220342.4274@gvl.unisys.com> eds@gvlf5-q.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Skladany) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.214041.2637@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
>> >I look forward to taking my Putting People First message throughout the
>> >country as we head through the final phase of the campaign.
>> 
>> "Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
>> lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
>> PREDATES the Clinton campaign.  They've asked him repeatedly to
>> get his own slogan, to stop using theirs for his ends.  He's
>> blown them off.
>> 
>> He's raising money using their name.  Should they raise money using
>> his?
>
>Take it easy, pal.  Clinton is only using it as a slogan, not an
>organizational name.  What's the big deal?

It show that Clinton doesn't respect other people's property when it
comes to pushing his agenda.  Like his buddy Joe Biden, he steals his
best slogans, only Biden had the decency to stop when exposed, even
though the author gave him permission to continue.  Clinton continues
even though the PPF organization has asked him not to.  He's
effectively destroying the name and reputation they've built up by
tieing it to his partisan activity.

We're willing to believe that Bush is dirty; Clinton seems determined
to prove that he is too.  It's an interesting tactic.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 04:02:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.205605.26961@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>President Bush supports federal funding of fetal tissue research.
>The Bush administration has set up a fetal tissue bank that will 
>collect fetal tissue from spontaneous and ectopic pregnancies.  
>This will allow researchers to gain access to fetal tissue for 
>their research needs.  
>
>President Bush does not support funding of research which involves the
>use of fetal remains from elective abortions, because this might have 
>the effect of lending legitimacy to abortion, and helping to encourage
>abortions.  

Yep, you and Bush are 100% right.  Why, just the other day, one of my
female friends said to me:  "There needs to be more fetal tissue for
research.  I'm going to go out, get knocked up, wait 8 weeks, and then
have an abortion.  I just love that wonderful feeling I get when my
cervix is being dilated."

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2522 alt.politics.bush:2432 talk.politics.misc:41141
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Response to Dr. LaFave's posting re: WSJ attack..
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:08:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Amen, Dr. LaFave.  


As an aside, maybe these discussion groups ought to arrive at some common
definitions, just so we're all talking the same language.  For example,
"rich" and "poor" mean different things to demos and repubs.  Perhaps, if
we say, for example, "rich" is over $200K/year and "poor" is below $21K/year
(I picked $200 arbitrarily and $21K because I think that's what the gov't
or IRS considers poverty level).  In between is the middle class, which is
most of us, and I hope it stays that way.

Please, anyone who cares to, comment on this -- maybe if we can agree on
some definitions, we can "have a dialogue" (did that go out in the 80s?)
that is meaningful.

	Bye, Judy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Dueling Recessions (was: Who owns what?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:48:07 GMT

thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:

>Keep in mind a significant amount of those gains in the auto industry are due
>to two reasons: (1) Some some weird reason auto sales go up in an election year. It's happened for the past seven or eight elections, so a correlation to what
>the economy's doing is out the window, and (2), there were a few plant closings
>during the past year, which saved the companies a nice little chunk of money,
>not having to pay those salaries and all....

I can provide a good explanation for this "wierd" occurence every four years...
the President does all he can during that year to improve the economy! So it
seems natural that things would be looking up during election years, because
in fact, they are - whether it is natural or artificial is another story.


>occur - Reagan's supply-side theory.  I guess that George actually got it right
>in 1980 when he called this "voodoo econonics", because instead of reinvesting
>the money in the companies, they merely pocketed the money, or used it in some
>rather dubious financial planning that gave us a nice legacy of  (a) corporate
>raiding and mergers - (I know of the effects of these personally. Cost me
>pretty decent jobs in two seperate companies), (b) A proliferation of "junk"
>bonds due to deregulation, and ultimately (c) the biggest bailout  in U.S. 
>history- the S&L fiasco.

I must point out here that all these "excesses of the '80's" that it is
fashionable to talk about - all of them were quite illegal, and would have
been stopped if Congressmen hadn't been bribed to keep their mouths shut.
Anyway, all this shouldn't be seen as an indictment of supply-side
economics, but of the lack of ethical conduct rampant in our country these
days. What we have really learned is that many Americans cannot be trusted
when faced with the prospect of making large sums of money. What should we
do, anyway, stop them from turning a profit so they won't be tempted? Aside from
punishing the offenders, there is no reasonable, or responsible, solution. 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:56:05 GMT

In article <92232.122651U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> 
U45301@uicvm.uic.edu (Mary Jacobs) writes:

>         CLINTON CALLS BUSH VETO OF "FETAL TISSUE" BILL
>                  "POLITICS -- PURE AND SIMPLE"
>
> The President wants us to believe that vetoing this bill will discourage
> abortions.  But this bill isn't about abortion: it's about freeing 
> scientists to do the research that could prevent hundreds of thousands of 
> cases of breast cancer, osteoporosis, and a host of other devastating 
> illnesses that have destroyed and bankrupted thousands of American 
> families: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, sometimes fatal diabetes.

President Bush supports federal funding of fetal tissue research.
The Bush administration has set up a fetal tissue bank that will 
collect fetal tissue from spontaneous and ectopic pregnancies.  
This will allow researchers to gain access to fetal tissue for 
their research needs.  

President Bush does not support funding of research which involves the
use of fetal remains from elective abortions, because this might have 
the effect of lending legitimacy to abortion, and helping to encourage
abortions.  

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2362 alt.rush-limbaugh:3783 alt.politics.bush:2288
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:08:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Aug22.205605.26961@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>President Bush supports federal funding of fetal tissue research.
>The Bush administration has set up a fetal tissue bank that will 
>collect fetal tissue from spontaneous and ectopic pregnancies.  
>This will allow researchers to gain access to fetal tissue for 
>their research needs.  

Prezzy said that the needs of the researchers would be met by this method.
He lied.
He predicted 2,000 S.A.'s a year would be available.  People who know the truth
say it's more like 20.  Of course, given the way Prezzy's handled the budget,
the two numbers must look identical to him.

Larry J



-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Militia weapons, was (Defined: National Police Force)
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:34:29 GMT

In article <PA142548.242.714230547@utkvm1.utk.edu>,
PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|>In article <vb!n4wa.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
writes:
|>>From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
|>>Subject: Militia weapons, was (Defined: National Police Force)
|>>Date: 19 Aug 92 05:53:55 GMT
|>>In article <PA146008.240.714181318@utkvm1.utk.edu>
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
|>>>
|>>>>Until the Supreme Court changes its
|>>>>desicion, or a constitution amendment is passed, this is how the Second
|>>>>Amendment is interpreted.
|>>>
|>>>     Some appeals courts have said this.  (But you can find an appeals
|>>>court decision to support just about anything.)  The Supreme Court *has*
|>>>said (in 1939, the last time it was addressed) that a sawed-off shotgun
|>>>was not covered by the Second Amendment because it was not a militia
|>>>weapon.  The Supreme Court has never stated that the Second Amendment
|>>
|>>
|>>By golly a machine gun, a rocket launcher and a crate of grenades surely
|>>must be militia weapons. I want them all!
|>>
|>And why not?  You are a law-abiding citizen, and I have no need to fear you 
|>with those items, and you might save my life one day.  

Geez! With those weapons he could do whatever he wanted to do!  And for the
most part I don't think it would be to save your life unless he wants to 
keep you around to so your life could be controlled.  But he might save you
from the crack-dealer down the street so his stock in the 'boot camp' prison
system would skyrocket him to extreme wealth so he could then afford the 
tax dodging opportunities allowed for these extremely wealthy individuals.
But then some of his taxes, the part which couldn't be hidden from the IRS,
might go to buying more of these types of weapons, and surveilance devices 
for the Covert Police force which is exploding across the nation.  Which would
be just fine with him as long as the money isn't spent to help people survive
and get decent health care, an education, and a place to stay without emminent
fear of a strip search just because somebody decided to call the police 
anonymously and report them for some undisclosed drug violation.
                      

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche (Mo.L.)         |   labiche@bnr.ca
Bell Northern Research          |   Part of Northern Telecom 
Richardson, Texas               |   i'm really in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No opinions herein expressed have anything to do with the opinions 
of Bell Northern Research or Northern Telecom or CIA or NSA ...
These statements are mine and mine alone, well i guess my wife 
agrees with some of them?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1803 alt.politics.bush:1348 talk.politics.misc:39303
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: The Simpsons answer Bush!
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:42:20 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <dz_n2+a.barnhart@netcom.com> barnhart@netcom.com writes:
>Many of you may recall George Bush saying this week that his idea of
>family values is closer to that of the Waltons than of the Simpsons.
>
>Last night, on the Simpsons, Bart Simpson said, "We're a *lot* like the
>Waltons.  We're praying for the Depression to end."
>
>

Man, what is it with Republicans and television shows?  Can't they
tell make-believe from the real thing? 

Thank God Bush never watched "Good Times".



-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2305 talk.politics.guns:19666
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 20 Aug 1992 15:51:02 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: locusts.berkeley.edu
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.

In article <183136@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>So how was the military coup of Gorbachev overthrown by an unarmed population.

Was that the same "unarmed" population who were all around the Russian
parliment building carrying assault rifles stolen from military armories?
Or the ones who placing land mines around the building's enterences? Or
the ones fighting Soviet armored personel carriers with fire bombs?

>Guns aren't the only means to overthrow dictators...you need a better 
>argument.

Non violent methods don't always work. Why should we through away a
proven and effective way to overthrow repressive governments, simply
because it isn't the _only_ solution. Non-violent means should be 
tried first, but what would you suggest if they don't work?

                                             Frank Crary
					     CU Boulder
					     (even though I'm
					     still using my
					     Berkeley account.)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2565 talk.politics.guns:19846
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:24:57 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug20135715@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <183136@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>
><So how was the military coup of Gorbachev overthrown by an unarmed population.
> 
>	Short answer: it wasn't. 
>	Longer answer: enough of the Army took Gorbachov's side as to
>	make the coup less likely to succeed, since no one wanted
>	a civil war.

And I maintain that the same thing would happen here.  It might not, and if so,
ypu'll note that some civilans were able to get a hold of guns.  With their
larger proliferation amongst the population here, the distribution of same
would be realtively simpler.  As I've pointed out in other posts, there are
other weapons these days.
>
><you need a better  argument.
>
>	Disagree. The Constitution of the United States is
>	my argument; it's the best there is.

That's a fine (and better) argument.  If you're worried about tampering with 
the entire thing, the Repubs are far more culpable than the Dems.

George Lambert
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2474 alt.politics.bush:2384 alt.politics.elections:11175
From: barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PLATFORMS COMPARED
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:51:44 GMT
Reply-To: barnhart@netcom.com
Organization: Netcom

Mary Jacobs <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>FOREIGN POLICY

>Republicans - "Never in this century has the United States
>enjoyed such security from foreign enemies. With President
>Bush leading the free world, the Soviet empire has
>collapsed." Defend Bush's decision to grant
>most-favored-nation trade status to China as "based on
>support for democratic reform. We need to maintain the
>relationship with China so that we can effectively
>encourage such reform."

>Democrats - "Under President Bush, crises have been managed
>rather than prevented." Call for foreign aid to be targeted
>at democracies, not tyrants. Call for swifter action to
>help former communist nations; want to maintain sanctions
>on South Africa until "full accommodation" with black
>majority. Would condition "favorable trade terms for China
>on respect for human rights in China and Tibet, greater
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>market access for U.S. goods, and responsible conduct on
>weapons proliferation."

Holy cow, I'd almost forgotten about this one.  Remember the
well-documented charges that Henry Kissinger worked hard to
create corporate entres to the Chinese government just days
after the Tianemen Square massacres?

What exactly have we done to aid the Tibetians either, besides
nothing, na-da, die you little non-Christians, anyhow?

South Africa?
Haiti?
Post-Noriega Panama?
Post-Ortega Nicaragua? (aka Humberto Ortega's Nicaragua)

Again, just what is so great about having George Bush there to
answer the phone at 3 a.m.?

-- 
Aaron (Barnhart@netcom.com) -- posting from Evanston, Illinois
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:12:41 GMT

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

> In article <1992Aug18.194045.16957@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
> writes:
>
> >Does one need to be a so called "conservative" to own firearms?
> 
> Nope, liberals own 'em too.  Don't get caught up in thinking there is one
> and only one politically correct group that owns guns.  Like and dislike of
> the things span party lines.

I was attempting to be sarcastic.  The problems with the labels
"conservative" and "liberal" is that in general, they do not describe
their political beliefs.  I think the appropriate label for the 2 major
parties is "Regulators" (those who wish to regulate people, things, etc.).
Both the Republican, and Democratic parties subscribe to this behavior.
Look up 'liberal" in your dictionary (look up "libertarian" while you're
at it).  It's possible that the Libertarians are the party that lives up
to their label, "libertarian".

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Militia weapons, was (Defined: National Police Force)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:22:27 GMT

In article <vb!n4wa.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
>Subject: Militia weapons, was (Defined: National Police Force)
>Date: 19 Aug 92 05:53:55 GMT
>In article <PA146008.240.714181318@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>Until the Supreme Court changes its
>>>desicion, or a constitution amendment is passed, this is how the Second
>>>Amendment is interpreted.
>>
>>     Some appeals courts have said this.  (But you can find an appeals
>>court decision to support just about anything.)  The Supreme Court *has*
>>said (in 1939, the last time it was addressed) that a sawed-off shotgun
>>was not covered by the Second Amendment because it was not a militia
>>weapon.  The Supreme Court has never stated that the Second Amendment
>
>
>By golly a machine gun, a rocket launcher and a crate of grenades surely
>must be militia weapons. I want them all!
>
And why not?  You are a law-abiding citizen, and I have no need to fear you 
with those items, and you might save my life one day.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns