HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:29:09 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.154757.21316@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 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.
>
Have you been asleep, away or something. The guy has written in 
owning up. You've lost the plot mate!
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:03:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr6.200345.7906
Reply-To: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

<susan.702004163@coom>
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

In a previous article, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) says:


>
>       US LAW DOES NOT APPLY IN AUSTRALIA.  I believe we fought quite
>a large and loud flame war late last year over that little matter.  If
>you'd like to provoke it again, do so.
>

Ahhh! You should have said so.  Wasn't aware of where you were.  Odd, your 
address comes out on this end as being from Duke University.

As for your flames; ask me ...I've got a good suggestion as to where you can 
put them.

As I was not aware we were speaking of Australia, I retract my comments ...but 
only as they don't apply to Australian Law.  Australian law is in an even worse 
condition than the US legal system.

How the Australians handicap themselves with ineffectual and worthless laws is 
their own problem.



--

"It's Easy To See Who The Bottle Fed Babys Were!"

                                              ...Theodore Reik
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ohio House Bill 709
Keywords: ohio, hb 709, parents criminally liable for childs actions
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:06:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <1992Apr9.223723.9561@ee.rochester.edu> vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.042001.1004@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>The Ohio House Judiciary and Criminal Justice Subcommittee meeting
>>of April 8th discussed H.B. 709.  This bill would make PARENTS or
>>guardians criminally liable [jail time!], if their CHILD takes a gun
>>belonging to his or her parents to school!
>
>I'm risking a serious flaming here...
>
>I am strongly pro-RKBA, and a member of both NRA-ILA and SCOPE.
>
>It seems to me that owning a gun, while most certainly a RIGHT, entails
>a certain personal responsibility to see that the gun is not misused.  If
>you have minor children, that responsibility extends to them as well.

  Perhaps it is true that the responsibility extends that far, but to
make a law enforcing responsible action strikes me as a bit facist.
How far will it go?  

  My guess is that it will go as far as politicians will push it, so long
as they are patient and don't push too hard then the average Joe will take
it.
(sexual innuendo INTENDED as it is allegorically correct in most situations
 in which the legistlature passes restrictive measures upon the average
 citizen.)

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
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 06:15:15 GMT

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

[...]

>	It is?  Funny, we don't have plea bargaining, revolving door
>prisons, a massive crime wave by recividists nor do we suffer from the same
>levels of violent crime as does America.  To me, it appears that our legal
>system is working just fine.

Bingo!  Availability of weapons has little to do with crime.  A swift,
sure justice system has everything to do with crime reduction.  When you
consider that estimates are that 70 percent of violent crime in the USA
is by repeat offenders out on parole, bail, or plea bargaining, you can
more clearly see the problem.

The NRA has recently started a crime watch to publicize the more absurd 
miscarriages of justice perpetrated on us by judges that live in another
dimension from the rest of us.  

An example:  The 2nd District Court of Appeals overturned a life sentence
for a man convicted of sexual battery (Florida's legal term for rape)
of a 13 year old girl with muscular dystrophy because the girl wasn't
helpless enough.  He was tried on a charge of sexual battery of a 
physically helpless person - defined by statute as someone asleep,
unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness.

The Appeals court ruled that the statute did not apply since the girl
screamed for help and tried to push him away.  Ultimately, the man was
resentenced to one year in jail on two counts of misdemeanor battery.
He was given credit for time already served and was released.

This is unfortunately not a rare occurance.  Maybe we could export our
lawyers to a point half way between the USA and OZ...
--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
From: alden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Laurie F. Alden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:45:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <susan.703122943@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
>can't control their dicks?

You're right, Susan, I don't want to have to.  I shouldn't have to.  I
look forward to the day when not only are adult people held accountable
for all their actions, but when that accountability causes people to
take responsibility at the moment (N.B. I am not holding my breath).

I don't want to "have to control the behavior of men who can't control
their dicks."  But I want the choice to and the power to.

Hi, folks, it's been a while.

Laurie

>--
>|  *   |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___________________________________|

It's Stanton.
--
Ecclesiastes 3:8.5:  There is a time to fish and a time to cut bait.
lfa@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 23:26:25 GMT

larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:

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

>[...]

>>	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.

	So why then is it the National Guard which is shown patrolling the
streets?  They don't get shown digging through rubble or cleaning up damage.
They are shown patrolling against looters.

>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...

	They might "hate" it, but they accept that sort of duty.  The
fact that your society seems always so ready to explode at the drop of a hat,
and the military then need to be called out, pointed to deeper problems in
your society than you seem willing to address IMO.


--
|  *   |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: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.231833.6560@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>In article <2134.29E48755@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:

>>DB>Roberta, surely you jest? *All* fighting is wrong. I know you

>>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"

>Words cannot kill, can they Roberta?

I'm not sure why you're asking me, since that was Clyde's reply.  (But hey,
what's in a word?)  But are you now saying that only fighting which can end
in death, is wrong?  Your previous statement was "*All* fighting is wrong."
If you're going to keep changing your tune, perhaps you should refine your
position before you post it initially.  It would make you look less wishy-
washy.  But please, answer Clyde's question.  Why is only physical fighting
wrong? And, when you get a chance, take a psychology course.  You might be
surprised at how much damage words can do to some people.  People have been
driven to suicide by words.  But that's their problem, right?

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                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,talk.politics.misc
From: skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone)
Subject: Re: Libertarians ARE Liberals (was Re: Perot for President)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.170408.7508@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr15.194502.8728@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone) writes:
>> In article <14APR199218161972@jane.uh.edu> mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble) writes:
>> >In article <1992Apr9.171811.17931@acsu.buffalo.edu>, blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes...
>> >
>> >>Consider Andre Marrou  -Libertarian
>> >> 
>> >> >To other Libertarians reading the Net listen good!
>> >
>> >
>> I wouldn't say that. Liberal has taken on an extremely negative
>> conotation synonomous with left wing authoritarian.
>
>I don't think so.  Sure, you can read Bush's lips that Liberal
>is synonomous with left wing authoritarian, but that does not
>make it so.

Most of the people I have met think liberal = tax & spend.
Remember I never said it _was_ so merely thats what people think.

>
>
>Sure, you can find some people that call themselves liberals
>that are less than honorable, but that does not make all liberals
>less than honorable.  I'm not embarrased to be called a Christian
>just because Jim Baker was a crook and I'm proud to be called 
>pro-life even though many people are trying to re-define
>the term to mean only supporters of anti-abortion legislation.
>People with political motives will always try to paint any label
>you use as extremely negative or wrap their distasteful positions 
>in a positive label (like Bush trying to wrap his policies in the
>American flag).  That does not make it so.  Changing your label 
>will make it look like your changing your ideals.
>

If people realized what liberal thought truly was I wouldn't
change the label. The generally accepted view of the label
does not fit the contents anymore.

>> I fully understand your point and the history of the term "liberal"
>> but considering the conotation I distance myself from the 
>> term just to be safe.
>
>Sounds like Dukakis' strategy.

No. Dukakis is a liberal in the current sence of the word along
with all its negative implications. I am a liberal in a sence
of the word no longer understood and I don't want the new liberal
(left wing) image associated with myself or my ideas.

>
>> Stuart Krone
>> Libertarian party candidate for Congress
>> 3 rd C.D. Pennsylvania
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ross Perrot *for* gun control
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:04:05 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <3696@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90)) writes:
>I saw HRP (hmmm, what can we do with that acronym...)

"His Royal Puke"  ?
>What are we, the people, willing to put up with in order to restore order?

Decriminnalize drugs, for starters.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"An unarmed people are slaves, or subject to slavery
at any moment." -- Huey P. Newton.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Blame the victim (Was Re: UK court approves use of shotgun)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:51:32 GMT

db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

[......]

>Quite frankly I find the tactics of some of the gunners (not
>you) quite despicable. There is some guy asking me if I am a cleaning
>lady or a woman. Why can't people accept people with differing views
>and not try to make out their opponents in argument are people
>they obviously despise. What is so bad about being a cleaner anyway?
>Can't cleaners hold views? I digress a bit, but I think it is
>important to point out to you my side of the picture.

That was me.  I see you are good at passing out insults but not quite
so good at taking them Katie.  Anyway, you, as usual, quoted out of 
context.  After you accused me of being "anti-intellectual," which
presumably means I disagree with your views, I asked you just what
you do at vut.  Cleaning lady was one of the items in the list.  YOU
chose to quote out of context and make a valuation on the relative
merits of the occupation.  BTW Pissant, when I was an undergraduate
20 years ago, I worked as a janitor in the ME machine shop for money
to go to school.  It paid enough I didn't actually go hungry and I got
to play with the machine tools...

Here is the question again Pissant as you chose not to answer the first
time...What do you do at vut?  Student/staff? What department?  Cleaning
lady? Put up or shut up.

Pissant:  An insult.  Extended to you for recognition of intellectual 
dishonesty above and beyond the usual.


--
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: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: NRA excludes Libertarian
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 15:37:38 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.

Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leroy Pyle) writes:

<Stuff about Libertarian candidate deleted> 

>Why do you think it is the NRA's responsibility to publicize the LP and
>its views? You think the policy stinks because NRA membership monies
>are not used to promote the LP? You blame the NRA and its policy for
>the LP's lack of exposure?

The POINT is, the NRA is totally ignoring the MOST pro-gun candidate, and
will most likely endorse a documented gun-banner, George Bush, who was also
a supporter of the 1986 Machine Gun ban, among other gun-banning
legislation.

For an organizaton that is allegedly trying to support the 2nd Amendment, I
would think they might even mention the name of the candidate that supports
it the MOST, instead of endorsing the candidate that has a documented
history of banning guns.

Mike "I am NOT the NRA, because I support RKBA" Tighe
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:58:28 GMT
X-Bytes: 

In article <53161@mimsy.umd.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 or glove
> compartment qualifies.
> 
> That's independent of state law, although many states are considering
> similar measures.
> 
> -andy

What does this mean?  Is this federal law applicable to all states?  Where  
in the USC (Section and Chapter) is it listed?  What does it mean by  
non-licensees?  Does this imply that a license is available?  I live in a  
state which requires no license or permit to own or transport firearms.   
Please explain.

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 22:41:24 EDT
From: <UMASP@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: TO; the person discussing the Virginia Free Militia.

I saw an article a while ago about the Virginia Free Militia.  Could
someone from that group send me an ASCII text copy of the bylaws for
that organization?  My militia group in Maine would be very appreciative.

Thank you.

Sgt. George E. Newell
1st Central Maine Regiment, Maine Free Militia

send to:   umasp@maine.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 17:33:53 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <susan.703388138@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>>In article <susan.703122943@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan
McDonald) wr
ites:
>>>	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
>>>can't control their dicks?
>
>>Because if you don't, those men will be using their physical strength
>>to control your behavior.  Utopia, BTW, is not an option.
>
>	So?  Should we never aim to achieve Utopia simply because you
>keep discounting it as an option?

No.  I am simply pointing out that it is foolish to discard options
such as violent resistance merely because they SHOULDN'T be necessary.

>	Or is it that case that you as a man refuse to think that perhaps
>there could be alternatives which would make men less subject to their
>hormones and more subject to their higher-order thought processes? 

I know exactly what it would take, and I do not consider that an
option either.


-- 
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)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx08.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:04:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Bytes: 

In article <1992Apr14.184618.24757@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>  
rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
> [material deleted]
> And of course, there are gun owners who think only their favorite
> firearm is worth keeping; everyone else's be damned. A NY Times poll
> published in the March 12, 1992 edition, A16 has this:
> [edited for brevity]
> 	Would you favor or oppose a ban on assault weapons - that is,
> 	semi automatic military-style rifles that can hold up to
> 	30 bullets?
> 	
> 		General population:		
> 		79% YES 		
> 		12% NO		
> 		 2% DON'T KNOW
> 				
> 		Gun Owners:		
> 		76% YES
> 		24% NO 		
> 		 1% DON'T KNOW
> 		
Is this the VERBATIM wording of the question and results?  If the question  
is worded exactly as it appeared in the survey the answers should be  
FAVOR, OPPOSE, and DON'T KNOW.  An answer of YES to "Would you favor or  
oppose" simply means that one would either favor or oppose (ie. that one  
has an opinion), an answer of NO would mean that one has not decided yet  
to favor or oppose a ban, a DON'T KNOW answer may indicate a desire not to  
even consider whether one has thought about the issue at all.

This potential survey flaw may seem unlikely; but as a Political Science  
senior (including 15 sem. hours of "MA level" coursework) with survey  
research experience, I know that such twisted and poorly worded questions  
and response choice are not uncommon.

I would also want to know what population was surveyed:  a representative  
sample of the entire U.S. or only NYC?  Also, when was the survey  
conducted (not published)?  Was it conducted at some time proximate to a  
well publicized "assault" rifle shooting incident?

Finally, single-issue surveys and actual voting patterns often do not  
correlate well.   79% of the general population supporting (my semantic  
objections aside) an "assault" rifle ban does not equate to 79% of the  
population voting for anti-semiauto rifle candidates.  It is more likely,  
however, that the 12% opposed to the ban includes a higher percentage who  
are unified in supporting candidates in agreement with their position.   
Obviously, there is some speculation here; but I think that actual voter  
patterns will show that 12% being far more politically efficacious than  
the 79% in opposition.

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns