HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:22:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>I know people in favor of banning TYPES of guns...including that flaming
>liberal Barry Goldwater, who said of semi-automatics (paraphrased): "Anyone
>who needs more than one bullet to kill a deer shouldn't be hunting anyway."

Yawn; at most that's an argument about deer hunting.  (Wanna bet ol'
Barry carries a repeater and more than one cartridge?  Wanna bet he
doesn't meet the minimum standard he proposes?)

Since gun ownership isn't justified solely by deer hunting, that's
not particularly interesting.

If I had to choose, I'd throw hunters and trap/skeet shooters to the
gun-banners.  I'd rather not, but if that's the way the game is
played, as an activist, I'll just not bother to oppose anti-hunting
types and concentrate on the gun uses that interest me.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:01:16 GMT
Keywords: gun women abortion rape

In article <1992Jul27.170021.29108@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
)In article <1992Jul26.224009.24978@cis.ohio-state.edu> fabian@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:
)>	Hey feminists!!! I need some statistics!  I really, really doubt that
)>handguns used in the standard,  suggested way (kept in the home) would
)>figure in most rape cases.
)
)Suggested by who? The politicans who want to keep women powerless?
)
)>	What percentage of rapes occur in the victim's home?
)>	(Where she would have access to her gun)

Hmm - I missed this.   Though I don't consider myself a feminist, I do have
an answer to your question.  According to the National Crime Survey
information, which you can find summaraized in 'Statistical Abstracts of the
United States', a house or home is *the most* frequent place for a rape.  In
fact, rapes in homes (the victims home or a relative home) make up over half
of all rapes according to this survey (about 60% from what I recall offhand).

This is probably some of the best information out there, though it is
somewhat flawed by the fact that the survey doesn't ask as clearly about
rapes as some of the other crimes it reports (IMO).

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:54:32 GMT

crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

>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, maybe you have nothing to hide but do you feel like having to prove
it everytime a government functionary decides you should.  Do you honestly
think the world would be a better place if a government official could
require you to submit to a search of your body or home when ever *they*
felt like it?  Do just a tiny bit of investigation about the current
documented abuses in the RICO and asset seizure laws.  You do know about
the asset seizure laws don't you?  


--
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,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:14:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.155824.4433@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes
( Steve Novak) writes:
>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.

This is not a consideration, as minors cannot buy guns now.  I believe
that you must be 18 to buy a rifle/shotgun and 21 to but a handgun now.
Everywhere in the US.

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To quote James Wright:
    "Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter
    gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds.  I have
    nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom
    I have come in contact over the past years.  They are, for the most part,
    sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to
    reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized
    person must share.  I have, however, come to be convinced that they are
    barking up the wrong tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:846 talk.politics.misc:36088 sci.econ:6565
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:31:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002000.26137@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil
Ngai) writes:

|>In article <1492@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
|>writes:
|>>I think a more typical example is that your sister marries an
|>abusive
|>>man who beats her, is arrested and charged, makes bail, buys a
|>>shotgun, shoots her and then himself.  Domestic violence is a big,
|>
|>Of course, we know that if he couldn't buy a shotgun (which I have
|>never seen proposed as the subject of ANY gun restrictions),

You have now, ban 'em.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Summary: A right delayed is a right denied - Rev. M. L. King.
Organization: If I was organized I would have posted this in the AM.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:30:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>>before a woman could get an abortion?
>
>Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.

The HELL it is.

>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

Wrong.  Only BACKGROUND CHECKS can spot criminals or the insane.
Background checks can be done as rapidly as credit-card verifications.
Waiting periods serve no purpose except to deny rights to people for
the duration of the wait.  A right delayed is a right denied.

>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.

The HELL it is.  The woman whose abusive ex-husband just got out
of jail (without her knowing about it) and is threatening her life
should have to wait to get the means to protect herself?  The man
who witnesses a gang killing and is being sought to silence him
should have to wait to get the means to protect himself?  People
faced with an unexpected riot situation should have to wait to
get the means to protect themselves and their property against
criminals?

These are EXACTLY the people I want buying a gun immediately.

>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.

Look at me, not in the mirror, Mr. Control Freak.  Making someone
wait to exercise ANY right makes zero sense.

>She has done no
>wrong and is doing no wrong.

Buying and owning a gun are completely victimless as well.

>Who knows better than she if she wants an
>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?

Or a handgun to fend off robbers and rapists?

>Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.

Maybe you should practice what you preach.

So, Mr. Novak, why should someone not have to wait for an
abortion (not a right enumerated in the Constitution), but
have to wait to exercise the right to keep and bear arms
(enumerated in the Second Amendment)?

>>My opinions are my own.
>
>Yet you wish to make those opinions everybody's, by force of law.

The idiocy of this statement is astonishing.  Has it ever occurred
to you that Ngai might be pro-choice with respect to weapons ownership?
Indeed, that this is the only consistent way to interpret his remarks?
Somehow, I doubt that this ever crossed your mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:24:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.223411.6175@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>One thing is not to expect the Court to be suddenly transformed
>by Clinton's appointments: the judges most likely to retire are
>NOT Reagan/Bush appointees.  Blackmun, as noted, is 84, and a
>Clinton replacement will not change the balance.
 
 
  However one more Bush appointment will change the balance immediately and
for a very long time.  
 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:292 talk.politics.misc:35286
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:04:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>[]
>Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
>its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
>operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
>manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
>
>Thanks, George.
>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

That's right Melinda George Bush sat down with his advisors and together they
should order Smith Corona to move it's plant.

And Bill Clinton is going fix it all by requiring Smith Corona, and every 
other company with plants in the U.S. to provide every employee with Health
Insurance, to provide day care, to make sure that the ratio of blacks to
whites, women to men, gays to hets is just what the government says it should
be, require them to pay higher wages to union labor because they can't hire
non union people, pay higher taxes, require them to hold jobs open while women
quit working to have a baby, require strict compliance with pollution standards
based soley on the word of some crackpot environmentalist etc etc etc...

Yep sounds like a program to make American industry more competetive to me,
should have them tripping over each other to see who opens their plants first. 

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: lae@unislc.uucp (Leslie Evans)
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Reply-To: lae@unislc.UUCP (Leslie Evans,B2C10,5383)
Organization: Unisys, Salt Lake City
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.023420.17316@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>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).
>
>---
>Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com

Imagine this scenario:

Bush sees how low his poll numbers are.  Laments, "What to do, what to do?"
Suddenly, he gets an idea (lightbulb goes on over his head).  Looks left,
looks right.  Nobody around.  Takes private phone into closet, so as
not to be heard.  Quietly dials a well memorized number.  Makes connection.

"Hello, Saddam?  It's George.  I was wondering if you could do me just
one more little favor.  What's in it for you this time?  Let's talk..."




Leslie Evans

CLINTON/GORE IN '92 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:05:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.144047.17337@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
|> Smith Corona has announced that it's shutting the doors on
|> its Cortland, NY plant and moving all of its manufacturing
|> operations to Mexico.  There will be *no* typewriter
|> manufacturing left in the U.S. after the move occurs.
|> 
|> Thanks, George.

Before you thank George, be sure to thank Mario and his "tax the state and
give to NYC" policy...

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.native
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Question on Native American Policies
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:41:55 GMT

Could someone out there in networld summarize how Bush and Clinton compare on 
their stand on the rights of Native Americans?  I read somewhere months back 
during the primaries something about this, and it was not complimentary towards
Bush, I believe.  However, media hype may have distorted things.

Anyone know the facts?

Thanks.

Carol
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Subject: Re: ERADICATE CONGRESS!!!
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:08:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.162826.7148@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> One of the best points Ross Perot tried to make during his non-compaign was
|> that the problems this country has now aren't the president's fault or the
|> congress' fault...they're my fault, and your fault, and her fault.  If you
|> haven't voted intelligently in every election you've been eligable to vote
|> in, and complained to your U.S. senators and representatives when they've
|> voted contrary to your preference, and actively campaigned for "better"
|> candidates, etc., then *you* are responsible for the mess in Washington.

But even with intelligent voting, our illustrious Congress has not seen fit
to make their votes on legislation reflect the views of the people they
represent...

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:722 talk.politics.guns:17957
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:03:33 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>I say (1) a thorough background check is _still_ going 
>>to stop minors...

>Again Novak shows that he thinks it is hard to determine if
>a potential buyer is a minor. Hmm.

(Phil baby, do you have a problem with requests not to cross-post?  Are you
just trying to be an ass, or what?)

I've detailed my stance on gun purchases.  If you don't like it, tough.
I've seen you rave crazily about _your_ opinion for years; it's tiring.  I
will debate others that have replied to my stance on this (I've already found
out "waiting period != "background check", and I sure didn't learn it from you,
Ngai).

I have no time to waste trying to reason with a fanatic like yourself, since
_to me_ this issue isn't as important as others.

One last time, for the Reading Impaired: I have concerns about young adults
purchasing guns for their younger friends (SEE gangs in inner cities).  If you 
think this problem is non-existent, you're more full of crap then you've already 
indicated.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:616 alt.politics.perot:1068 alt.politics.marrou:157 talk.politics.guns:17876
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
Subject: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Summary: Libertarians strongest defenders of Bill of Rights
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:15:06 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

>>  [Democratic platform]
>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
>>controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of
>>the most deadly assault weapons...

In article <1992Jul21.003040.10985@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>That's really too bad.  I've been a registered Democrat (and a Liberal) for
>the past 14 years and I was hoping I could help vote Clinton in, this year.
>However, it appears that he's just another quick fix politician...
>
>I may have to vote Libertarian after all...

I invite you, and every reader who wants a party that defends _all_ 
of the Bill of Rights, over to alt.politics.marrou.   Those who want 
change with new ideas instead of empty rhetoric about change, those who 
want a party with candidates that do not quit when the going gets tough, 
come over and learn what Andre Marrou, Nancy Lord, 140 Congressional 
candidates, and 400 local candidates are all about.  Republicrat and
Demublican votes tell the world that you are satisfied with the status 
quo.  Libertarian votes send a strong, clear message that we, the people, 
do indeed want our country back!


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Albert Gore (was Re: Convention Speech anyone?)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 05:54:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234358.10603@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>And given that Gore is really Clark Kent in disguise, he wouldn't
>have to worry about further assassination attempts.

Not to mention the simply unbeatable, at the ballot box or on
the street, tactic of the President of the USA himself installing
a phone booth in the Oval Office so that he can change in a flash
and fly out the window to safe his country. _Nothing_ can beat that.

:-)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:523 alt.politics.bush:158 alt.politics.elections:9035
From: athos@Apple.COM (Richard Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: George Bush opposes democracy.
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:59:39 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

It's all very simple, really.  If you are too stupid to register to vote by
going to your local library and getting a card, then I don't want you voting.

It's that simple.

Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:111 alt.politics.elections:8686
From: turk@imag.fr (Matthew Turk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 21 Jul 92 09:57:05 GMT
Organization: Institut Imag, Grenoble, France

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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:672 talk.politics.guns:17905 talk.abortion:28754
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:20:32 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

In article <1992Jul24.022812.23778@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:
|> In article <veal.126@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes
|> :
|> >In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve No
|> vak) writes:
|> >
|> >>Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone.
|> >
|> >     And an abortion *will* kill someone.  (Familiar, no?)
|> 
|> Will it?  I think this is clearly the question that
|> needs to be addressed.  Is an unborn fetus a
|> someone ( a person )?  If this were clear to everybody
|> then the abortion issue would be a moot point (hopefully).
|> 
|> The question could further be extended to later include
|> birth control and masturbation.  Clearly these are separate
|> issues (or non-issues) right now, but they perhaps could be natural
|> extensions.  Let's hope that the Victorian Age doesn't recur
|> in our lifetimes.

Those interested in this subject will want to have a look at the recent
(just decided) Kansas City Rescue case. I will try to get info for any
interested parties.

				mike
			shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov
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 23:19:15 GMT

> = Ngai writes:
>> = Carol Russell writes:

>>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.

>This is in the context of a girl wanting to get abortion and
>minors requiring parental permission? You sound like a
>control freak.

Geez, Ngai.  You're beginning to sound like the Dave Rasmussen of t.p.g.

This is in answer to YOUR flame of me, where you stated, "Hmm.  Again Novak
acts as if it's tough to recognize a minor".  Don't get all defensive just
because a reasonable answer comes back.

>You would probably impose a background check on each and every
>purchase of alcohol to determine if the buyer is a minor.

You've lost it.  Go have a Miller, or something.  It's Friday.

>For that matter, why not a background check on car buyers?
>Just to determine if they are old enough to drive, of course.

Why would you take that position, Phil?

>You know, it would be good to also check if they ever had driver
>education or qualified to drive. 

Seems a bit extreme to _me_, Phil.

>I know there are these pieces of paper called driver's licenses
> but there are so many false ID's, you just can't be sure.

Sounds a tad _paranoic_, Phil.  Are you OK?




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1147 alt.politics.perot:1151 talk.politics.guns:18433