HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Watch out for this!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:49:35 GMT

In article <2296@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>I've seen this argument a zillion times, but I've never considered it
>worth using.  Why?  Because all it shows is what was on MADISON'S mind at
>the time.  Presumably, Madison proposed this text verbatim for inclusion.
>But it was NOT ACCEPTED by the other delegates.  Why?  What arguments did
>they make against the specific wording?  The point is that the delegates
>watered down some very specific language to some very general language,
>and nobody has explained 1) why they felt it necessary; 2) whether there
>were solid philosophical disagreements from the rest of the delegates to 
>some of the concepts expressed in the original version.

Much of that information is in Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed: The
Evolution of a Constitutional Right".  It has cites so that you chase
down the rest of the information, check context, and so on.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
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: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:19:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.153323.8882@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <susan.702616434@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>>	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
>>brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?

>I certainly wouldn't let anyone get a bottle near enough my head to
>pour it on me-- how do I know the guy isn't going to do something more
>damaging with the bottle?

>Of course, you probably wouldn't understand, as in Western society,
>most low-lifes won't pick fights with women.

Sure they would.  They're men, right?  Or rather, males, probably "little
boys" since they talk and act tough.  And we all know (or should, by now)
that these "little boys" are nothing but priggish sexists...Just ask
Susan...or Pirani...or Kate...

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!!!


---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                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? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:59:02 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>As quoted from <susan.702534694@coombs> by susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald):

>> >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).
>> 
>> 	Yep, rather proves my point now doesn't it?  Another of the boys
>> who likes to talk tough.......

>You sure do.  The very idea that somebody would resist a criminal assault.

	Yep, you just would have to protect your "honour" now wouldn't
you Chris?  Couldn't just swallow your pride and not provoke a fight?

	Another male poster proves the point about their testerone levels....


--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stantoni___________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:03:12 GMT

In <1992Apr13.222232.5874@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU
 (The Terminator) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.204124.26228@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control
>>Act of 1990, HR 3757, signed by Bush on Jan 29,1991 and unopposed by
>>the ILA), it "shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor", punishable by 5
>>years and/or $5k*, for non-licensees to possess a gun within 1000 ft
>>of a school.  Unloaded guns in locked containers or in locked racks
>>are okay, but none of those non-locking long gun cases qualify.  It
>>will be expensive to figure out whether or not a locked trunk
>>qualifies.

>Where does the federal government get off telling local schools and states
>how to conduct business not relating to commerce?  At least the 1968 GCA
>was grounded in some way to commerce.  This is BULLSHIT!

>What is a non-licensee?

	Just as a point of interest, I happen to live within 1000 feet of
both a university campus and a junior high school.  Five years and five
grand for posessing a gun, as in the ones locked in my house?  So, who
wants to pick up my legal fees when I get busted?

	It's too bad this has ceased to be a joke.

>And by the way, George, "fuck you," and thanks for screwing us.

	Hey, him and every other politician intent on sounding tough
on crime without bothering to think about the ramifications of their
actions.

<Daniel R. Sorenson   Dod #1066  |If Iowa State University agreed with me >
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu <- work |I'd make $90K/yr.  They don't, I don't. >
<viking@iastate.edu      <- play |"I am *not* goofing off.  I am driving  >
< myself mercilessly in the pursuit of relaxation." -- T. Weeds           >
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:54:26 GMT
Organization: UEA, Norwich, UK

In <1992Apr3.232344.8722@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David
Bowman) writes:
>Would you shoot someone who tried to steal your water-skis in the middle
>of the Sahara Desert?

One of the truly deep philosophical conundrums, ranking with "How many
angels can dance on the point of a pin?", "Did Adam have a navel?", and
"What's the difference between a duck?"

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Article "TURN 'EM IN"
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:22:50 GMT


In <2429@news.duke.edu> Joe B. Simpson states:

|>However, there is no reason why you couldn't advertise BATF's
|>number in any number of, uh, salacious publications. After all,
|>every call to the 800-number is money in the pocket of 800-service
|>provider (Thanks for using AT&T!), and the more money drained from
|>BATF's budget, the better!

|I'm glad those aren't our tax dollars you're suggesting we divert to AT&T...

Of course not; I would never suggest anything self-serving to help
AT&T increase profits... :-)

Actually, The Terminator's idea is a good one.

BATF is using this 800-number (1-800-ATF-GUNS) to attack gun ownership;
note that it's not 1-800-ATF-BOMB or 1-800-ATF-LIQR.

In order to see the positive benefits of this, note that the 800-number
has to be evaluated by BATF's MBA bean counters in terms of results.

By uping their 800-number calls, gun owners do the following:

	- Eat up the telephone communications budget for BATF, causing
	  at budget request time a request for additional funds to
	  handle to voluminous call volume from what was intially
	  allocated.
	
	- At budget hearings, BATF will explain that their program
	  is a great success due to the massive number of calls.
	
	- However, pro-gun representatives could ask BATF to provide
	  proof of their contention; how many arrests and convictions
	  resulted from this massive expenditure of funds?
	
	- Since the base call volume was upped, their efficiency in
	  all metrics will be way down.
	
	- Congressmen could then withold funding for this program on
	  premise that it is nothing more than another failed BATF
	  program.
	
You don't even have to hang up immediately after saying "Eat Me!"

By asking stupid questions of the BATF, you eat into their personel
time, thereby causing another expense to be incurred when BATF
asks for more agents to man the phone lines.

I'd say it was a win-win situation for AT&T and gun owners in general.:-)
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:09:00 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: 9 Apr 92 23:18:33 GMT
DB>Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia
DB>Message-ID: <1992Apr9.231833.6560@matilda.vut.edu.au>
DB>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

DB>In article <2134.29E48755@kennel.FIDONET.ORG>
DB>Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:
DB>>DB>From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
DB>>DB>Date: 8 Apr 92 01:14:08 GMT
DB>>DB>Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia
DB>>DB>Message-ID: <1992Apr8.011408.15761@matilda.vut.edu.au>
DB>>DB>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
DB>>
DB>>DB>Roberta, surely you jest? *All* fighting is wrong. I know you
DB>>DB>really know this. You would do well to read Susan's postings more
DB>carefully.
DB>>

CS>>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"

DB>Words cannot kill, can they Roberta? (Should have been addressed to
me CS)

Sometimes they can hurt so bad as to have killed the spirit.  Other
times they can lead to war and death.

CS>>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

DB>Your idea of perjorative is a bit wierd.

PEJORATIVE \ adj \ [LL pejoratus, pp. of pejorare to make or become
worse] : having negative connotations; esp: tending to disparage or
belittle.

 CS>>(you too, Susan) you may find that "Oz" is not quite as
civilized as you believe and would have us believe.  Get real!

DB>I am real. I don't live in tinsle-town.

Nor do I.

 * SLMR 2.1a * This above all: to thine own self be true.


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."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:28:00 GMT

In article <brian.703209351@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>>>would kill for a penny;
>  ^^^^^^^^^^
>>Said person doesn't seem to exist outside Bowman's head.
>
>>I'll repeat the relevant put up or shut up.  I'll mail Bowman a check
>>for AU$5 if he'll first send the penny (or even whatever sum Bowman
>>finds appropriate) to that person and get evidence showing that s\he
>>actually killed someone for that sum.
>
>>Surely if the penny killer actually exists, Bowman can demonstrate
>>that "fact"....
>	
>	Don't you think its time you learnt to read?  Dave was discussing
>some who "said he WOULD KILL", not someone who, "said he HAS KILLED".  Learn
>to recognise the past and the future tense will you?

"would kill for a penny" is true only if said person will, in fact,
kill for a penny, regardless of whether or not they have.  I'm
offering to provide the penny, through Bowman.  If said person won't
kill after receiving that penny, then "would kill for a penny" is
false.

BTW - That usage of "would kill" is not future, but
presumptive/contingent.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:42:12 GMT

susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

[...]

>	Well, then why do they loot after a storm in America then?

It depends on where you are.  If you are in a big city, problems begin
if the street lights go out (sometimes--there was remarkably little 
problem during the great blackout in New England in 1965.  The main
problem in the 65 blackout was the baby boomlet 9 months later...).

[...]

>	Yet in every other major natural disaster, the government brings
>out the troops because the police just can't handle the situation, now
>don't they?

Susan, the national guard is often called out in times of trouble not
to prevent looting but because they are a large pool of organized help.  
That is part of the charter of the national guard. They have the men and
machinery for those *big* jobs.  Police departments don't have bulldozers,
6-bys, big helicopters or the personnel to run them.  The guard does.  No
city can afford to have that kind of assets just sitting around.

The guard is sometimes called out during civil disturbances if the police
cannot handle the situation.  Occasionally the regulars are called out.  
It's very rare - last time I can remember was for the Detroit riot in
67.  The army hates that kind of duty...

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:57:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr7.031526.5698@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> >> You are a bit behind the times, aren't you. Salmon Rushdie is guarded
> >> 24 hours a day by experts. His country pays for this service.
> >
> >As are US army generals.  They still carry their own pistols.  Of course I'm
> >sure that if anybody attacked him, he'd be as well protected by his bodyguards
> >as Huey Long was by his....
> >
> >> He is indeed fortunate to live in England.
> >
> >As compared to where?  North Korea?  Burkina Faso?  New Jersey?
> 
> The USA.

No, seriously.  Where?



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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Now it's what if car tyres catch fire! What next????
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:31:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Apr08.173125.29632
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Apr8.010419.15361@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.153808.9046@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.031848.5817@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr6.104946.15968@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:
>>
>>>>Gee, we have a fire department in my town, too.  But I still have smoke
>>>>detectors in my house, and fire extinguishers in my kitchen and my car.
>>>>To do otherwise would be pretty stupid, IMO.  Fire department response
>>>
>>>You must have a miserable life, worrying all the
>>>time about what can go wrong. I would get such equipment if
>>>I lived in the bush, but in the inner city, no way!
>>
>>No fires occur in the inner city?  Tires never catch fire in
>>Australia?  Do you also not carry a spare tire because you don't want
>
>I have never seen a car tyre catch fire! You can't worry about every
>possibility in life. You guys are amazing. Well IF my car tyre
>caught fire I would drive through a puddle.

I've seen a car tire on fire.  It was during a rather dry spell a few
years ago-- you would have to drive pretty far on that burning flat
before you found a puddle, and I doubt that would put it out-- rubber
is notoriously hard to extinguish.

>>to worry about having a flat?
>
>I have a spare in the boot. It is the law here. But what if 2 tyres went flat.
>Deary me. How many do you carry?

Just one.  The chances of a tire going flat are small.  The chances of
two going flat simultaneously are far smaller.  And the consequences
are fairly small-- a burning tire is a lot more dangerous than a flat
one. Further, spare tires are expensive and take up lots of trunk
space.

I suppose you wouldn't carry any if it weren't the law?


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:30:45 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <ghm.702700392@ccadfa> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>>Well I have to dosagee with you. 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.
>
>The rate of firearms homicide in Australia is very low, so David and
>I are both very unlikely to get shot.  Good.  Let's not worry about guns.
>
>It's unlikely that my house will be burgled.  Good.  I don't need to worry
>about locking up my guns and ammunition.
>
>Thanks, Dave!
>
You are welcome. I knew you'd come around to my way of thinking! It
just took a little time.

>>>>   "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.
>
>American readers have to understand that, to an Australian, an English
>cricketer is not a "fellow man" (and, of course, vice versa).
>
Americans cannot understand the OZ-UK relationship. Too subtle
for them! ;-)
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: In a few months this will be denied too
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:57:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr14.234626.23640@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
> What a rabble you are. I didn't really appreiate the term "redneck"
> till I read this group.

Why?  It's roughly equivalent to the Australian "bushie."

>    "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!", etc.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:53:12 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Apr6232400@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>I think the reason that the "deterrence theory" seems so plausible, is
>that we assume criminals think like ourselves.  If I were a criminal,
>I would be deterred by the thought of encountering an armed victim,
>but I'm not a criminal, so my though tprocesses do not give much
>insight into the way criminals think.  Unfortunately, criminals do not
>think of the future, are just the sort of people who will not be
>deterred by the potential consequences of their actions.

While we can safely ignore Lambert's "If I were a criminal ...", we
can't ignore "I do ..." from actual criminals.  (BTW - I suspect we
can also disregard his "criminals do not think of the future" as
elitist fantasies as well, as that opinion doesn't seem to have any
independent basis.)  See Wright and Rossi's "Armed and Considered
Dangerous" for one study of how criminals react to the threat of armed
victims.  Summary: they are deterred.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:05:07 GMT

In article <susan.703389520@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> 	Perhaps thats the problem.  Because it is moderated, by I presume
> a pro-gun person (who else would take the job on) that people questioning

	Horror of horrors!  Perhaps we should also expose the fact that 
   comp.dcom.telecom is moderated by a pro-telephone person and that 
   rec.humor.funny is moderated by a pro-humor fellow.  The interesting 
   thing is that these groups don't have flame wars.  Hmmmmmmmm. 

	
> whether or not all the other alternatives have been explored aren't going
> to get a real look in there, now are they?

	Susan, of course, would rather make half-assed assumptions than 
   attempt to find out the truth.  But, then again, that seems to be a 
   rather common trait amongst the anti-freedom folk.  Sigh.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  My life makes perfect sense 
 kossack@rice.edu  |  Lust and food and violence  
  (713) 270-9056   |                             --  Dire Straits    
  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:11777 talk.politics.misc:18487