HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 06:49:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.153754.13445@hasler.ascom.ch> kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch writes:
>
>In article <16AUG199209163165@gergo.tamu.edu>, dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
>|> I don't deny you the right to own a gun for your own safety (though an M-16
>|> would be a bit much)
>
>Surely in a civilised country one shouldn't need this avenue of defence, that's
>what the police are for. Why do you need guns unless you have illegal
>intentions? 

Yeah right- should I call the police in my home town?? 
They have been investigated by the FBI for drug smuggling,
and rape among other things. Several of the officers
would go around harassing women, giving them bogus tickets
etc . When I was home alone when I was 14 one of the 
cops tried to force his way into my home -what stopped him??
I got my father's gun and told him I blow his head off. This 
same man is no longer a police man-why? He was brought up on 
rape charges after the FBI, who was at the time investigating 
the POLICE FORCE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY for drug related activities, 
and uncovered evidence this cop arresting women for 
speeding when they weren't, taking them in to jail and 
him and several other officers raping them. The women never
brought charges obviously-they valued their life at the time.

Should I call the police in some major cities that can
take up to 10 MINUTES to respond? If someone is breaking
into your apartment you don't have ten minutes.


Also why doesn't anyone mention skeet shooting??
I love to shoot skeet -you improve your aim and you
don't hurt animals.
:-)
Kristin 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
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: 21 Aug 1992 00:45:14 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug20.221434.15779@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>}   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
>}By all means, support this assertion too.
>You want proof that restricting supply doesn't increase prices?

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.) 

>There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
>of.

Washington D.C. (by law), New York and Chicago (de facto, by requiring
permits/licenses which the government refuses to issue.)

>Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
>this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

We do not, with respect to firearms: It is a felony to buy a gun in
any but your home state, or to sell a gun to anyone from another
state (with very narrow exceptions for federally licensed dealers,
hunters on trips out of state with broken rifles, etc...) Specifically,
it is a federal felony for a native of the above mentioned cities
to go out of state and by pass those local gun bans.

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:49:46 GMT

In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>>Ah, then what is the "ultimate recall power" that "liberals" find
>>appropriate?  Surely they don't believe that "lie back and enjoy it"
>>is the appropriate response to a tyrant?  (That is be the "liberal"
>>response to rape, but that's another argument.)
>
>If you believe that last sentence, you're insane, but that's another
>argument.

It's insane to point out that the "liberal" response to rape is
to just hope it ends?  Wowsers!

>>Suppose that Bush decides to keep the job after Clinton won.  What
>>then "liberals"?  (We've already established that you won't disagree
>>with the assertion that Bush is the anti-Christ, so you don't get to
>>argue for his essential goodness now.)  The ballot box failed and Bush
>>has the Army.  Are you going to hold a rally?  Are you going to build
>>a paper mache Statue of Liberty?  Are you going to set up a burial
>>squad and lie in neat rows so that the tanks can roll over you without
>>wasting gas?
>
>...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?

I'm not a conservative, but even I have figured out that one can fight
against people in tanks without attacking them in stupid ways.

Tanks and the other big war toys are good for attacking other big war
toys and fortified positions.  "Irregulars" don't have the latter, so
the big war toys are worse than useless; govt must protect them
because it does have fortified positions.

65% of the revolutions since 1945 have been won by irregulars, without
big war toys, fighting against govts with them.  That's a lousy record
for "decisive and necessary" weapons systems.  Any theory that's
inconsistent with that result has serious problems.

That's the short form of the argument; the long form can be found in
various research and experience on weapons systems and their
properties published by various militaries.  My favorite is one by the
tank boys at fort knox where they point out that they're necessary
because they're great for wiping out blitz attacks by the ex-soviet
military's armor even though there's a long list of things they can't
do (including fight in a revolution).  Of course, you could just
listen to the UN folks who claim it will take 100k troops just to open
a supply line in ex-Yugoslavia if the various groups of irregulars
there decide that they don't want said supply line open.  (Of course,
maybe Yugoslavians are different than Americans.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2295 soc.culture.china:23406
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:40:45 GMT

In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, 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?

Does one need to be a so called "conservative" to own firearms?

> If you really take this "we have to be ready to fight off a military
> takeover" argument seriously you have to argue for private posession of
> everything up to and including fully armed jet fighters. Are you?

Sure, why not?  Is there any reason law-abiding citizens should not be
allowed to own such weapons?

-- 
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:1980 tx.politics:4045
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:44:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:34:25 CDT
From: judy (Judy McMillin)
Message-Id: <9208132134.AA19147@technology.com>
To: pyuxf!wgb3
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
Cc: 

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?

	Judy.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:47:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.

Very dangerous man, indeed!
-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
disarm the public, and enlist the aid of the media to 
make all believe that they need to cooperate with the 
new order blindly.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2193 alt.politics.bush:2043 talk.politics.misc:40475
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: NPC (was Re: National Health Care)
Date: 18 Aug 1992 23:34:22 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Some one writes (I have lost track of indentations):
|> }>  I sent him the quote from PPF were Gov Clinton calls for the 100,000 officer
|> }>National Police Force and repeated my orginal question.  Silence for over
|> }>week (compared to the 12 hour turn around for previous messages).  I resent
|> }>the message.  The reply I got back was the NPC was to be a training cadre.
|> 
I admit it is embarassing you haven't gotten a response from the Clinton
campaign.  However, in Clinton's acceptance speech he said he would eliminate
X government jobs (I forget the exact number) and use that money to create
a National Police *Corps*.  Two things seem fairly clear.  1) You missed the
speech, and 2) your continued use of the term National Police *Force* is
intended to bait, not communicate.

That's OK.  Enough people read this forum to know what is really happening.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2430 tx.politics:4297
From: root@netmail.austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:31:34 GMT
Reply-To: moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Aug14.214428.23922@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
|>> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:34:25 CDT
|>> From: judy (Judy McMillin)
|>> Message-Id: <9208132134.AA19147@technology.com>
|>> To: pyuxf!wgb3
|>> Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street
|>> Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
|>> In-Reply-To: <1992Aug12.163408.17618@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
|>> References: <1992Aug6.172207.1126@uwm.edu> <95Y-!D+@engin.umich.edu> <166f8dINNrvv@agate.berkeley.edu>
|>> Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
|>> Cc: 
|>> 
|>> 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?

"Borrowing" money is just a way of trying to push the taxation onto the next
administration.  The real problem is the "spend" part, and it doesn't matter
a damn which party does it.

As John Marshall said,  "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."

|>> 
|>> 	Judy.
|>>  

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "The trouble with this country is
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   that there are too many people
possibly represent its position.	|   going about saying, 'The trouble
					|   with this country is --'"
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Sinclair Lewis
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2432 tx.politics:4300
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:11:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>(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"?

Because if we don't we allow the liberals to assume a position on what
is (arguably) moral high ground.  Don't give them that.  Don't waste
time trying to sell them your Ayn Randian philosophies.  That stuff is
just too cold for most people.  And we can solve all the fiscal problems
without resorting to the extremes you espouse.

>|>> My son is two years old and many thousands of dollars in debt, thanks to
>|>> uncle sam.  What a way to start your life.
>The actual number, as of this morning, is around $15,768.  

>While it may be philosophically arguable that charity for the poor is a good
>thing, the sort of massive institutional charity that the US has been 
>practicing since the thirties is well on it's way to bankrupting the nation.  

Helping the poor is not bankrupting the nation.
They don't really cost that much.
It's the helping of the middle class and the upper class with our tax
money that's causing the most damage.

Farm subsidies mostly go to big corporations.  This should just stop 
outright.  As should farm product protectionism.

Medicaire and social security mostly go to rich old people since they
put more in.  And you won't get any back like they did.  Demographics 
won't support it.  This should be means tested at least.

The housing mortgage interest deduction - the bigger your loan, the
more you get back.  It helps the rich too, far more than the poor.
This should be means tested or eliminated.

Are all examples of tremendously regressive bread and circus giveaways
for primarily middle and upper middle class people.

Before we stop helping poor people, lets just try first to stop helping
rich people and middle class people.  If that doesn't solve our fiscal
woes, (it will,) then we can talk about throwing the poor out on the
street.
-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
FICA is a massive wealth transfer from young middle class to old middle class.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:48:03 GMT

In article <xzcfnf8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>Which brings me back to a question I asked a long time ago and which pro-
>duced heated responses but no answers:  how does the registration of guns
>owned by people NOT in the National Guard (or the Reserves) endanger the
>continued existence of the National Guard?

It doesn't.  That's not a relevant question though, because the
National Guard is not a militia, but an army.  (Read the authorizing
legislation and the supreme court decisions affirming that the
President can do whatever he wants with it.)

In 1789 english, a well regulated militia was an armed people NOT
under the control of govt.  See Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in
1749, the writings of Madison et al, and the legislative history of
the 2nd amendment.  For a nice discussion of the first clause, see
Scarry's article in the University of Pennsylvania law review.

Why the interest in registration anyway?  We know that it doesn't
affect crime.  If you're going to talk about registration, you should
understand both the history and experience in the US as well as
current registration laws, including federal ones.  It's somewhat
silly to claim that registration will do things that experience
shows that it doesn't do.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2487 soc.culture.african.american:8965
From: barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: The Simpsons answer Bush!
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:27:48 GMT
Reply-To: barnhart@netcom.com
Organization: Netcom

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."


-- 
Aaron (Barnhart@netcom.com) -- posting from Evanston, Illinois
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2384 talk.politics.guns:19737
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:25:13 GMT
	<1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
	<1992Aug18.175536.18087@igor.tamri.com>
	<92233.012714MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <92233.012714MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

<   >A town in Florida had a problem with a high rape rate and instituted
<   >a high profile program to teach women how to defend themselves with
<   >handguns.  The rate of rape occurence dropped to virtually zero.

<   I'm thrilled for them. Personal ownership of handguns is OK by me (as long
<   as it's combined with registration and education) and the Democratic Party
<   apparently has no problem with it either, so who are you arguing with?

	The Democratic Party endorses the Brady Bill.
	The Brady Bill  as passed by the House contains a 7 day
	waiting period, no background check and allows any
	police chief to deny a handgun to anyone. Backers of
	the Brady Bill either know this (and thus support
	de facto handgun bans) or don't know this (and thus
	are endorsing a law they are ignorant of).


	Now that we've established that the national Democratic
	Party endorses handgun bans, what is the point of
	registration? Aside from providing the government with
	an easy way to confiscate firearms, registration serves
	no purpose.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:40:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <l8o60nINNjtv@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>Boy does that frighten the hell out of me.  After all, my state and local
>police departments are so overmanned now, that they are just falling
>all overthem selves to protect me.  [sarcasm off now]
>
>Based upon the above, where are the government's storm troopers that
>Crisp and others are inventing to scare us away from Clinton?  It is 
>sure easy to be afraid of something you know nothing about.  Maybe 
>these guys (Crisp and others) would be wiser to spend some time
>getting educated, then they wouldn't have to hide under their beds
>at night -- or buy assult guns to protect themselves from their
>self invented SS.

Well you can bet that when Hitler started the SS and the Gestapo,
they appeard different from the way they would up.

The bottom line is this:

The Liberals are out to remove the weapons best suited for exercising
the "ultimate recall power" from the people

They are trying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment to the Consititution
thereby getting the inconvenient constitutional question out of the
picture -forever

They want to establish a new Federal police force ostensibly to
put retired military men to work keeping law and order (something
they were never trained to do btw), {who will they report to, the
President?} Clearly this is the most dangerous candidate in the
twentieth century. He must be stopped!


----In plain English, so even a Liberal can understand it------
When you set out to cook a frog, if you drop him in a pot of hot
water, he jumps out. You have to start with cold water and slowly 
heat it. By the time the frog realizes he`s being cooked, it is 
too late!  This is their plan for us.

WAKE UP AMERICA, we can still stop the totalitarian set-up
from happening!

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Very Dangerous Times Indeed!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Militia weapons, was (Defined: National Police Force)
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:53:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

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!

-- 
Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.        crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk        let's do it        (408) 253 4541 fax

Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
get worse if the Democrats are elected.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:43:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.170123.11775@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>The more likely scenario is exactly what these
>despots did: the secret police would come around on foot and round
>everyone up (or search the house, or whatever), and that is the kind of
>thing which an armed populace guards against.  Yes, it seems
>far-fetched that something like this might happen in the US.  Perhaps

I wonder how many Germans actually considered "Kristal-Nacht" possible.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
A right delayed is a right denied.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2456 alt.politics.bush:2371 talk.politics.misc:41041