waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu wrote: : You are loosing. : There is no question about it.  : Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter : how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.     Care to show some *real* numbers instead of something HCI make up?   I thought so, all "foaming at the mouth" shouting but nothing is    ever said...     : This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your : RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.    Well, we'll just have to wait and see about that, won't we?  Or are   you quite satisified with living in your little fantasy?   < SNIP > : cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you < SNIP > : The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against : you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !    Not true, it is ONLY those who are ignorant and are afraid to understand,   accept, and deal with the real problems behind this violent society    who are proposing gun control as a band-aid solution.  May be I should    refresh your memory with a quote from Prez. Clintion?       "It's the criminals, stupid!"      HEY, why is he cutting the budget for more prisons? May be someone need    to remind him of what he promised...on second thought, why bother...  : Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect : them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time. : Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an : immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.     Oooh, WACO II, coming to your living room soon...  When was the last   time you turned off your TV?  Can't remember?  I thought so...  : Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions : are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will : be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...    Wait, I got it, this is a late April fool post, right?  I didn't   think ANYBODY is stupid enough to post something like this...good one   guys, this group was getting boring without Holly and Susan.
In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as >>I am not really familiar enough with handguns. > >That's not all that Kratz doesn't know. > k  Guys, guys, (and gals), let's lay off Jason here.  Though he stepped in it, he has been very good so far about admitting he doesn't know what he's talking about, and even more stunning is that he seems
Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated" in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.  David
From article <1qvjh9INNh4l@hp-col.col.hp.com>, by dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff): > NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!     Brilliant I like it!
Chemical weapons are not concidered a *very* effectiv weapon against millitary forces. On civillians on the other hand....  That's one GOOD reason for banning it.  You need VAST amounts of chemicals to be affective, so the best reason to have/use it is price. (that's why it's called The Poor Mans A-bomb)  Any thoughts on Bio-weapons ??	  If this discusion is about civillians having chem-weapons; What should they use them on?? Rob a bank ??    	This is not a .signature. 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
In a previous article, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) says:  >Come on, guys, looks like its time to move that juvenile public-post >either to E-mail or to a different newsgroup (alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva?).  No, Brent that would be alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva.goofy.anti.semite.... :)
In article <C5xBwr.5B8@world.std.com>, htf@world.std.com (Harry Carter) writes: >sunshine@cco.caltech.edu (Tom Renner) writes: > >>v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes: > >>>Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every >>>where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines  >>>went up. > >>A minor technical point: unless a cartridge is contained (for example in the >>chamber of a gun) when it goes off, very little of interest happens..... > > >Quoting Hatcher's notebook: >      The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures' Institute reported >      a demonstration made by taking a large quantity of metallic >      cartridges and shotgun shells and burning them in a fire of oil- >      soaked wood.  The cartridges and shells exploded from time to >      time, but there was no general explosion or throwing off of >      bullets or shot to any distance. >      Throughout the test the men conducting it remained within 20 ft. >      of the fire without being injured in any way..... the material >      of which the cartridge and shells are composed will usually not >      fly more than a few feet. >      In tests conducted by the National Rifle Association, both rifle >      and pistol cartridges were exploded by heat under an ordinary >      corrugated pasteboard carton, and neither fragments of the >      cartridge cases nor bullets penetrated the cardboard. > > >  Any scientists care to try this out in their kitchen?  :-)  Here goes:  More than a few years back (if you were born that year, you can legally drink), we tried it out.  We found an 8 ft. deep cistern that we lined with some 10 ft. 2X6s.  We put a large can (one of those industrial sized pork'n beans cans) stuffed with oily rags and scraps of wood in the bottom.  After lighting the fire, we LOWERED a box of .38 Spc. SWCs into the can.  We heard pops, one solid bang and several "fizzzz shussss".  After we thought the excitment was over, we boldly climbed down to find that NONE of the bullets had left the can, several of the shells were lieing around the bottom of the well and the boards had all died of smoke inhalation.  And 5 or 6 of the shells still had live primers!
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:  >In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:  >>                                     A BILL  >>    >> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and >>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and >>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.  >Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right," >I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away. >--   >cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company, >OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...  I don't think your objection is beyond the bounds of rationality.  The right mentioned in the bill is already established under the Second Amendment; the bill should be reworded to reaffirm the Second Amendment RKBA, and then establish the procedures for redress through the federal court system.  The right already exists and is already embodied in our Constitution.
In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes: > In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >>I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors, >>but here goes: >> > In short Mr. Gorman (I am assuming Mr. as a title because I don't think a  >woman would be stupid enough to make this post) I don't know what episode of CNN you  ^^^^^  What an incrediblt sexist remark! Come now, Mike, what ever possessed you to make such a un-PC remark?  I hope all women out there reading this are as incensed as I am. Remember, WOMAN ARE JUST AS GOOD AS MEN!!!!   Women stand up for your right to be just as stupid as men. In fact, insist on every oppurtunity to be even more stupid than men! You've got the right, use it!  Hey, it's a slow afternoon and I really don't want to get back to that report...;)  BTW: mega-smileys for the humor impaired...
In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:  > > THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!  > Is this guy serious????  > If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media >    for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts  >    are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe).   >    Besides, a majority of  >    these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of, >    this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).   Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right.  You sick bastard. --
>>Ron Miller wrote: >>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback >>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer >>"no, it's total amnesty". > (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)  > I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is  >no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing.  >  >   >	Myron Petro >	NRA, USPSA >        DVC y'all >	************************************************************************** >	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility. >	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the  >	 Second Amendment.
On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:01:03 GMT, Larry Cipriani (lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com) wrote: > According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a > gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in. > They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of > some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another > media-event brought to you by HCI.  > Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100 > to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit > tacky, but hey, whatever works.  How about a gun buy-back/charity?  Get some sponsors to fund the purchase of used firearms, have a gunsmith check them over, and give or sell them at a low price to poor persons wishing to own firearms. ;-) [OK, you guys can work out the details of who is "needy", etc...]  -- Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
In article <1993Apr15.150736.15793@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes: > >Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now >use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired >from something that looks like a tear gas launcher. > >There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that >they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly >dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping >someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity >(the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother >warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-) >-- 	Oh, OK.  Just wondering.  I am not a real expert on weapons, I was just wondering if they would do the job.
|>      If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the |> burning building? |>  |> James Dusek   James, it could be that they were determined to stay together in the compound no matter what happened. Perhaps the fire was accidental, and the DB simply refused to leave the compod. Perhap they died fighting the fire? who knows. we will have to wait and see. i persaonlly find it hard to believe that they  would all agree to burn themselves up! what a horrible way to go.
In a previous article, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) says:  >Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the >army saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been >banned from military use.  Its use is also banned by a >draft international agreement on the use of chemical >weapons in warfare. > >The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea, >blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.    I don't know about the paranoia and irrationality, but the rest is pretty close, all though you left out the inability to breath.  Of course you can make a claim that people will do some fairly deranged things to get away from it.  I've seen teenagers flatten 200lb. drill sergeants to get out of tents full of it.  Which raises another issue....  >Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the >earlier.   > >This is the stuff Janet Reno was told would be safe for children.  What they didn't mention is that IN THE OPEN, it probably wouldn't do TOO MUCH harm to children, although I wouldn't use it in close proximity to infants.  On the other hand, IN CONFINED spaces, the effects are GREATLY intensified, to the point of LETHALITY, since a sufficient quantity of CS will displace OXYGEN.  When running a CS chamber CAREFUL attention is paid to ventilation.  I wonder if they checked to see if any of the BDs were asthmatics or suffered from other respiratory diseases.  I doubt it.
cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:  >Could y'all PLEASE stop posting this stuff to tx.general.  tx.politics >is sufficient and is where this stuff belongs.  Thanks.  >	Cathy >--  >Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
In article <C5wJFz.Bus@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: > >> I find this disturbing.   > >Good.  Keep thinking critically.  > Dont' patronize me and I won't patronize you.  Feel free to patronize me all you like; I need the tips. :-) Seriously, if you were insulted, I apologize.  > The most tiresome thing about this group is that so many people  > tell others they are sucking up to the government when ever they  > decide that something the government says is plausible and praise  > them as independent thinkers whenever they find something the government  > says implausible.  People are sucking up to the government when they decide that ONLY the things the government says are plausible.  Especially if they refuse to consider reasonable alternatives.  However, from what I saw plastered all over the TV news last night, it's no longer necessary to be an "independent thinker" to depart from the government's party line.  It looks like our "independent press" may  actually be starting to be earn its clothes allowance.  This, to me, is a good sign.  I hope it continues.  > Here's a clue.  Independent thinkers are able to come to either conclusion  > depending on the circumstances.  Non-critical thinkers are the ones who would  > always come to the same type of conclusion regardless of the circumstances.  Independent thinkers question authority.  In a situation where only one set of facts are being presented, "coming to a conclusion" is not the  hallmark of an independent thinker unless it's coupled with the ability to challenge those "facts" critically.  The scientific method consists of more than choosing the popular hypothesis; it's even more than choosing between two hypotheses that other people have proposed. --
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: >We have NO evidence that BATF & FBI would not have started shooting >when and if people had started coming out of the burning building.  Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the press first?
In article <1r0mtoINNa59@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes: >Gordon Storga writes: > >>Gentleman, are we also forgetting the near genocide of the Native American >>for the barbaric act of being "heathen" (i.e. a non-Christian) by a >>predominantly Christian government.  That's a little over 200 years as I >>recall.  I'd say that for the most part it was religious persecution >>(their religion dictated their lifestyle). > >This is a stretch.  In fact, a great many of the persecuted Indians were >Christian, a great many.  It would be simpler to state the obvious, that >white people wanted land the Indians dominated or threatened.  I really >don't think the government cared a hill of beans about the Indians' religion.  My Native American Girlfriend asks: "If the government really doesn't 'care a hill of beans' about our religion, how come they're still busting us for it in Oregon, Washington, and a few other places? You'd be a Christian, too, if the U.S. Army marched you into church at gunpoint."
In article <C5zsyn.MtD@sugar.neosoft.com>, jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes: |> |>      If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the |> |> burning building? |> |>  |> |> James Dusek |>   |> James, it could be that they were determined to stay together in the compound |> no matter what happened. Perhaps the fire was accidental, and the DB simply |> refused to leave the compod. Perhap they died fighting the fire? who knows. |> we will have to wait and see. i persaonlly find it hard to believe that they  |> would all agree to burn themselves up! what a horrible way to go. |>  |> jim shirreffs  I seem to recall graphic news file of buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in the streets of Saigon. Yes, its a horrible way to go, but apparently not so horrible that someone with enough religious conviction might not be able to  carry it through. And, since they've discovered bullet wounds in a couple of  the bodies from the compound, there is the possiblity that those with the will power to self immolate also had the will power to take out the ones who had less constitutional fortitude. Then again, maybe the FBI ran in while the fire was raging, executed those two, and ran out again.
Catch tonight's (Thursday's) CBS Street Stories.  Covers, among others, the work of AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment), a women's empowerment and training group in Massachusetts.  They'll be interviewing spokesperson Nancy Bittle, as well as some of her students.  (Assuming all of the "interesting" stuff they taped makes the final cut.)  [If they show the ugly housebreaker in the toque and sunglasses, wave hi.] --
In article <mjones.735513787@fenway> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes: >whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes: >>I have already called senators, legislators and the Governor demanding >>that the warrants be unsealed, and that all involved in this atrocity >>(including the President, Attorney General and Governor) be suspended >>pending an investigation. >>Welcome to Amerika! >Let's see...first, you want everybody up through the President suspended >PENDING an investigation, then you refer to AMERIKA? Guess you remembered to >take your irony supplements this morning, eh?  *sigh*  It is standard procedure to suspend law enforcement officers, or re-assign them to administrative (non enforcement) duties, while an investigation into possible misconduct is going on. The Administration has given no indication that such suspensions will occur in this case. And given that the president, attorney general and governor were all involved in the decisions that led to the Waco Massacre, they should also suspend all activities regarding law enforcement. Given their positions, that equates to an enforced vacation.
In article <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes: > In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: > >In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:  > >> The massive destructive power of many modern weapons, makes the > >> cost of an accidental or crimial usage of these weapons to great. > >> The weapons of mass destruction need to be in the control of > >> the government only.  Individual access would result in the > >> needless deaths of millions.  This makes the right of the people > >> to keep and bear many modern weapons non-existant.  > >Thanks for stating where you're coming from.  Needless to say, I > >disagree on every count.  > You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of > mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a  > neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve > gas on his/her property.    > If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of > the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?  I don't sign any blank checks.  When Doug Foxvog says "weapons of mass destruction," he means CBW and nukes.  When Sarah Brady says "weapons of mass destruction" she means Street Sweeper shotguns and semi-automatic SKS rifles.  When John Lawrence Rutledge says "weapons of mass destruction," and then immediately follows it with:  > The US has thousands of people killed each year by handguns, > this number can easily be reduced by putting reasonable restrictions > on them.  ...what does Rutledge mean by the term? --
holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes: |> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. |> Would those work very well in stopping an attack? |>  |> 						Doug Holland   Any projectile traveling at or near typical bullet speeds is potentially lethal.  Even blanks [which have no projectile] can cause death if the muzzle is in close proximity to the victim.  I have heard of rubber or plastic bullets being used effectively during riot situations [where the intent is crowd control, rather than close range self defense]; i've also seen reports of deaths caused by them [the British in Northern Ireland].  Use of a firearm for self defense is appropriate and lawful only in the gravest of situations; at that point, i consider deadly [lethal] force to  be a proper reaction [and so does the law].    Furthermore, use of less effective [but still potentially lethal] force has its own set of problems.  It may well take more applications of the less effective force to stop the incident; this places all parties at some risk; the victim because the attack has not stopped, and the assailent  since the aggregate damage done by the multiple applications may well be more deadly.
In article <1r49aj$98c@hpchase.rose.hp.com> k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao) writes:  >I've long since lost any newspaper or magazine article that mentions how >the BATF said they tossed a grenade instead of knocked on the door to >serve the search warrant on the BD compound.  Does anyone have any >references?  I'm just looking for periodicals/newspapers and dates.  A >copy of the article is not needed, but I wouldn't mind seeing it. >Posting here or e-mail is fine.         The Associated Press had an article on Monday March 1, I believe, which quoted witnesses as describing BATF agents throwing grenades prior to any gunfire on the part of the Davidians.         It was among the first of a crop of different, mutually exclusive descriptions.