HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: 1000 feet
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:50:19 -0500

In article <RkDwiB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
>ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) writes:
>

>It is illegal in Florida to carry a firearm into any college or
>university facility (790.06(12)). I'm a little curious about what
>facility means. Does it mean I would be in violation of the law
>as soon as I stepped on campus or only when I entered a building?

I went and read 790.06(12) and though ambiguous, I think it
probably means campus especially as it uses facility in the
same way in the clause relating to "elementary or secondary 
school" as it does in the clause relating to "college or
university." At least it exempts college or university students,
employees and faculty from the prohibition. 
>
>I think I'll call and ask for a clarification. I sometimes pick my
>friends kids up at elementary school and it would be useful to know
>if I should leave my gun at home or if it's okay as long as I stay
>in the parking lot. What if I don't get out of my car? Under Florida
>law I may not technically be carrying, since a permit is not required
>for carrying a loaded firearm in a car.
>
>Speaking of parking lots, how is the federal regulation interpreted,
>are you okay if you leave your firearm in the car at the post office,
>or is it a federal crime as soon as you pull into the parking lot?
>
I've read the signs in the lobbies of federal office buildings and
P.O.'s and as I recall, it's only inside the building.

-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 23:19:24 GMT

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:

>In article <susan.702616434@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>>	And so he responds yet again and in the same vein.....
>>
>>	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
>>brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?

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

	So, you'd provoke a fight, simply because the bloke was threatening
you?  Yep, such a big man Matthew, do you start fights when someone walks
across your shadow?

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

	No, they just beat their wives and molest their children.


--
|  *   |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: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:51:00 GMT

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

>In article <9204062113.AA03617@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>But does your government encourage or discourage each household to buy
>>and keep their own fire extinguishers around the house or in their
>>car, against the 'what if' of a fire starting that they are able to
>>put out by themselves? Are you claiming that the best response to a

>Yep, moderately. The govt has better things to do than worry unduly
>about it.

>>grease fire on your stove is for you to run off and call the fire
>>department, then run out of your house and let it burn until the fire
>>crew shows up?

>No. Why do you postulate such a silly thing. But of course all
>things in moderation. No use being a hero and getting burnt. 
>Houses can be rebuilt; people cannot.

True, so don't you think it is rather irresponsible of you (or, to 
be more accurate, plain bloody STUPID!!!) to show no concern for the 
safety of the rest of your family?  This is what you are doing, you
know, by not worrying about the nasty things that might happen because
you have "better things" to think about.  I don't enjoy thinking about
house fires, car accidents or criminal assaults, but that does not
prevent me from trying to be prepared _if_ any of these unlikely
events occurs.

>OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>to have preventative equipment.

And since you said in another posting that there is no way you would
take that advice (since, presumably, it's their job to protect you
so they should get on with it) why do you care what they think 
anyway.  Incidentally, when you say "the police are against private
gun ownership for self-defence", you should make it clear that this
is the official position of police organisations in Australia, and
not necessarily the view taken by all police as individuals.  Of course,
the police I know hardly constitute a random sample, since they are all
interested in shooting.

>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>    was swatting at flies.

They shouldn't have been fielding so close.

Geoff Miller  (ghm@cc.adfa.oz.au)   |   Don't steal.  The government
Computer Centre                     |   hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy    |   (via Jeff Cooper)
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent March 1992 -- Article "NOT RESPONSIBLE (Black Magic Guns)"
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 01:30:50 EDT

The following article is from the March 1992 issue of the PROponent,
the monthly newsletter published by The Peoples Rights Organization
(PRO), a pro gun, pro constitutional rights group based in Columbus,
Ohio.

As a member of the PRO -- Electronic Information Committee,
I am posting this article for information only. Questions or
comments may be directed to:

PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION
5 E. Long St., Suite 412
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 268-0122

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

(Begin article "NOT RESPONSIBLE" from March 1992 PROponent)

 
NOT RESPONSIBLE...

     Look anywhere in the media today and you find the same message
repeated over and over: No one is responsible for their own acts.
One kid shoots and other right between the eyes and the television
news sympathizes with the emotional mother of the perpetrator.
Criminals aren't responsible either.  It was the stress of modern
life, or maybe too many twinkies that made them mug that elderly
woman and bash in her head.  Or maybe it was something far more
powerful - The Gun.  Yeah that's it, the guns committed the crimes,
killed victims and injured innocents.
     Lance Morrow in the March 9, 1992 Time magazine has written
the definitive expression of this philosophy:
     "Guns have a sort of irresistible black magic about them.  A
good gun has such a lovely heft, a densely sinister weight in the
hand.  The brain is wired to the trigger finger and fires on
impulse. The finger twitches, and -blam!- the life across a
distance -poof!- disintegrates: an existence powdered.  The finger
did it on a whim. ... Conscience is disconnected from trigger
finger.  Child is disconnected from future.  Bullet is disconnected
from gun muzzle and, once fired, can never be recalled."
     We'd say the media has such an irresistible magic about it.
Such limitless power that with a few odd symbols set in a certain
order, millions can be sent marching to their deaths.  It's not a
whim.  It's for control.  The fingers twitch at a keyboard and
truth is disconnected from the brain.  Responsibility and reason
are disconnected from writer.  And the printed word having been
launched into the marketplace to do it's deed, could, but never
will be retracted.

 
(End article "NOT RESPONSIBLE" from March 1992 PROponent)

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:57:43 GMT

In article <2240.29EA33BA@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:
>SM>From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)

>SM>        I make the assumption that they are "male posters" Roberta because
>SM>of their debating style.  Your's compared to their's is like chalk and
>SM>cheese.
>SM>You aren't as aggressive, nor are you so into proving your manhood as a
>SM>large
>SM>number of the others are here IMO.

>I think you have just been stereotyped, Roberta!  Soft as cheese or hard
>like a piece of chalk?

Sure is good to know there are only two kinds of people in the world, eh?
Makes things much simpler... :-)

>BTW have you ever been into proving your
>manhood?

Why on earth would I want to do that?  :-) I'm rather fond of being a woman.
Viva la differance, and all that...

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                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? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <ghm.702694260@ccadfa> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>>In article <9204062113.AA03617@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>>But does your government encourage or discourage each household to buy
>>>and keep their own fire extinguishers around the house or in their
>>>car, against the 'what if' of a fire starting that they are able to
>>>put out by themselves? Are you claiming that the best response to a
>
>>Yep, moderately. The govt has better things to do than worry unduly
>>about it.
>
>>>grease fire on your stove is for you to run off and call the fire
>>>department, then run out of your house and let it burn until the fire
>>>crew shows up?
>
>>No. Why do you postulate such a silly thing. But of course all
>>things in moderation. No use being a hero and getting burnt. 
>>Houses can be rebuilt; people cannot.
>
>True, so don't you think it is rather irresponsible of you (or, to 
>be more accurate, plain bloody STUPID!!!) to show no concern for the 
>safety of the rest of your family?  This is what you are doing, you
>know, by not worrying about the nasty things that might happen because
>you have "better things" to think about.  I don't enjoy thinking about
>house fires, car accidents or criminal assaults, but that does not
>prevent me from trying to be prepared _if_ any of these unlikely
>events occurs.

I agree. An earlier poster convinced me. I am buying a fire
extinguisher in the week end. 
>
>
>>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>>    was swatting at flies.
>
>They shouldn't have been fielding so close.

Well-put! 
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: jbs@egr.duke.edu (Joe B. Simpson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:26:12 GMT
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill

In article <susan.703122943@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>	A rather typical male response IMO.  Have you ever considered that
>it might not be possible to reach the point where its no longer necessary
>for anybody to have to, "lie back and grit their teeth,"?

Absolutely correct. It might not be, and indeed probably just plain isn't,
possible to reach the point where people don't commit rape.

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

A typical male perception of rape, pretty well proving that "Susan" is actually
Brian, or Dave, or whoever. This idiot clearly thinks that rape is motivated
by sexual urges rather than violence and desire to control. A true feminist
would know better, or so my feminist friends tell me. Hell, even *I* know
better. Also, a real feminist wouldn't slip up and write "wommin" instead of
"wymmin", particularly after raising such a ruckus about the use of the word.

Another addition to my KILL file.

  -joe
--
                You spend the night
            Like you were spending a dime

                   - Lyle Lovett
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:18:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

JSC>From: clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary)
JSC>Date: 15 Apr 92 14:27:54 GMT
JSC>Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
JSC>Message-ID: <clary.703348074@pv031e.vincent.iastate.edu>
JSC>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

JSC>* It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion.  * Jeffrey S. Clary  *

Certainly not the sentiment of Spartacus and his 40,000 followers.

 * SLMR 2.1a * An honest man's the noblest work of God.


3
--  
Clyde Spencer
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Clyde.Spencer
INTERNET: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Clyde Spencer only."
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:35:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr14.163550.12409
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <1992Apr13.025017.10051@ncsu.edu> by hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer):

>   Another wommin proves that she either can't read, or that she is
> incapable of distinguishing between being the victim of criminal assault
> and provoking a fight.  If she means what she says (hard to believe)
> then she really is saying that a rape victim shouldn't resist, but 
> instead just don't protect her/his "honour", swallow his/her price
> and let the rape proceed.  Otherwise the victim would be guilty of
> "provoking a fight".

That's EXACTLY what she's saying.  She's already explicitly said that gays and
minorities should "pity" skinheads trying to kill them rather than resist. It's
obviously her point of view that one's mere existence can be a provocation. It
is that sort of assumption which underlies the holocaust and a dozen other
egregious acts of wanton slaughter....


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:38:13 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr9.135708.29437@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr7.031526.5698@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> >> You are a bit behind the times, aren't you. Salmon Rushdie is guarded
>> >> 24 hours a day by experts. His country pays for this service.
>> >
>> >As are US army generals.  They still carry their own pistols.  Of course I'm
>> >sure that if anybody attacked him, he'd be as well protected by his bodyguards
>> >as Huey Long was by his....
>> >
>> >> He is indeed fortunate to live in England.
>> >
>> >As compared to where?  North Korea?  Burkina Faso?  New Jersey?
>> 
>> The USA.
>
>No, seriously.  Where?
>
>
Where what? 
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:07:17 GMT
	<1992Mar29.162702.4993@NCoast.ORG>
	<1992Apr2.054917.17911@matilda.vut.edu.au>
	<1992Apr3.015331.11844@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Apr6.053750.22925@matilda.vut.edu.au>
	<2254@sys.uea.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr7.032506.

In <1992Apr7.032506.6075@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman) writes:

>In article <2254@sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>>I believe that:
>>      - the police should not ignore the threats against SR
>>*and*
>>      - SR and everyone else should be allowed to defend themselves
>>
>I agree. Out difference is in how.

Really?  You have not yet answered the question of how people are to
defend themselves in situations where avoidance, flight, and
politeness will not work.  If you believe that for people to be
powerless in such situations is the price that must be paid to remove
firearms from society, come out and say so.

--
Richard Kennaway          SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk		uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:27:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32214
Organization: Biko House, Oakes College, UC Santa Cruz


In article <1992Apr6.002155.1809@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>Of course I'm
>sure that if anybody attacked him, he'd be as well protected by his bodyguards
>as Huey Long was by his....
>
Didn't some historian determine sometime in the last year that Huey Long
was actually killed by a bullet from one of his budyguards' guns? He
apparently dug through police records and found that the "assassin's" gun
had not, in fact, been fired. The irony of the entire situation was, of
course, that Huey was killed while leaving a legislative session in which
he had been filibustering a bill that would have re-legalised concealed
carry for the general public in Louisiana...

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:05:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.090047.10104@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
> As you don't even know his views on these matters, don't you
> think you are being a little presumptuous? Further, I think the
> Hezbollah are a little more determined than the enemies of an average
> fishmonger. 

	Fact:  The IRA exists. 
	Fact:  The IRA is a threat to fishmongers (and many others) 
	Fact:  Rushdie can afford bodyguards whereas, I dare say, 
               the average fishmonger can not. 
	Fact:  The government does not routinely provide bodyguards 
               to fishmongers who take the underground to work. 

             
> Your argument doesn't hold water, and what you write only
> shows your lack of compassion.

	Right back at you.

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  TSRA  NRA NRA-ILA  |  Remember the Alamo!
 kossack@rice.edu  |     B-VARC  ARRL    |  Supprt the right of Texans 
  (713) 270-9056   |      TSPE  IEEE     |  to bear arms for defense.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:11:57 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <2384@news.duke.edu> jbs@egr.duke.edu (Joe B. Simpson) writes:
>In article <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?
>
>A typical male perception of rape, pretty well proving that "Susan" is actually
>Brian, or Dave, or whoever. This idiot clearly thinks that rape is motivated

What a bunch of galahs you people are. How could Susan be Brian or me?
I have met Brian and he doesn't look at all like a woman!

>Another addition to my KILL file.

Who cares?
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kahhan@bnr.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA excludes libertarian party from american rifleman
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:08:35 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research - Atlanta

The NRA should have no problem find the pro-gun candidate in this 
election, since all democratic candidates have taken an anti-gun
position, and George Bush has shown that he's no friend of gun
owners. That eliminates the democrats and the republicans from
consideration.

The only other candidate who has a solid pro-gun stance is libertarian
Andre Marrou. In fact, unlike Bush and some of the other candidates, 
Marrou supports ALL of the Bill of Rights.


-- 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
                               |
Larry Kahhan                   |   The views expressed herein do not
lkahhan@bnr.ca                 |   necessarily reflect the views of
                               |   the management.
                               |
_______________________________|_______________________________________
From: jvh@nature.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ann Landers
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:17:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rvuv7INNnuc
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu

In article <JIK.92Apr7001936@pit-manager.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>It doesn't matter what you write.  She isn't going to print it, unless
>it makes gun owners look bad.
>
>Come on, she's on the board of directors of HCI, do you *really* think
>she's going to print a letter in a column over which she has total
>control that represents gun ownership fairly?  I've certainly never
>seen one, and I'm sure people have written to her in the past in
>response to her anti-gun rhetoric.

	 Likewise many animal rights groups have advised skipping the
Ann Landers letter and spending the energy writing someone who has
a more open mind.  She made up her mind on both gun control and animal
experimentation a long time ago and shows no signs of changing it or
of printing someone's good letter.

Joan V
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns