HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:13:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul21.195956.1@venus.ycc.yale.edu> 

>> 
(fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Cities in the United States which have
>> stringent gun control have HIGHER crime rates, not lower.
>> 
>> [A friend of mine did a study -- this was the only statistically
>> significant correlation he could find.  There is also a pretty strong
>> correlation between states which allow people to have weapons and
>> states which have low crime rates.]
>> 
>> -- 
>> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>>  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

njovanov@venus.ycc.yale.edu writes:

>Ah, but what if the ENTIRE United States had gun control laws and enforcement
>like that in Europe, including strict border controls?  

You mean like Mexico?

>As for your
>correlations, the most unrestricted gun states are also the most sparsely
>populated,and of course cities cannot ALONE enact meaningful gun control laws.

Of course, the argument for Communism worked the same way.  If all the
WORLD were Communist, Communism would work.  So it is with gun control.

It is fairly easy to produce a weapon capable of firing bullets.  You
cannot effectively ban them, you will only restrict the rights of those
people who do not abuse them.   99% of guns are never ever used in a
crime.

>I recall reading that in Great Britain in 1988 (or thereabout), a total of
>7 people were murdered with guns, whereas in the United States the number of
>murders with guns was about 20,000.  This is not acceptable to me.  If gun
>control (federal) is not the answer, what do you propose?
>
>-Nick Jovanovic

I'm sorry that is not acceptable to you, but gun control is not the answer.
There is no easy answer to eliminate violent crime, but what you can do is
defend *yourself* and your family with a gun should YOU be faced with the
possibility of becoming a victim.  You could also press for a "three time
loser" law in your area because 80% of all violent crimes are committed by
20% of the criminals.  You can ftp the archive site:
archive.cis.ohio-state.edu for more information.  You'll find it in
the directory:  /pub/firearms/politics/rkba

Followups set accordingly

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:419 alt.politics.elections:8988
From: erwin@bend.ucsd.edu (Sean Erwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Query...
Date: 23 Jul 1992 14:57:29 GMT
Organization: Linguistics Department, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: bend.ucsd.edu

When was the last time there was a Democratic President and Congress?

---Sean
-- 
"I believe in the rights of people to own firearms....  Private guns makes
every person equal, no matter what/who he/she is."	---Lu Gang, post-
doctoral student in Physics at the University of Iowa, who shot and killed two
of his professors, a rival post-doc, two staff, and then himself in 1991.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: HRP Cartoon
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:55:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.231050.6509@stortek.com> v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar) writes:
>
> [...]
>It may be that HRP really did have good intentions but the good old boys
>got to him and convinced him to pull out "for his own good."  [...]
>
>I think a press release today (I wrote the above a couple of days ago)
>supports my assertions...
> 
>                           --------------
>   Perot spoke bitterly about a "brutal and intrusive" political
>process that, he said, deters well-qualified people from seeking
>public office.  
>   "We've lost sight of what's good for the country," he said. "I
>marvel that anybody would put up with it -- and certainly anybody that
>loves his family."  
>   He defended his decision to drop his bid for the presidency. "I can
>now, maybe, make the issues the center of attention -- as opposed to
>me being the center of attention, and this intense desire to destroy
>any person that threatens the two-party system," he said. 
>                           ---------------

Maybe you could give us a hint as to how this fits together?

It may also be that HRH (whoops, I mean HRP) really did have good
intentions, some people were excited, others found out more and
_weren't_, and HRP found out that if he was going to be President,
then he would be criticized.  For four years.

I don't think a conspiracy theory does any good here.  He said he just
changed his mind; if you trusted him before can't you trust him on
this?

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek)
Subject: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-4748]: convex1.tcs.tulane.edu
Organization: Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:10:00 GMT

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?

(All replies Welcome... )


--
| Bill Sirinek                     Snail: Box 3799, Tulane University     |
| Computer Science Major                  New Orleans, LA 70118           |
| Tulane University               BITNET: tcws000@tcsmusa                 |
| New Orleans, Louisiana        Internet: tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu     |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.164106.29920@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.014557.23458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>
>The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is most likely used 
>against the occupants by an intruder.

Do they?  What statistics are these?  Cites, please.




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: An invitation to explore the Libertarian Party
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:40:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.101506.3858@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>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 

Please think about this scenario:

You vote for Marrou. Bush loses and Clinton wins. The democrats then
stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges.

In this case, I AM voting for the lesser of two evils.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:807 talk.politics.misc:36013
From: molin@crs.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:20:41 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>Why is Jesse at the back of the bus?

Jesse is at the back of the bus because the shoe fits...  When he finds
a REAL position on any subject, he'll find the credibility he seeks.
Until then, he's a nobody.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:311 alt.politics.elections:8911
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who owns what? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:38:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul22.131118.29201@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>
>The Recession has ended?  When did that happen?  And why hasn't it happened in 
>Ohio?  Bush has had 4 years to prove that he can turn this economy around, and 
>all he's done is make it worse.  He does not/never did/never will have my vote.
>
>Carol

Carol the recession hasn't ended, and never will end, in Ohio for the same 
reasons that western PA has never and will never come out of it's depression.
Because the people in both areas continue, as they have for decades, to re-elect
liberal, pro-union, tax success, Democrats and that alone sends companies 
heading to more conservative southern states and scares off all new investment.

Get used to it.

PSG

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:705 talk.politics.guns:17935 talk.abortion:28780
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:02:33 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA


 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.

	Can I assume you are willing to put your life where your words are?
If so, please post your full name, address, phone number, social security
number, and a complete credit history for the last five years.  In addition,
copies of your tax forms might also prove useful.  Other information that
might be useful could include the number of kids you have, spouse's full
name and SSN, driving record, guns you own, cars you own, license plate
numbers on the vehicles, and anything else you feel you don't need to hide.

	Get the point?  It's about privacy.  I think a background check
should be on my SSN, and the answer coming back either "yea" or "nay."
If I've a felony, I don't get a gun.  Simple.  What felony I have, or
any misdemeanors I've done, or my driving history, are nobody else's
business.

	Finally, if a minor buys a gun he does it under a false ID, which
would just show a clean record (as in, nothing on record) in a standard
background check.  He may borrow somebody else's ID, which may show a
record, but if he is stupid enough to borrow the ID of a felon he's too
stupid to make a convincing false ID.  A far better way is to steal it,
borrow it from an older friend, or just get Uncle Bob to buy it and
give it to him.  Where will your background check stop him?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:394 talk.politics.misc:35474
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Adios, Smith Corona
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:25:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul22.233019.9681@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min "Chairman Mao" Zhao) writes:
>In article <c7fm8bd.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>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.
>>>-- 
>>Thanks, Congress for:
>>Minimum wage legislation
> 
>  Thanks Mr. Crisp, for showing us what ignorance is. 
> 
>  Now we all know you got straight As in your (economics) courses you took 
>at Texas A&M, (I feel sorry for A&M, a fine school nevertheless) let me ask 
>you a common sense, 
> 
>  Where are the minimum wage jobs ?   At GM, GE, Smith Corona ?   
>
Minimum wages have the effect of reducing employment or increasing
unemployment (state it your preferred way).

The Democrats love to spike the Republicans when the Republicans
oppose incresing the minimum wage. They say "these guys are against you
workere, but we are looking out for you". When the minimum wage increase 
finally happens, the employers around the country discover that their
expenses go up for labor but they aren't making any more money. So they
cut a few jobs. SOME FAVOR THE DEMOS DID FOR THE LAID OFF WORKERS.


-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty:
The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:703 talk.politics.guns:17934 talk.abortion:28778
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:00:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <archer.165@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:
>
>
>>In article <archer.157@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>>>>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 
>>>
>>>No, they don't.  Anyone wanting a firearm for an illegal purpose is not 
>>>going to purchase it through legal channels, nor sit our the waiting 
>>>period.  Waiting periods are ONLY useful as a harassment tool for law-
>>>abiding gun owners.
>
>>Funny, then, isn't it that this the exact same reasoning that I use to
>>justify the legalization of drugs, but conservatives alwaysd think I'm
>>an idiot?  Anyone wanting to buy drugs will get them right?
>
>Fortunately, you are talking to a libertarian, and I support the right of 
>anyone who wants to take poision to turn thier brain to tapioca.  Just don't 
>expect me to pay for his rehab or to support him once he screws himself up 
>to the point that he can't work for a living.

Of course the Libertarians haven't even thought to add up the possible
expense to society in terms of crime, loss revenue, etc.  I support 
the legallization of many but not all drugs.  There are some drugs known
to promote violent episodes.  But, this is not what I wanted to continue
on.  My main point is that very FEW cases are in such vacumes as the before
poster (T. Archer) thinks.

>
>-=-=-
>T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
>University of Tennessee
>"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
>-=-=-

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: jmoody@netcom.com (Jim Moody)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:07:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Ah, I see, a line item veto is the new answer.  Would we give the President
this little boon before or after the Coronation.  Imagine a set up like the
one we have now where the Republicans are in the minority, but the 
Democrats don't have a sufficient majority to override the Presidential veto.
The President could then selectively pick any items he was not personally in
favor of and eliminate them from consideration, regardless of the will of 
the elected majority.  And if the opposition sought to hold up similar
spending items...i.e. defence spending...to bargain with, imagine the 
political field day that the White House would have.

Isn't it curious that Republicans seem to want to vest more and more power
in the hands of the President when its a Republican President?  And that
power is gained at the expense of the elected representatives of the people.
Autocrats to the end.  The clearest example of this tendency was when the
White House under Reagan, presumably George Bush knew nothing of this even though
he was VP at the time, attempted illegally to undermine the constitutional
authority of the Congress in order to carry forward their policy of 
supporting the Contras. They engaged in constitutionally incorrect actions,
and in illegal ones.  In my view the only reason why more top officials 
weren't convicted and given stiff sentences was that a. they stonewalled it
better than Nixon did, and b. the FBI and the CIA  impeded the investigation.

And these are the people, the President, you want to give MORE power to?

They are dangerous to the Constitution and to the rights and freedoms of 
Americans. 
-- 
Jim Moody	jmoody@netcom.com	(415) 978-3289
===================================================================
    "The mystery does not get clearer by repeating the question"
         "nor is it bought by going to amazing places"*
                                                          Rumi
==================================================================     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:811 talk.politics.misc:36021 sci.econ:6554
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:13:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.060747.19187@leland.Stanford.EDU>
coyote@leland.Stanford.EDU (The White Blackbird) writes:
>2) If you have a gun, you can protect yourself.  In the case of rape,
>or in any crime, it is difficult to reach any weapon safely and use it
>effectively (even as a deterent).  In fact, having a gun on your
>person may be a good way to get yourself killed.

If you were right, then cops wouldn't carry guns. You will say
"but cops are TRAINED". Civilians can be trained too, yet the
law makes no provision for trained civilians to carry this
means of self-defense.

Perhaps the authorities are less concerned with your safety than
you thought.

>3)  Most rapes are violent ones.  Again, this is a false assumption.
>Most rapes are perpetrated by people who know the victim, so, having a
>gun would be difficult to use to protect yourself.

What a mish-mash of fuzzy thinking. Even for rapes that do not involve
overt violence on the part of the rapist, the victim should have the
option of terminating the attack in the way she considers best,
including deadly force.

Just because someone knows you doesn't mean they won't do you
harm or that you don't have a right to defend yourself against
them.

Or perhaps you are one of those who think that a wife can not
be raped by her husband, by definition?

In fact, most violence and murders are committed among people
who do know each other. Murder is usually an intimate act,
committed for a strong reason, and thus, done by people who
know each other much more often than by strangers.

That does not remove the victim's right to defend herself
because she knows her attacker.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: THE DEBATE CONTINUES (read this please!)
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:18:11 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:

>I suggest a cut in Congress' absurd salaries...do you know just how much they
>rake in????

    Yeah, less than 1/10 of what Rush Limbaugh earns.  Since most Congressmen
are lawyers with powerful contacts most could double or triple their
salaries by leaving government.  Yeah, their salaries are TOTALY out
of line - NOT!
    I believe that Congressional salaries are around $120K per year.
A 3 bedroom, 2 bath residence in a moderate neighborhood goes for about 
$250K in D.C.. The monthly mortgage would probably be about $2,200.00, 
for an annual payment of $26,400.00. The home state residence probably
isn't as expensive, so count on an annual home state payment of $15,000.00.
Congresspeople are expected to throw large parties at personal expense 
as part of their jobs. Add to that a car, college fees for the kids, 
braces for the kids, airfare back to the home state, etc. and $120,000.00 
doesn't look like an ABSURD ammount of money. 
    In contrast, the President gets over $200K, a house, servants, and 
household expenses. (he/she also tends to gets shot at...but that's 
another story) The AVERAGE income for a doctor in D.C. is $400K, as 
of 1984.  Most good lawyers can earn far more than $500K per year for 
corporate clients. Hell, most BASEBALL players earn far more than $120K!

    Another factoid: There are about 600 congresspeople. Assuming they
each take a 100% cut in salary, the net savings to the taxpayers would
be $0.72B.  To put this 100% cut into perspective, consider that this
would cover ONE of the following:

- 0.02% of the FY92 deficit (now projected at $330B, down from $400B)
- 1/10 of a B2 bomber, assuming large production rates
- 0.014% of the S&L bailout

    Now consider the last point carefully: If there had been less of
an incentive to take campaign contributions from developers then the
S&L bailout wouldn't have been nessesary.  Note that republicans are
often favored by real estate developers. The money we are going to have 
to pay out to cover bad real estate investments (codephrase: "the largest 
economic expansion in history") could have paid for another SEVEN THOUSAND 
YEARS of congressional salaries.
    Yeah, let's balance the budget by being cheap to the people who
determine where our trillion dollars of tax money will be spent.  Let's
not pay them even a fraction of what they are worth outside government.
That'll solve the corruption problem - NOT!!!

Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:28:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.155824.4433@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( 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.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Talking To A Brick Wall (Was: Adios, Smith Corona)
Keywords: Shore, Airhead, Beanbrain
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<CASEY.92Jul23115158@zorro.lexmark.lex.usa.na>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:57:40 GMT

<In article <CASEY.92Jul23115158@zorro.lexmark.lex.usa.na> casey@zorro.lexmark.lex.usa.na (Patrick Casey) writes:
<   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.

<   This doesn't have anything to do with politics (at least I don't
<   intend it to), but the company I work for still manufactures
<   typewriters (for IBM) right here in Lexington.

<   And I just found out that Lexmark has made a press release talking
<   about all this.

	Don't expect Shore to reply; she really hates it when
	people point out the facts which inconveniently contradict
	her ravings.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion