HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:12:20 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>[...] What we [liberals] don't support, is the attitude that guns are the
>"ultimate recall power."

Ah, then what is the "ultimate recall power" that "liberals" find
appropriate?  Surely they don't believe that "lie back and enjoy it"
is the appropriate response to a tyrant?  (That is be the "liberal"
response to rape, but that's another argument.)  Are they instead
going to argue that tyranny is impossible for any govt that starts out
having elections?

Suppose that Bush decides to keep the job after Clinton won.  What
then "liberals"?  (We've already established that you won't disagree
with the assertion that Bush is the anti-Christ, so you don't get to
argue for his essential goodness now.)  The ballot box failed and Bush
has the Army.  Are you going to hold a rally?  Are you going to build
a paper mache Statue of Liberty?  Are you going to set up a burial
squad and lie in neat rows so that the tanks can roll over you without
wasting gas?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2313 talk.politics.guns:19669
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:09:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>> Nope. We would point them at the tank crews, fire them and watch the
>>tank crews drop. Then the tank won't be a problem anymore.

>Gee, now we didn't we try that during WWII?  We wouldn't have had a problem
>with those Panzers then! 

>Hold on, there, I think them thar tank crews stay in the tank, lotsa armor,
>and your lil ol' pea shooters operated by them thar lil' ol' pea brains are
>gonna find out what a REAL "well regulated militia" is all about, bubba.

>George Lambert

Why try to do that?  Just wait till the crew comes out.  BTW, do those
things have toilets in them.

A tank is of little use against infantry.  Tanks are used mainly against
other tanks and fortified positions.

I guess if the infantry man is stupid enough to stand in front of a tank
he will get squished.  Most people I know will run and hide.

A tank will be able to flush a single man out of most hiding places, but
while the tank crew is busy trying to do this, that man's buddies
will be busy doing things like dropping gasoline bombs on the tank, tryig
to jamb the treads, blocking the air intakes or the exhast.


-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1907 alt.politics.bush:1522 talk.politics.misc:39607
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:11:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Purdue University

In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.

I think Mother Theresa would remind you of Adolf Hitler.

>Very dangerous man, indeed!

Mr. Crisp, as such a student of the Third Reich, you have obvious taken 
Joseph Goebbels' theory of "the big lie" very much to heart.  When someone
asks me what's wrong with Republicans, you're one of the examples I use to
explain why I NEVER vote for the National German Socialist Workers Party
(North America branch).

>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

Larry J

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 20:30:05 EDT

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

> All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
> disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
> Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
> mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.
> seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
> disarm the public, and enlist the aid of the media to 
> make all believe that they need to cooperate with the 
> new order blindly.


Any gun control advocate could point to any number of countries where gun 
control laws are FAR more restrictive than any contemplated by Clinton, 
that aren't anywhere NEAR fascist.  Honestly I'm all for the second 
amendment but this argument is silly and tiresome.

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2465 alt.politics.perot:1319 talk.politics.guns:19791
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:33:39 GMT
	<1992Jul28.202958.17780@cs.cornell.edu>
	<1992Jul29.145354.18028@news.Hawaii.Edu>
	<1992Jul30.181100.3137@igor.tamri.com>
	<1992Aug1.141712.14062@news.Hawaii.Edu>
	<1992Aug04.144516.16296@rsvl.unisys.com> <1992Aug
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug20.221434.15779@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
<   In article <DLB.92Aug19102759@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
<   }In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
<   }lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
<   }...
<   }   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
<   }...
<   }By all means, support this assertion too.

<   You want proof that restricting supply doesn't increase prices?

	You want proof that passing a law against something	
	automatically restricts the supply?

	What's the price of cocaine in your city?

	Has it changed during the War on Drugs?

<   } Guns are NOT more expensive
<   }on the street in areas of strict gun control in the US (the only area
<   }in which I am aware of studies being made). ...

<   There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
<   of.  
	
	Washington, D.C. bans handguns to all nonpolice. 

<Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
<   this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

	Huh? It's a Federal crime for anyone from DC to buy
	a handgun outside of DC and a DC crime to buy one
	in DC.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2028 alt.politics.bush:1742 talk.politics.misc:40007 soc.culture.usa:6603
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:16:00 GMT
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <bg8m__p.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes...
I read this as saying that machineguns, assault rifles, grenades, rocket
launchers, mortars, mines etc are the only weapons we have a constitutional
right to posess. The rhetoric from Clinton about "weapons which have no l
legitimate hunting purpose" simply is irrelevant. In effect what is being
perpetrated on the US as a whole is an attempt at re-defining the issue
to be one of hunting and sporting rights versus not. This of course is not
what the second amendment is about. It is about the people having a check
and balance on the government: in other words the ultimate recall power.

It's always nice to know that the Republicans imply that they have the right
to assassinate the President if they don't get their own candidate in. You'd
think that by this century we'd be a bit more civilized than to claim that
we need heavy artillary in our homes just in case we need to shoot someone
in the government. Of course, you shoot one, they shoot back, and eventually
you have a whole lot of innocent people dead just because you think you have
the right to shoot the President if necessary. Sorry, but that is never the
answer here. In other countries, perhaps it might be, but it is to prevent
such things that our government was split into its three branches. True, you
can find instances where everything seems to lean (the President appoints
the members of the Supreme court, or you have a Congress which is made up of
members who are mostly aligned with the President), but that is what the
voting process is meant to prevent.
I don't deny you the right to own a gun for your own safety (though an M-16
would be a bit much) or for hunting (though I despise the "sport"), but to
imply that we as Americans have the right to own a weapon for the sake of
assassination is more than I can agree with. I may not care for Reagan or
Bush or Quayle, but I certainly would not condone killing them. I will place
my vote with a ballot, not a bullet... 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1867 talk.politics.misc:39492
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deja Vu All Over Again (Was: Clinton becomes vulnerable)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:04:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Richard Crisp) writes:
|> >
|> >There is nothing wrong with fighting over vital interests
|> >
|> >Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
|> 
Lives for oil.  Kill for trees.  Sacrifice yourself for the right to
wear green clothes.

Survival of the fitest.

Bull shit.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.180605.9290@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
>
>In article <archer.290@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug4.125929.28921@athena.cs.uga.edu> thompson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Heidi Thompson) writes:
>>>But you're missing the point here.  If you've never worked for a low salary 
>>>without medical coverage, and had a medical crisis, you can't know how terrifying that can be.  It is unconsionalble that a country as great as the United
>>>States of America won't provide basic health care.  Clinton's plan seems to
>>>be a cost-effective and humane way of doing this.
>>
>>No, you're missing the point:  who's going to pay for it?
>  After reading Clinton's `Putting People First' plan, I see a lot of spending
>and some ideas on how to raise the money.  Good luck getting the line item
>veto.
>It's just not in the best interest of Congress to give it to him.

Was this in the Democratic platform?
If not, can we assume Clinton is just blowing smoke on this?

>Good
>luck getting Congress Critters to cut their staff by 25%.
This has been perennially proposed, and perenially denied, like the
line-item veto.

>Keep in mind that
>Clinton is banking on these happening.  If these things don't happen, he's
>going to look for the money elsewhere.
>  Don't count on any savings on the 100,000 jobs he wants to cut from the
>federal government.

BTW, that's through attrition, not real layoff/cuts. At the same time,
we have already scheduled almost 500,000 in personnel cuts in the
DoD alone.

His 'cuts' are by and large those accounting-type cuts that
Govt types always go through. You know, like how you here of Govt
"cuts" and find out that Government spending *grew*.


------
P.McGuinness
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2488 soc.culture.african.american:8966
From: barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Bush's record on Haiti: Awful
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:29:02 GMT
Reply-To: barnhart@netcom.com
Organization: Netcom

Anyone who endured having that bucket of lies poured on their heads
last night about George Bush, Foreign Policy Savior, need only recall
his appalling and murderous treatment of Haitian refugees, whom he
returned to certain doom on their homeland ... his silence one year
after the fall of elected President Aristide and the uprising of
wanton thuggery throughout the island ... and the complicity he shares
with those other "great Republican presidents" cited last night, who
aided and abetted the Duvalier regime through many years of misery.

If this is experience, please, Haiti could do without it.  Idealism
and decency can atone for Bill Clinton's supposed inexperience in
foreign affairs.

-- 
Aaron (Barnhart@netcom.com) -- posting from Evanston, Illinois
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2366 alt.politics.perot:1314 talk.politics.guns:19723
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:14:34 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <DLB.92Aug19102759@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
}In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
}...
}   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
}...
}By all means, support this assertion too.

You want proof that restricting supply doesn't increase prices?

} Guns are NOT more expensive
}on the street in areas of strict gun control in the US (the only area
}in which I am aware of studies being made). ...

There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
of.  Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

You pro-gun people are something else.  You'd argue that down was
up ...

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.culture.usa
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:50:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.153754.13445@hasler.ascom.ch>
kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch writes:
>In article <16AUG199209163165@gergo.tamu.edu>, dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
>|> I don't deny you the right to own a gun for your own safety (though an M-16
>|> would be a bit much)
>
>Surely in a civilised country one shouldn't need this avenue of defence, that's
>what the police are for. Why do you need guns unless you have illegal
>intentions? 

And if the police don't come or come too late, one should lay down and die,
rather than harm a criminal???

Ha!

   don
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:04:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.213401.27774@berlioz.nsc.com> worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden) writes:
>Article: 529 of alt.politics.clinton
>Xref: berlioz.nsc.com alt.politics.clinton:529 alt.politics.bush:675 talk.politics.misc:52974
>Path: berlioz.nsc.com!voder!apple!olivea!uunet!gatech!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!hermes.ecn.purdue.edu!tag
>From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
>
>>In article <1992Aug6.205528.14008@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>
>>	In the US, currently only the rich and the lucky people with
>>good employers get health care.  The fact that the infant mortality rates
>>are among the highest in the western world, and that some 30% of the 
>>country isn't covered for all medical costs is quite pathetic.
>
>During the primaries this last spring, one of the complaints from Clinton
>and Brown was that there were 37 million Americans without health care.  In
>a nation of 250+ million, that leaves about 223 million with health care.
>The above quote even acknowledges this in the latter half of its emotional
>appeal; 30% of the country isn't covered for all medical costs.  Does the
>writer imply that 70% of everyone is covered, and by its own definition, 
>either rich or lucky?  If that is the case, then the majority is neither
>rich, nor lucky, they just have a higher standard of living and health care
>than the writer wants to admit to.

Personally, I think that we should be a moral enough, amd compassionate
enough country to make sure that 100% of our population can recieve
basic health care. 30% without is astoundingly sad.

anne
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2251 alt.politics.bush:2151 talk.politics.misc:40642
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:45:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <xzcfnf8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>
>Which brings me back to a question I asked a long time ago and which pro-
>duced heated responses but no answers:  how does the registration of guns
>owned by people NOT in the National Guard (or the Reserves) endanger the
>continued existence of the National Guard?
>

It doesn't directly endanger the National Guard. On the other hand,
the National Guard isn't germane to the discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd amendment is not applicable to the National Guard in any way
shape or form. 

The only endangerment to the National Guard comes about from the people`
which make up the guard being in danger when guns are banned which the
Nazis have taught us is the first thing to to before dominating a people.
The Democrats are doing a good of learning their tactics and putting
them to use.....

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Very Dangerous Times Indeed!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:12:53 GMT

In article <183142@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) 
writes:
>Hey, why stop there?  I'm not going to feel secure about a government
>takeover by the military until I and every durn gun owner has 30 megatons
>of H-bomb power to stop them damn pesky coups of the US Government.
>
>George Lambert

To place asshole George Lambert in your kill file, add

/From: glambert@pyramid\.com/h:j

to the file.




Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1979 alt.politics.bush:1643 talk.politics.misc:39811
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (Russ "Random" Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:38:34 GMT
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?

In <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:

>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.

>Very dangerous man, indeed!
>-- 
>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

>"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

>It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
>seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
>disarm the public, and enlist the aid of the media to 
>make all believe that they need to cooperate with the 
>new order blindly.

By the usual usenet "common knowledge", you have just ended the usefulness
of this conversation by making a ludicrous comparison with Nazis.

Thanks.  It was a bit tedious, wasn't it?

-- 
Russ "Random" Smith
+----===Comedy!  Sudden, violent comedy!===-----------russ@okstate.edu--------+
|  Godfather of the Random Gang; Diplomat of the Brotherhood of Evil MUDders  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2110 talk.politics.misc:40258 alt.politics.elections:10738
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: CLINTON FAX, PHONE, BUMPER STICKERS, BUTTONS-UPDATED
Supersedes: <92230.020323U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 17 Aug 1992 17:46:48 CDT
From: Mary Jacobs <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>

SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM
(This information is posted for public education purposes.  It does
not necessarily represent the views of The University.)
========================================================================
For general correspondence, please send your mail to:

        Clinton for President
        P.O. Box 615
        Little Rock,   AR   72203

** To call for T-shirts, Bumper Stickers, Buttons,  etc. Please call: **

        (800) 428-8600

To send a FAX, please use this number:

        (501) 372-2292

To call the campaign HQ:

        (501) 372-1992

Online addresses (forums on both services):

        Compuserve      Clinton for President   75300,3115

        America Online  Clinton Pz
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.culture.usa