HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: covdy@shemesh.metaphor.com (Ivan Covdy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: A new abortion law in Poland (from Clarinews)
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:05:57 GMT

in article <1992Jul26.044409.14182@husc3.harvard.edu>, verbit@birkhoff.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) says:

[Stuff about anti-abortion laws in Poland deleted]
 
> What should I add? Religion, being relatively harmless in West
> behaves very ugly in ex-communist countries. I think this is 
> because most people there cannot tell religion from totalitarian 
> ideology which they worshipped most of their lifes. Now they
> just worship different symbols, but the power these symbols
> represent is the same - the power of total control and omnipresent
> marasm.
> 
> Misha.

I just wanted to remind, that people in America are getting crazy, too, 
and "pro-choice/pro-life" or whatever they call it is the "most important"
issue here as well.  Interesting, why it became an issue. Because of
so many immigrants from Mexico, Poland and other Catholic states
(Catholicism prohibits abortions and birth-control stuff.)
Or, maybe, people just have nothing to do?

-- 
  Ivan Covdy, covdy@shemesh.metaphor.com, METAPHOR Inc.,  CA,  USA
 *** People are looking for a Mind somewhere in the Universe,      ***
 *** because on the Earth they've been finding only the Stupidity. ***
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
From: leonid@thyme.uchicago.edu (Leonid Andreev)
Subject: IT'S JUST A TEST; PROSTITE, REB'ATA!
Organization: University of Chicago CILS
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:33:23 GMT

Nikakogo teksta ne budet. ja zhe skazal, eto test.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonid S Andreev,              Center for Information and Language Studies, 
(312) 955 5012                   University of Chicago, Chicago IL, 60637.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
From: pakstas@idt.unit.no (Algirdas Pakstas)
Subject: Re: Russian/English translator programs
Keywords: Russian/English translator programs, CENTRPROGRAMSYSTEM, Tver, Russia
Reply-To: pakstas@idt.unit.no (Algirdas Pakstas)
Organization: Div. of CS & Telematics, Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 10:58:25 GMT

In article <92203.125346BERSBACH@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Al Bersbach <BERSBACH@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
|> Hope this an OK place to ask this:  I'd appreciate any info about programs
|> (preferably PC compatible programs) that translate Russian to English or
|> vice versa.  Thanks!

Try to contact people (sorry, I don't have any names) from
organization formerly named CENTRPROGRAMSYSTEM, Tver (formerly
Kalinin), Russia. In 1989-90 they developed working system on PC. I
saw it on exhibition in Moscow.  System was able to translate as
general-purpose as computer-oriented texts (options defined by
substituting dictionaries) and speed of translation on 286-12 PC was
about 5min./page from English to Russian.

Unfortunately, I have only the following addresses in Tver:

sjus@spsel.tver.su                       Join-Venture "Seliger"
postmaster@tvegu.tver.su                 Tver States University
                                         (Tvepskoj gosudapstvennyj universitet)
Best regards,
_______________________________________________________________
Algirdas.Pakstas@idt.unit.no                  NTH IDT
Ph.: +47-7-594485                             N-7034, Trondheim
FAX: +47-7-594466                             Norway

Disclaimer: all opinions are my personal, employer can disagree
_______________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:33:40 GMT

 Steve Deemer wrote:	
>Never heard of people -stealing- guns for buyback programs,
 When NY city traced some of the guns from their buy back they
 found they were stolen after the buy back was announced. 

 If the buy back is done by a private group there is a law
 that states the BATF must be notified if a non FFL purchases
 more than 2 handguns. What does the BATF do with this case?
 

     Myron


 *************************************************************
 all opinions expressed here are my own
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:37:36 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <1992Jul24.162405.10969@auto-trol.com> stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer) writes:

}Never heard of people -stealing- guns for buyback programs, but last
}time they tried this in Denver, the buyback people paid $100 apiece for
}squirt guns and cap pistols, as well as for actual firearms that
}retailed for $30-$40 new.

During the last L.A. mayoral election one of the candidates offered to
purchase any "assault rifles" for $250 each from his campaign fund.  A
number of FFL's, who could buy them for considerably less, brought him a
dozen or so, each.  In the end, he bought a lot of guns, had them
destroyed and still lost the election.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: John of Keen Deductive Powers
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:51:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Jul20.191952.5906@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
writes:
>|> I have little faith that we are converting people.
>
>Several of the current crop of well-known posters started out as anti-gunners
>in this very group, some of them not so long ago.

While I was not anti-gun when I first subscribed to t.p.g a year or so
ago (I've enjoyed shooting pistol for years), I had bought into the media
"who NEEDS an assault rifle" myth.  Now I recognize the fact that we gunners
have to stick together.  If I only shoot pistol and a law is passed affecting
black powder rifles, it still affects me! 

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The NRA, founded in 1871:  oldest Civil Rights organization around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.215727.11458@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

>A gun buy-back program is being planned for the Seattle area.  It
>is sponsored privately by an organization called "Stop the Violence",
>which intends to collect $100,000 in private donations to buy back
>guns at $50 each during the month of September.

Good.  Now, everybody anywhere NEAR the Seattle area, grab hold of every non-
functional piece of junk you can find and sell it back to them to soak up 
their funds.  But lock up your own hardware.  These sorts of buy backs tend 
to encourage burglary as people try and steal guns to turn in, since they 
have full amnesty.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: tjviv@usmi02.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Guns
Summary: Why not compromise??
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:05:53 GMT
Followup-To: All sorts of CR*P
Organization: Chevron


  Once again, I implore everyone to edit the newsgroups line of your
submission.  If you have nothing to say about Clinton's or Bush's gun
policies, why the hell are you posting them to that board???

   And finally, why can't both sides learn to get along?  Guns are a
right that people have gotten used to.  Just as when we tried to outlaw
alcohol, too few people would believe in a NO GUNS law to make it
effective.  I don't personally use a gun, but I sure like the idea that
any criminal breaking into my house knows I probably have one (I live in
West Texas).  I don't think the founding fathers knew what the world
would be like now, but I think that they thought that arming the people
was a good thing (for whatever that matters).

  I don't know what the gun people find so offensive about a waiting
period.  So what if it hardly ever works.  I can sure think of more
scenarios where it saves lives than where some innocent person's life is
harmed.  Why is it so important that some guy might not be able to
compete in a stupid mother****** gun tournament.

   We live in a dangerous society folks.  That's the price of freedom.
We can't just lock up those people who are different than us, who have
less money, who frighten us.  Some people are going to die from firearms
no matter what laws we enact.  Taking away guns isn't the solution, but
neither is the attitude that everyone should be toting around guns,
which some (ultra?) conservative friends of mine think is great, as long
as they have the upper hand and no one else is doing it.

  Guns are part of our society, and really, a part of our heritage.  It
is the duty of serious gun owners to promote responsible use.  We have
no problem taking away the right "to life, liberty" etc. of criminals
when we perceive that they have overstepped the boundaries we've set.
If we don't start compromising a bit, we might find a majority of
Americans find guns to be a problem which needs to be outlawed, and I
think we'll be in real trouble then.

John Viveiros

The opinions expressed within lie midway between those of my wife and
those of my best friend.


D
scenarios where it helps than where it harms.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich)
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:13:54 GMT

In <1992Jul27.175025.173@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:

[Lots of subtle humor]

You're silly.  I like that!
--
"From each, according to his ability,
to each, according to his needs." - Democratic party leaflet (sound familiar?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:25:35 GMT

>}I think we need to get back on track and punish criminals not guns.
>}If someone commits a crime, punish that person. If that person 
>}used a  gun to commit the crime add 10 un-paroleable years to
>}the sentence. 
>
>So, how did you vote on the last bond issue to support and build new
>prisons?
>
>The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
>Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
>3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
>Santa Monica, CA  90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

More money for prisons isn't the answer. I would suggest getting the
war on drugs stopped and letting the dealers (who are not also violent
offenders) out would give us plenty of prison space. Also perpetrators
of white collar crimes should not be in prison. If they are tax evaders,
embeslers (sp?) etc. hit them where it counts (the wallet). If they
can't pay the restitution required (X times what they stole) confiscate
their property.

				mike

| Because the sentance against an evil deed is not executed quickly the |
| hearts of the sons of men amoung them are fully given to do evil.     |
| - Eccl 8:11
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:40:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>|>	Mexican gun laws are STRICTER than British gun laws, yet
>|>	by any measure you choose, crime in the Republic of Mexico
>|>	is worse than in the U.S.
>|>
>|>	If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
>|>	safer than the U.S.?
>
>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>chance of gun control laws working?

A reasonable assumption if you are of the school of thought that says
that weapons cause crime (as opposed to people), but even if you
eliminate all the firearms-related crimes, crime is worse in Mexico.
Care to come up with another explanation?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:44:28 GMT

>Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
>Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
>"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.
>
>Floyd Johnson
>New Brunswick, NJ
>-- 
>*********************************************************************
>"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas, half a pack
>of cigarettes, its' dark, and we're wearing shades." 
>					-_The Blues Brothers_

Not quite. SEMIautomatic 12 Gauge shot gun.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Firearms in Self Defense
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:38:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:


>We're talking about guns that kill people, Ngai.  Let's not be condescending.

Guns can't kill people, sir.  They are only tools, and inanimate object 
cannot be held responsable for the actions of the owner.

>>>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>>>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

>>You mean like a woman who has received death threats?

>Someone that doesn't own a gun could easily have her defensive weapon
>turned AGAINST her, no?  ...Since you seem to mention a threatened woman as
>if she were the totally helpless type.

You are incorrect here.  OF all the methods of response to an assault, using 
a gun in a defensive manner is least likely to get the victim hurt.  This 
includes resisting with other weapons, bare-handed resistance, running away, 
and aquiescing to the assault.

>Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone.  A waiting period for a woman
>desiring an abortion simply makes it hard for, say, a poor woman travelling
>from afar to even AFFORD an abortion.  I don't see the connection.

A gun could also be used to save a life.  As could an abortion.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.144214.28183@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>
>The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
>method of controlling crime

This is some new meaning of the word "direct" with which I'm not familiar,
since guns do not commit crimes, nor are they necessary to commit them, nor
are the vast majority of guns ever used in crimes.  Just what does "direct"
mean to you?

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Ignorant Voters
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:46:41 GMT

In article <larryd.711860490@milton> larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:

>Registering
>to vote is trivial and as far as I am concerned, anyone who is too lazy
>to do it probably doesn't have a clue about what is goin on anyway.  

Amen.  I am GLAD these people DON'T vote.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rrw@philabs.philips.com (Roger White)
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:25:07 GMT

In article <5054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.033734.8117@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

[snip]

>
>Sorry, that's the wrong attitude.  If I were a gun banner, the solution
>would be obvious.  If no guns could be legally sold through these outlets,
>criminals couldn't buy them there.  Unfortunately, that's not the solution
>you want to hear.  If you don't propose a better solution, it's the one 
>you WILL hear.
>
>The theory posted here in the past has been, "Laws against guns don't
>work, and besides, most of them already duplicate existing laws that
>aren't being enforced."  I hear this particularly about people who
>purchase guns in another state.  "There's ALREADY a FEDERAL law against 
>that; what good is it to have TWO laws?"  
>
>But now people admit that the existing law is either not being enforced 
>or is unenforceable.  If the latter, then maybe another law IS the answer.
>(You wanted to hear THAT, didn't you.)  If the former, how should it
>be enforced better?
>-- 

Well, I think it is unenforceable or at least the bad guys have figured a way
around it.  As you know, the problem is that the bad guys don't worry much
about laws they're pretty sure they aren't gonna get caught breaking and if
they do they probably won't be punished.  

I would very much like to see you come up with a law that would work and
wouldn't infringe on your and my rights.  I really mean that.  Sadly, I think
there are only two choices - ajdust the attitude of the bad guys; take our
rights away.  I'd opt for the first.

Take care,

Rog
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:37:22 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>I don't think that's strictly true.  I believe that more modern
>Supreme Courts have held (at least once) that the 'militia' clause
>does indeed restrict, and that the National Guard meets that -- hence
>there is no guaranteed right for anyone else to have weapons.

No, the Supreme Court has never ruled this way.

>That is, after all, why waiting periods, etc., are constitutional.  Or
>so the claim goes.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether or not waiting periods are
constitutional.

I am not sure where you are getting your impressions, but they are
incorrect. For the most part, most gun-control laws go unchallenged.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:51:08 GMT


In <1992Jul29.205650.15551@ttinews.tti.com> The Polymath states:

|The Striker "Street Sweeper" is a short barreled shotgun with a 12
|chambered cylinder, much like a revolver.  I believe it was featured in
|the movie "The Dogs of War." It looks exotic and dangerous but, in
|reality, is a pain in the anatomy to use.  Each chamber has to be
|individually loaded and unloaded through a gate.  In the movie they made
|it seem more deadly through the use of exotic ammunition -- which would
|actually work in any shotgun.

"Street Sweeper" is the trademark of Cobray's copy of the original
Striker-12.

The Striker-12 didn't appear in the "The Dogs of War;" that movie
used the Manville gas gun that dated back to the 1930s. This is a
rotary magazine gas launcher that chambered 37mm rounds. I believe
some firm during the 1980s manufactured a 40mm (M-79 round) version
of it as well.

The "Dogs of War" if my recollection is correct dates to around 1980
or so. I don't believe the Striker-12 was in production then, and
possibly may not have even existed in prototype form either...

|They're made in South Africa and banned in California.

Try as they might, the Striker-12 was never approved by BATF for
import into the USA; under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the government
asserted that the weapon had no sporting purpose.

All Striker-12s for sale here are manufactured in the USA.

[Imagine a Striker-12 loaded with Dragon's Breath rounds during an
LA-style riot at night... that would be an awesome display of
pyrotechnia...]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.164529.25772@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.201637.19089@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>>
>>	Where does this group, whoever they are, get the authority to
>>	do this?  Again, I would like to know if this is indeed legal.
>
>Why wouldn't it be legal ?  It would only be illegal if they were
>going to resell the guns and didn't have the appropriate FFL.
>There is no federal or Washington state law limiting the number of
>guns you may own 

	I know that, I guess I was not clear in my expression.  I meant
	about all this police amnesty nonsense.  That some private group
	get this thing going with the police... I just wonder about it.

	And why would the DA be so hot to offer amnesty?  Sounds like PR
	bullshit to me.
>
>Actually, some good guns are turned in.  Andy Freeman mentioned in
>tpg once that a mother turned in her sons $1000 trap gun.  Bitch.


	OUCH!
>

	-Andy V.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18119 alt.politics.clinton:934