HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:53:54 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <1992Jul28.202958.17780@cs.cornell.edu> elster@cs.cornell.edu (Anne C. Elster) writes:
}>that our ideas of personal liberty and privacy are unusual in the world.
}>
}
}They may be unusual, but not necessarily considered more "free". ...

Thank you for the comparison with Norway in regard to credit & phone
records, which was interesting.  I do agree that we ought to be more
careful about what records are kept and how records may be used.
Speaking of which, does anybody else see something wrong with Clinton's
proposal to have the IRS collect repayments of college loans?

I think the public arguments made against gun control in the U.S. may
be misleading.  Those arguments mostly concern whether proposed
restrictions will achieve their ends.  I would like to think that
a fair number of people oppose gun control really just because they
don't think it's any of the government's business whether a
law-abiding citizen keeps a gun, regardless of what the 2nd amendment
really means, and regardless of how many are killed as a result of gun
availability.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:34:20 GMT

tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:
>How many of y'all share my fear that Bush will increse his popularity and 
>win the White house in '92 by dumping Quayle and making Baker his VP?
>
Nah, that would be too disruptive. Much better to re-run the Iraq war! Have
you seen CNN tonight? Old familiar faces are everywhere: Pentagon spokespeople,
mideast experts, Saddam strutting around, militant Iraqis, Bush standing
firm by UN resolutions and issuing ultimatums. CNN's expert reminds us that
Hussein again seems out of touch with reality, he must be receiving bad
advice. There you go again, Saddam, let us into that building or we send some
of our troops back in (now at 3% of wartime peak).

Oh, and you know why Saddam is taunting us like this? According to CNN, he
is taking advantage of President Bush's current political weakness.
How could we have been so fickle? Time to rally behind the chief again,
before somebody gets hurt.

I don't think the thyroid operation took.
---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1111 talk.politics.guns:18377
From: efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:35:03 GMT
Reply-To: efindler@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Edward Findler)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.humor, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <mckellar.711911075@sylvan-lk> mckellar@cs.UAlberta.CA (Neil McKell
>ar) writes:
>
><   lchsu@cayley.waterloo.edu (Leon C. Hsu) writes:
>
><   >GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ... AMERICANS KILL PEOPLE!


That's funny... I didn't realize that all other countries were absent
of violence.  and that no other country has ever been involved in a
shooting incident, even once.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.



-- Ted Findler
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:58:24 GMT

Let me state my position better on waiting periods for purchasing handguns
which was being compared yesterday by Phil Ngai to a waiting period for a 
woman having  an abortion.

Ngai's arguments, to me, were a bit silly, but I got e-mail from a
guy named Langston and one named Greely which were logical.  The e-mail
that Henry Schaffer sent me this morning, however, is the one that
instigated this posting.

He pointed out, quite rightfully, that I had stated the need for a _waiting
period_, as opposed to a _background check_, before someone is allowed to
purchase a firearm.

Very true.  A bad choice of words.

My concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases by minors,
criminals, etc.  If a background check can be performed in, say, 20 minutes,
then to me that is a long enough wait.  If the technology's there in terms
of quick access to up-to-date data, great.

I'm unaware it is now.  I figured in lieu of that, a 7-day wait is at least
a _start_ at allowing enough time to check someone out.  It's not gonna be
a panacea for illegal gun purchases, no.  But again, it's a START - though
I reiterate that the wait I mentioned is really for the purpose of a
_background check_.  No, I see no need for a waiting period just to piss
off gun purchasers.  Just as I see no need for a 24-hour "waiting period"
just to piss off a woman getting an abortion.

All those that argue a criminal can purchase a gun on the streets if he
really wants one, I say (1) a thorough background check is _still_ going 
to stop minors and impulse-criminals, and (2) maybe gun manufacturers
oughta get more responsible and manufacture only the amount of guns that
they know will be purchased legally.  If you reply, "There's already
millions of illegal or stolen guns out there", I say, "Just because we've
allowed this to get so screwed up doesn't mean we lay back and accept it."

I'm reminded of "Sopers" when Rorer still manufactured them (I think they
were the same as Qaaludes, which gave kids a strong buzz).  Something
like 14% of production went to legitimate outlets (pharmacies, hospitals);
the other 86% went to the streets.  Now, Rorer knew what was happening.  

I'm willing to continue this debate if my "new" position still
displeases.  I would ask, however, that everyone remove "talk.abortion"
from the "Newsgroup" line.

Thanks.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1122 talk.politics.guns:18396
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:02:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>Oh give me a fucking break.  

Nice start.  Way to get your point across.  NOT.

>As if the Founding Fathers knew
>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
>and personal nuclear devices.  

They didn't have to; they were dealing with principles, the main one
behind the Second Amendment being that our citizens would never be
disarmed and placed at the mercy of a government which *did* have
six-guns, Uzis, rocket-launchers, and nuclear weapons (no, I am NOT
advocating private ownership of nuclear weapons).

>To claim that their 1789 view of
>"arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
>conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction that
>are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
>flam reality".  

On the contrary, to believe that we need never protect ourselves from
an abusive government is a "flim flam reality."  Our rights are being
taken away, bit by bit, every day of our lives, while the government
spews out a smokescreen to convince Americans otherwise.

>The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
>actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.

Bzzt.  Thank you for playing.  Our idiot lawmakers (and you are right
there, most of them are idiots) are taking *your* obsessive ranting
seriously (hence, the Brady and DeConcini bills and the huge lobbying
power of HCI).  

People who ignore reality and act purely on speculation, emotion, and
unsubstantiated lies pose a great threat to our society.  We shouldn't
have to *fight* for our rights, but people like you make it increasingly
necessary to do so.

Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:716 talk.politics.guns:17942 talk.abortion:28813
From: MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:40:53 GMT
 <1992Jul24.155824.4433@advtech.uswest.c
 <1992Jul24.185037.944@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Jul24.185037.944@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) says:
>
>It can be difficult sometimes to tell who is/isn't a minor.  There are false
>ID's, and many people look older than they are.  What is wrong with a
>background check?   Those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about.
>
>carol
Nothing wrong with a background check, NRA supports one but the HCI doesn't
.  Now, what's wrong with the government stopping you in the street to
search you, "Those with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about" and
whats wrong with the government searching your home with out a warrent
cause "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about" and
whats wrong with the government having full access to your medical
records including any abortions, cause "Those who have nothing to hide
have nothing to worry about" and whats wrong with having government
passes to go from city to city cause "Those who have nothing to hide
have nothing to worry about" and I could keep going until I hit a nerve
in everybody.  The answer is quite simple, it's the right to personal
privacy without government intervention or and the presumption of
innocence rather than that of guilt.

Do you trust your government  determine whether or not you deserve
to have an abortion ?  If not, please do not ask me to trust them
in matters which concern me.

Michael
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:718 talk.politics.guns:17943 talk.abortion:28817
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:22:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <veal.128@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
#In article <1992Jul24.082241.146532@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

##A woman who wants an abortion must call a clinic and schedule
##an appointment.  I doubt that appointments are necessary to
##buy guns.  
#
#     Generally not.  But would you accept a law which required that an 
#appointment be made a certain number of days in advance?
#
#     That is essentially what a waiting period is...



I wish that the people who think that a RKBA argument is 
appropriate to talk.abortion would try to keep in mind
that having an abortion and buying a gun are two very
different events.

Some fool claimed that there was an analogy to be made
between waiting periods for gun purchase and waiting
periods for abortions.  Others have cited "impulse
purchases" and "impulse abortions" as reasons to justify
both.

This is, as I tried to point out in short form above, absurd.
I will spell it out for those who didn't get the point.

If there were no waiting periods for gun purchases or abortions
in PA (and there are both), a given woman could wake up
one morning, decide she wanted a gun, and go buy one.  This
same woman could not wake up one morning, decide that she
wanted to have an abortion, and go have one.  Abortions are
performed in clinics, not stores.  It would be necessary to
make an appointment first.  No clinic in Pittsburgh performs
abortions more than three days a week, all the gun shops that
I am aware of are open for business at least six days a week.
There is no such thing as an "impulse abortion."

Susan

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:59:08 GMT

In article <Bs2GCy.CH6@cs.columbia.edu> wln-mail@cs.columbia.edu (William Lee Nussbaum) writes:
>
>Just for general interest:
>
>The August '92 LP news includes a diagram with "libertarian ratings"
>of the justices based on their votes in 18 out of 50 cases.   It rated
>(Nolan-compatible numbers, though probably on a tighter grid) as follows:
>
>[Permission obtained from the LP.]
>
>				Ec  Pe
>				on  rs
>Wm Rehnquist		    XXX 37   0	
>Harry Blackmun		     XX 25 100 XXXXXXXX
>Byron White		    XXX 37  13 X
>Sandra Day O'Connor	   XXXX 50  63 XXXXX
>Anthony Kennedy		    XXX 37  75 XXXXXX
>David Souter		  XXXXX 67  63 XXXXX
>John Paul Stevens	     XX 25 100 XXXXXXXX
>Antonin Scalia		  XXXXX 65   0
>Clarence Thomas		 XXXXXX 75   0
>
>WHOLE COURT		  XXXXX 63  75 XXXXXX
>

I tried to contact you via e-mail, but the message bounced back, so
I am posting a request:

Ummmmm, not to appear stupid or anything, but I've never seen this
type of chart before & have no idea what it indicates. What are
Econ & Pers and what do the two columns of numbers indicate and
how did a rating qualify as "libretarian" or "non-libretarian"?
Inquiring minds wanna know :-). I'm not really sure whether this
supports my original assertion about Bush appointees not
necessarily being pro individual rights or refutes it. Thanks
for any help you can give me.
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:05:38 GMT


echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:

>OK, let's assume that the abusive spouse already has a weapon, or chooses
>to commit havoc by another means.  This is what police protection and
>injunctions are for.  I'll admit that these methods are not what they
>should be, but (being the bleeding heart that I am) I think there should
>be more emphasis on it.  As opposed to the NRA line of "Let 'em fight it
>out."  I'm sure most people would rather be sequestered or relocated
>than suffer through the trauma of killing another human being, not to
>mention a trial and media attention (remember the Burning Bed?).

Do you have so little life and so few friends and family you can run
away from everything and hide from a potential threat?  Have you ever
thought about what kind of world it will be if ordinary people, generally
minding their own business, simply run away from everything at a hint
of threat?  

--
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: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:31:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul23.150709.23717@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
]In article <1992Jul23.030642.2775@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]}...
]}My question of the "pro-choice" crowd... what makes you think that the
]}Supreme Court COULD take away your choice? I keep hearing that you folks are
]}in the majority. If so, you don't need the supreme court to protect you -
]}use the legislatures... so, which is it... is this a bogus issue, or are
]}you afraid that the majority of the people really don't agree with you?
]
]Who is the "you"?  I don't have a problem, since I'm not going to be getting
]pregnant (wrong sex).  Is it proper for me to be concerned about women?
]My wife doesn't have a problem, since we live in Hawaii, which isn't about
]to get anti-abortion laws.  May we properly be concerned about people who
My point exactly.
]live in Utah?  Can you conceive of a situation in which there is a
Why should you. Let the folks in Utah make up their own minds. THis is the
beauty of a republic made up of sovereign states.
]pro-choice majority in the U.S. but not in all states?  Can you conceive
]of there being a pro-choice majority in both houses of congress, yet
]not enough votes to pass into law a freedom of choice act?
Who cares if there is a freedom of choice act?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:52:05 GMT

borden@cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>.183@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>Re-read the Second Amendment, sir.  I submit to you that the introductory 
>>clause that you refer to, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the 
>>security of a free state,"  is NOT the restrive clause that you seem to 
>>think that it is.  It gives ONE reason for the RKBA, but does not limit the 
>>RKBA to the militia, it protects it for the entire people.
>>-=-=-
>You reread it.  There's nothing in there to guarantee the entire people the
>right to bear arms.  It guarantees the right of the people to form a militia,
>and the militia has the right to bear arms.  Nor does it deny individuals
>the right the bear arms.  But it certainly doesn't guarantee it.
>That's not an opinion - it's just English.  Read it again: "A well-regulated
>militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."  It just doesn't
>say it.  I've looked and looked, and I just can't see the guarantee you're
>talking about.  It's just not there.


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: harlan@sulu.lerc.nasa.gov (Harlan Harris)
Subject: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Organization: NASA/Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:40:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.095705.21029@imag.fr> turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>>[...]
>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
>
>Can you back this figure up with a reference?  Sounds like folklore to
>me.
>
>	Matthew Turk

The figure I've heard, that I believe Boyan is misquoting, is that the top
1% of the nation has more wealth than the lower 90% of the nation. I'd be
happy to get you a reference tomorrow. It's still an impressive statistic,
and one that needs to change, in my opinion.
Note the difference, however. 90% owns (I'd guess, but will look up) 40%
of the wealth. 1% owns 45%. The 9% between most-people and rich-people
might then own 15%. As I said, I'll come back with real numbers tomorrow,
if someone asks.

 -Harlan Harris

Clinton/Gore '92! Clinton/Gore '96! Repeal the ammendment! Clinton/Gore '00!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:168 alt.politics.elections:8780
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Wealth Distribution (Was: Clinton's character...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:13:45 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:

>   |> The figure I've heard, that I believe Boyan is misquoting, is
>   |> that the top 1% of the nation has more wealth than the lower 90%
>   |> of the nation.

If you are using this argument to promote the tax-the-rich-pay-the-poor,
Robin Hood philosophy that you call 'Democratic agenda' and I would
call socialism...I would like to point out that this above statement
even applies to communist countries that according to crede govern that
'everyone is equal'.  Even when the old USSR had people starving in the
streets due to this same philosophy, they had an Ultra-Rich group at the
top.

The wonderful thing about the system in which we live (under GB) is that
theoretically anyone has a chance to bust into that upper 1%, but I 
maintain that if the insintive is taken away (ie..I can live as good
if I make $24k as if I make $60k) then people will adopt the attitude
of 'why bother..'.  If you don't think human nature allows that, just
look at the people that make welfare a career  (understandibly so, if
getting a job at minimum wage makes you $600/month and welfare will
pay you 2/3 of that for sitting on the porch..I wouldn't bother either..)

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:702 alt.politics.elections:9131
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:47:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul24094044@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Jul23.044647.8198@m.cs.uiuc.edu> barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn) writes:
><   >So I ask again: where will the money come from? Why is Clinton
><   >pushing this? Is he too stupid to know any better or does he think
><   >we are too stupid to know?
>
><   Well aren't you forgetting about everything else that he's said and
><   that's been discussed here?  There's cutting the defense budget,
>	
>	But transfer payments to individuals already exceed the
>	defense budget; next year, Social Security alone will
>	exceed the defense budget. 

Clinton has mentioned needs testing for Social security.  Try reading
the newspapers.

>
><   cutting excess federal jobs, 
>
>	Huh? Clinton is relying on the unions for election support
>	and he's supposed to CUT featherbedding?

And just what has good old George done about this.  try looking at the
rate of growth of federal jobs under him.  Now try removing your foot from
your mouth.

>
><saving people's health care costs, 
>
>	Clinton has promised a comprehensive health care system;
>	history shows that this will NOT contain costs.

Have you looked at Canada, or various other well develop countries?
Or, do you just talk without any knowledge of alternatives?

>	
><charging japan and germany for our troops on their soil, 
>
>	And if they don't pay, what will we do? Go to war
>	with them again?

How about sending them home.  Personally, rather than footing the
bill to have troops over in germany, and aiding to their economy
(not only by having troops without paying for them, they also get the
added benefit of having a good portion of the troops income spent there)
I would rather have them here aiding our economy.  

Did you even bother to think this out?
>
>	I don't see how this one will fly, considering that
>	the Japanese are already paying about 1/2 of the
>	cost of the U.S. military on their soil now.

actually, I think that's half the cost of maintaining sea battle forces.

>
>	By the way, exactly how many troops ARE in Germany,
>	nowadays? Can you name the Corps which was recently	
>	demobilized, and where it was?

Last time I heard, somewhere around 300,000 troops stationed in europe.  
but that was a little while ago.
>
><little or no capital  gains tax on long-term investments,....
>   --
>	I'll believe that one when I see it; remember that
>	Jimmy Carter ran, among other things, on a "reduce
>	inflation" ticket. What was the inflation rate in
>	1980, again?

Just what has Bush proposed?  Not a hell of a lot.  While we are
talking about Carter, lets remember back to Nixon and Ford.  Makes
carter look pretty good doesn't it

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns