HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:09:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.011408.15761@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.171912.11842@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>>Wait a minute!  Maybe they're sexist because they *don't* pick fights with
>>women.  After all, we want to be equal in every way, including getting beat
>>up on.  But then, that would make us wymmin, wouldn't it?  I wonder if they
>>pick fights with wymmin, or just women?  Help me Susan, I'm so CONFUSED!!!

>Roberta, surely you jest? 

Can I see a show of hands, please?  Who, if anyone, could not tell that
this was tongue-in-cheek?  Yes, David, I was jesting.

>*All* fighting is wrong. I know you
>really know this. 

I disagree.  Defensive fighting is not wrong.  When there is no other
way out, I would consider it to be foolish to allow oneself to be
injured or killed by not fighting back.  If you wish to do so, that's
your right.  Do not tell me that I have no right to defend myself if
I find it necessary.

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                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: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Article "APRIL 21, 1935 (New World Order?)"
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:51:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: iitmax.1992Apr9.075153.15659
Distribution: usa
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology

In article <8jqj-0q.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
writes:
>The real threat to democracy in America is that President Bush will
>use the emrgency powers executive order to take over the country on
>the pretext of some national emergency - like losing the next
>election, for exampl.

The race is not always to the incumbent, but that's the way to bet.
Bush just has to hold on a little longer, then he's home free.  No
more running for office after that: for the next four years he can do
what he wants without worrying about pissing off the
voters---advantages of a lame duck presidency.

For the seriously paranoid: Look out for any rumors of attempts to
influence the election by terrorists or the drug cartels.  Any rumor
at all that suggests such a thing could really happen is a sign that a
coup is in the works.
-- 

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: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:41:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr3.233736.8959@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> If you read a previous posting of mine, you would
> have read that I *have* been threatetened by someone weilding
> a chain-saw! And non-violence worked for me in that case
> too!

And look at how well it worked for the victims of sexual cannibal and serial
killer Jeffrey Dahmer.  His last attempted victim used... VIOLENCE to defend
himself.  Unlike the others, he's... ALIVE.  What a conundrum, eh?



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Text of Ohio House Bill 709
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 11:12:25 GMT
Summary: and another thing
Keywords: gun storage, children

> (B) This section does not apply to any of the following:
> 
> (2) A person who secures a loaded firearm with a trigger lock or stores or
> leaves a loaded firearm in a securely locked box or container, in a
> location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure;

Another objection to the wording of this bill is that it excludes safety
devices not on the approved list.  By leaving off other safety devices
the bill requires you to give up one you decided was best for your
situation, and buy another probably more inferior for your situation.

A firearm with a combination lock built into the gun [some pistols used
to have them], or the revolver with a trigger job that is actuated only
by a magnetic ring [yes, it really exists], or if it's got the type of
device attached which relies on the strength of an adult to remove,
these are not on the list.

The law ought to be worded such that any device designed to render the
firearm inoperable or inaccessible by an unauthorized user is sufficient.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"An unarmed people are slaves, or subject to slavery
at any moment." -- Huey P. Newton.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Article "TURN 'EM IN"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:12:15 GMT

>The fact that it is an 800 number for BATF may mean that the BATF
>has purchased the AT&T tariffed service that gives them the Caller
>ID as well; this type of service was sold to American Express such
>that they could use the telephone number to index a database for
>the caller's name and pick up the phone with the greeting: "How may
>I help you, Mr. Terminator?"

Hey, I wasn't born yesterday, ya know!  I'd call from a *pay phone*,
and stay on the line less than three minutes.
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: 1000 feet
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:54:34 -0500

In article <1992Apr9.213636.12226@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <RkDwiB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
>> ...
>>It is illegal in Florida to carry a firearm into any college or
>>university facility (790.06(12)).  ...
>
>  I don't know the exact language but NC has the same kind of law
>with regard to all schools.  However I checked with an attorney
>as to whether I was in violation if I had a cased gun in the locked
>trunk of my car and was told that I wouldn't be violating the law.
>So perhaps the Fla. law needs to be checked for the legal definition
>of "to carry".  Usually I interpret "carry" as meaning "carry on
>one's person", analogously to "concealed carry" meaning "carry on
>one's person in concealed manner".
>
>--henry schaffer
I called the Florida Highway Patrol. They say that a loaded gun in a case,
such as a briefcase, is not considered concealed carry. This was, however,
just one captain at FHP.

-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:36:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32206
Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism


In article <1992Apr3.233736.8959@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1827@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>Now, how about some postings from people who were threatened by
>>chain saws and for whom non-violence DIDN'T work.  Speak up!
>>
>If you read a previous posting of mine, you would
>have read that I *have* been threatetened by someone weilding
>a chain-saw! And non-violence worked for me in that case
>too!

*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT* I'm sorry, Mr. Bowman, but you lose. Thank you for
playing, and our hostess will ensure that you recieve a lovely parting
gift.

Tavares quoted your previous posting about being threatened with the
chainsaw. Apparently you deliberately ignored this when you decided to
reply. Your reply was therefore both redundant and superfluous.

Apparently you also need some lessons in effective use of sarcasm.

Finally, your non-stop rain of postings is becoming tiresome (it seems that
perhaps Brian Ross has finally gone away, as the number of his postings has
dropped tremendously.). Perhaps you need a hobby to give you something to
do in your spare time besides spouting your unwanted views in t.p.g.

*flame off* Thank you for listening, replies through e-mail please. :)

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Another Anti-Gun Scum Bites The Dust
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:55:55 GMT


Sen. Tim Wirth, Dem. Colorado (Anti-Gun), has announced that
he is NOT going to seek re-election. He stated that he is 
fed up with George Bush and the Budget, and thats why he
is quiting. Right!

Inside reports are that the polls indicate that he might
have lost anyway. The Rep. challenger was planning a
campaign based around Wirths' voting record. I guess
Tim isn't to proud of the way he votes! He also caught
alot of heat for his Pro-Brady-Bill stance, I know that I
have sent him 5-6 letters in the past year, and called
his office both before and after every major "gun" vote.
and last year he tried to get a "House" type bank set up 
in the Senate!

Also because of Federal election reform, this is the last
year that a incumbent can quit, and take his/her campaign
war chest with into retirement. After this year, the money
gets turned over to the party. Of course a couple 100,000
dollars couldn't have had anything to do with him quiting.

I still suspect that there is something going on behind the
scene that we may never know about, but who cares, he's
gone!

The good news is that the republican challenger, Terry 
Considine (sp?), is, if not pro-gun, at least not Anti-gun.
Also one of the leading Democrats for this position is
congressman Ben Nighthorse Campbell. I believe he has a
good NRA rating. I know for sure that he voted FOR the
Staggers ammendment, and AGAINST the Brady bill. A good
sign.

Oh well, Anti-gun Rep Skaggs was re-districted, and both
him and & Anti-gun Rep Schroeder were stung by this House
Bank thing. Skaggs stands a good chance of being kicked
out. Schroeder most likely will be re-elected. But the
year is still young. Maybe that spell that the Voodo
Doctor installed in my .sig is working ;-)


				Bill Vojak
				Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
				NRA, ILA, CFC
----------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just say no to Wirth, Schroeder & Skaggs in 92' - 3 NRA "F" Politicians
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Aussies
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:16:45 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <2133.29E48754@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:
>
>In the course of reading the give-and-takes between the Australian and
>American posters it has occured to me that there may be a historical
>explanation for the difference in attitudes.
>
>Most of the American Forefathers were risk-takers who came to the New
>World to escape oppression -- being told what they could or couldn't do.
>They arrived in an untamed wilderness with no one to depend on but
>themselves.
>
>The Australians on the other hand, were forcefully removed to a penal
>colony against their will.  There they found themselves being controlled
>by their captors, who told them what they could do and what they
>couldn't do.  If they went along with the program they survived.  If
>they didn't they may not have.  It seems being taken care of by their
>captors has become institutionalized there.

Wrong, wrong wrong. Most Australians living todaydid not have convict
forefathers. Australians are descended from English, Irish, Europeans
and Asians. It is true we are not descended from Puritans.
Maybe that is the difference you should be looking at.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:28:44 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <32297@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr7.045843.7079@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>Well I have to dosagee with you. 
>You also have to check your spelling , but that's a petty flame.

I think you should check your manners.

>>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.
>Of course it's unlikely. So is your house burning down. Do you own a fire
>extinguisher or a smoke detector? (PS your suggestion on the previous post
>about not needing such things in the city is spurious and ignorant, and I
>am treating it as such. Fire departments in the USA tend to be overworked
>and underappreciated by the general public, as are the police. Saying that
>"I would do something about the services my counrty provided" is useless.
>What're you going to do, send 'em a complaint letter?) Preparedness for any
>eventuality is a good idea, and IMHO that includes home defense. It's not
>something I'm going to worry about 24 hours a day, but it's good to be
>prepared.
>>> I feel safe. :).
>>You feel safe but you have lost your freedom!
>See the little thing that looks like ":)", David? it's called a "smilie"
>and is generally used to indigate that the preceding statement is
>sarcastic. "It's a joke, son, a joke!" And as far as my freedom goes, I

No. You mob need smilies. You don't seem to understand irony or 
be able to understand humour without canned laughter and 
"joke" signs. 

>feel free to leave my belongings in an appropriately locked room, and I
>feel free and safe in sleeping there, because I have protection (though not
>of a firearm variety: I simply always have a baseball bat within easy
>reach. :).

I don't think you have any worries. People are probably glad
when you are asleep.

>>>>   "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.
>Humor? _you_ are lecturing _me_ about humor? now _that's_ funny. I realise
>that it's some sort of Aussie pride thing, that this Pommie cricketer
>wasn't even fit to touch an Australian fly. BFD. It doesn't seem that funny
>to me.

No. You still don't get it. Please don't bother trying again. It is too
sad to read.

>
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:54:27 GMT

In <1992Apr7.032615.6151@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman
 ) writes:

>In article <1992Apr06.131348.5533@convex.com> langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langst
on) writes:
>>    So of Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, or The Man from Snowy River, which is
>>    more of a "balanced perspective on the human experience"??
>>
>Nope. I was referring to our quality films.

In Australian Newspeak, a "quality film" is, of course, one which is in
accordance with Brian-Susan-David's political and moral opinions.

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: On the use of the term "assault rifle"
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:17:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


As we all know, those who are in favor of gun control have coined the
term "assault rifle" (or is it "assault weapon", I can't remember
which is the invented term).  This term is applied to "ugly" rifles.
Lately there has been a tendency to expand this term even further to
"assault pistol".  The idea is to separate "good" guns from "bad"
guns.  This way, support can be raised for banning salami style.  The
term "assault" now has very negative connotations.  I propose to turn
this around.  Remember, during the American Revolutionary War, the
British soldiers used the term "Yankee Doodle" in a derogatory manner.
The colonists responded by making the term their own (and changing the
connotation).  Similarly the homosexual community is taking on the
term "queer" by using the name "The Queer Nation".

I own an HP48SX calculator.  I have taken to calling it an "assault
calculator" and saying that it is "the preferred weapon by engineers".
This points out the ridiculous nature of the term "assault
rifle/pistol".  Almost anything that pro-gun controllers want to ban
can be called an "assault X" or "X is the preferred weapon by Y".

Comments?  Critiques?



-- 
Blockley Hall, 4th floor|                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive       |yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104  |cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780          |yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov    (rarely checked)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Bowman's fantasy
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 07:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.234626.23640@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>We have had pro-gunners post saying they would kill for a penny,

Really?  Let's test this.  (Bowman isn't willing to forward the penny,
so ....)  Provide the name of the person who "would kill for a penny"
and I'll send him/her several pennies and ask him/her to kill someone.
(I'll go with "kill now, get paid later" if Bowman prefers.)  If
he/she does kill, Bowman's claim is correct, but if no one dies, he's
wrong, whether or not I get my money back.

Of course, now we get to watch Bowman back away from this by claiming
that "would kill for a penny" doesn't mean "would kill for a penny".
Ross will interject something incorrect about verb tenses and berate
me for taking Bowman at his word instead of correctly reading his
mind.  What, that's already happened?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:26:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

DB>From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
DB>Date: 8 Apr 92 01:14:08 GMT
DB>Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia
DB>Message-ID: <1992Apr8.011408.15761@matilda.vut.edu.au>
DB>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

DB>Roberta, surely you jest? *All* fighting is wrong. I know you
DB>really know this. You would do well to read Susan's postings more carefully.

Pardon me, but it seems to me that we have for some time been engaged in
verbal fighting, including yourself.  Is it that you and Susan approve
of verbal fighting but draw the line at physical contact?  If so, why.
Sometimes words can be extremely hurtful, maybe even more damaging than
physical blows.  What is so sacrosanct about touching?  In a "civilized"
world one would never utter a harsh or condeming word.  But I have read
an unbelievable number of challenges, condemnations, judgements, and
pejorative names addressed at individuals.  If you search your own soul
(you too, Susan) you may find that "Oz" is not quite as civilized as you
believe and would have us believe.  Get real!

 * SLMR 2.1a * These are the times that try men's souls.


3
--  
Clyde Spencer
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Clyde.Spencer
INTERNET: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Clyde Spencer only."
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:11:38 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr4.121407.9275@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>>>>out for a fight, gave me shove and when I didn't react, he poured
>>>>a bottle of beer all over my head.
>>>>I just ignored him and he was
>>>>booed out of the park by the other picnickers. Non-violence
>>>>is much more effective. Had I been a Terminator type maybe I
>>>>would have shot him. The Christmas party would have been ruined, I
>>>>would have spent years and years in jail..... instead we had a
>>>>great party and I made lots of new friends.
>>>
>
>First of all, you must be pretty spineless to allow such acts to go
>unpunished. I personally would have knocked the guy out (or teied).

I think it is you who are spineless. You have no moral fibre if
you think it is up to you to "punish" people and upset little
children by fighting in front of them at a Christmas picnic.

-- 
   "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: jpcallis@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: PEN GUN
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:04:09 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

I saw a posting a month or so ago of the positions of the various 
US Presidential candidates on gun control. Since H. Ross Perot has just
tossed his hat into the ring, I was wondering if anyone out there knows
what his position is. I don't particularly want an editorialized version,
just a straight informational response (like what he's said, written, etc.
on the subject...)

Thanks...

(Well, it's a request for information on a gun-related topic...)
[MODERATOR: And one that I am cross-posting in t.p.g. too....]

				James

James P. Callison       Microcomputer Coordinator        OU Law Library 
JCallison@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu   /\        JPCallis@uokmax.ecn.uoknor
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work...
	Throw da bums out! Vote Democratic-Republican!
		Jefferson and Burr in 1800!