waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: :mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes: : :According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off  :began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh  :had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.   :These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of  :his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar  :to the way Jim Jones has been described.  I don't know how accurate the documentary was; however, Koresh was never convicted of any crimes against children, nor was the BATF after him for child abuse.  Their purview (in this case) is strictly in firearms violations, so this information is irrelevant to the discussion.  :FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background  :checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their  :decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill  :Koresh's own prophecy?  Those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain *something*, but whether their answers even remotely resembles the truth we may never know.  And who is left alive to care whether the prophecy is fulfilled?  It only holds meaning for the nine who survived.  :>Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far, :>no one else has been able to talk to them. : :So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same  :details, will you believe them?  *IF* they confirm the story, I probably will.  Definitely not until then,  however.   Mike Ruff
In a previous article, dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) says:  > >From memory, today's Houston Chronicle (27 April 1993) reported that >HB 1776 PASSED in the Texas House of Representatives with (approximately, >this is from memory) 95 votes for and 45 votes against.  What does this bill do?  >However, in an effort to go into CYA (that's cover your ass) mode, >they wrote the bill in such a way as to make the law subject to a >statewide referendum in November.  However, the paper reported that >this is actually unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution, which >only allows referendums for constitutional amendments, not for plain >old laws. > >If the court does not permit the referendum the bill will probably >go into effect with little fanfare. > >All of the above is subject to the Texas Senate's voting for >the bill as well.  Time to start calling the state senators now!! > >Daryl >             Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu >               + Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura >  McD
In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>,  () writes: >In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De >Arras) wrote: >>   >> I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of   >> devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that   >> government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier >> own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken. >>  >> Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it? >>  >> Jim > >Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping >generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do? >Just let him be? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right >the first time.  What is "doing it right the first time"?  Murdered them all?  Used tanks?  Maybe they should have had enough evidence to indict.  From the list presented to date, I haven't seen ANYTHING illegal.  They claim that the BD's bought components to convert their weapons to Class III devices, but no evidence that they had done so.  In fact, with a Class III FFL living with them, this may have been legal (given recent court rulings).  What you really meant to say was that the ATF should have done the right and lwaful thing.  Or did you just want the BD's dead?
In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes: >>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is >>next?  The Mormons or Jews?  >The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a >propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly >concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)  I believe we still remember Masada, where Jews killed themselves rather than being captured by the Romans.  While I do not agree with the Davidians, I must admire their willingness to die for what they  believed, which Jews have had to do often.
Hi,  In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions.  I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with nature on it's own terms.
|What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of |proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car |cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access |to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the |time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every |day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I |see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a |revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple |of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a |disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang |gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing |taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target |and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are |are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most |state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live |in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news |and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here |than there.  However, don't forget that the police in Chicago can carry just about anything they want except for the Glock, which is not approved for carry (Guess they figure all cops are like the Police Chief of Winnetka, who happened to let off a stray round of 9mm. This is the same anti-gun police chief that wanted full-auto Uzis for his patrol cars...).  Perhaps in the judgement of the majority of Chicago's finest, a close-to- 100% reliable weapon like a revolver is preferable to a 99.99% reliable automatic. I note that in Germany, where certainly the 9mm semi-auto handgun is king, some of the more elite police types want revolvers.  I don't think the issue is cost, because Chicago police certainly make on the order of at least $40K/year.   Your presumption of "disadvantage" I think is not borne out by the experiences of New York City's cops; there the cops usually come out on top with their standard .38 Spl revolvers.  I've seen S&Ws, Rugers and Beretta 9mms in addition to the revolvers carried by Chicago cops.... in the past, I've seen .45 M1911s; others have seen Browning Hi-Powers...
In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green)   writes: > Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that > there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also > been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which > rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.  "Widely reported", eh?  Remember, this has had a news blackout since day 2. The FBI is the single, sole, source of these rumors.  It may be the truth, but   it may not be.  We may never know.  We MUST question it, though.  Why no media   coverare?  What were they hiding?  >  > What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I > believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems > with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as > well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions. >  > 1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at > some time before the Feb. 28th raid? >  It would seem so.  > 2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome. >   They would still be alive, today.  Another day is another chance.  > 3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of   action? >  I think it contributed to the outcome.  Folks that are sleep deprived tend not   to think clearly  > And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in > general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations. >  I feel strongly they were NOT proper.  > One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the > "balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy > had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.  As expected.  If it had come out well, he would not have hesitated to take full   credit.   Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
In article <1993Apr19.225700.3976@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes: : :So much for "infinite patience." :  ;I find it hard to swallow that prolonged exposure to "massive" amounts of : :And they said that the bomb dropped on MOVE wouldn't start a fire, either. : :The real kicker, though, is the stated justification for the government's  :sudden loss of patience: They wouldn't be able to "rotate their teams"  : :This outcome could be foreseen a mile (or two) away, but Reno didn't even : :Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick  The really good part:  "At this point we're not negotiating," FBI spokesman Bob Ricks said at a news briefing about a half hour before the fire began.  "We're saying,'Come out.Come out with your hands up. This matter is over.'"  Criminal... so much for Billary saying we won't force the issue... anybody have the WH information number?  Figure ol' Bill could use a lesson from the ROTC he scorned: "You are responsible for all that your unit/troops do or fail to do."  Want to ask him how he enjoys being responsible for violating the Constitutional rights of a group, resulting in the deaths of over a hundred of them, plus four Federal agents...  James
In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:  > The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored > transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use > more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to > do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they > must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.  The BATF is there to collect taxes, not to protect your sorry ass or mine.  > With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed > more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is > the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country.   All flame-bait, of course.  If you really want to be flame bait, send me your address and I'll tell the BATF about those automatic weapons you have stockpiled.  You'll be warm in no time. --
In article <1ra0i5$h69@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) wrote: > > > Perhaps you've been under a rock since, say, the turn of the century. How > > in the #$^& is one man supposed to review every single freaking > > governmental action, every day? That's why we have an executive branch. HE > > reviewed the plan and said "go," but he wasn't the architect and he wasn't > > there, bullhorn in hand, implementing it. Yes, he was responsible in the > > sense that he was briefed. So what! Shit happens.  >  > Hey, joe -- assuming you're old enough to remember it -- how did you feel > about presidential responsibility every time Reagan said "I don't recall"  > about his arms-for-hostages meetings with the Ollie North gang? >  > How did you feel about it when Bush said he "was out of the loop on that > decision" when he was right there in the thick of it? >  > Oh, right.  "He was responsible in the sense that he was briefed, but so > what -- shit happens!"  Is that what you said?  Of course not. There's more than a little difference between formulating foreign policy and overseeing the ATF's handling of a scenario involving a group of religious fanatics. Why do people compare apples and oranges?
Post all you want, foreigner.  We'd rather hear from you than those "I'll support the fascist who writes the hecks for my salary" .edu site types!  Should you expect the Police to come in and assault you, lay siege and refuse to help when they (yes, let's give them the benefit of the doubt) accidently burn down your ranch home?  Even though ey have emergency vehicles nearby?  Is this a proper response when you just keep to yourself? Even if you DON'T hurt anyone?  And you 're cooperative with cops when you occasionally come out?
In article <C5vF59.83q@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:  > two news photographers were found  > on the compound earlier this morning without permission.  It was explained  > to the press corps. that this is dangerous and that an unknown photographer  > turning around with a long lens camera could be mistaken for someone dangerous  > by a Texas Ranger surveying the site. (!)    In other words, "Nice camera you got dere.  It would be a shame if somet'in wuz ta happen to it..."  > The two photographers were said to be currently in jail   > It was also emphasized that the survey of the "crime" scene at this  > point was crucial and that the press could not be allowed to interfere. > The press will not be allowed in until the bodies are removed and the  > site has been completely surveyed for evidence for a court case.    > My opinions: > ----------- > I find this disturbing.   Good.  Keep thinking critically.  > While I believe that Koresh is largely  > responsible for not ending this standoff in a peacable manner during the  > last 51 days of patient opportunity, I find the secrecy surrounding the  > aftermath more damaging to the authorities' position than they realize.  What if the secrecy is actually LESS damaging than the alternative?  > I am basing my opinions on info gathered from various media and filtered  > by my own common sense and consideration of plausibility, IMHO.  As such,  > my opinion is subject to change as more information is made available.  > Please also note that I by no means endorse  or agree with the many  > conspiracy-type theories I have read here and in other groups.   Make your own bite-size pieces.  We'll wait. --
In article <C5v15A.7oo@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes... [... snip ...]  >|>>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government >|>>spin-doctors censoring such information? >|>> >|>>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died >|>>were british citizens. >  >The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found >with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot >attempting to leave the compound during the fire. >  >There is a possibility that these are the bodies of people killed during >the initial shootout. >  >Phill Hallam-Baker  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 Texas ranger does not a pathologist make, so I'll wait for an autopsy to determine if they were shot first.
In article <C64CpI.M1F@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: > ... >The primary purpose of fertilizer is not to explode or kill >people.  Maybe just a law saying you cannot use this stuff >to make a bomb would be good?    Even better, let's pass a law making it illegal to kill people with bombs of *any* sort.  --henry schaffer
In <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:  >The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a >propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly >concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)  The suggestion that they Davidians committed suicide is completely without evidence.  Except for the editorials...  Please re-word.  "propensity for allegedly dousing themselves".  Oh, and the survivors claim the the FBI started the burning by accidentally igniting kerosene lanterns (remember that they'd already cut the power), and the propane tanks.  This sounds a lot more likely than committing suicide by setting the place afire.  --D
In article <1r1chu$h22@pandora.sdsu.edu> chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:  >    Initial assault on the "compound" ( more like a wooden farm house if >  it burned to the ground like it did ) for WHAT?  Regardless of who >  started/caused the fire, NONE of this would have happened if the >  ATF can HONESTLY justify their initial assault and handled it  >  properly!    I just got through listening to the 10 o'clock news on Channel 4 here in Dallas. They trotted out a list of justifications produced by the ATF after "months of investigation" for their raid.   I couldn't believe the junk on this list! For example, the BDs were accused of stockpiling a bunch of "9mm and .223 ammunition that can be used in M15 and M16 assault rifles". Imagine that--they had ammunition!  They also had aluminum dust! (Yeah, it's a component of thermite, but so far I haven't heard that it's illegal to take a grinder to the aluminum lawn furniture...) The only thing on the list that could conceivably have been illegal was an M-79 grenade launcher. (Anybody know about this?)  Months of investigation! For this 80+ people died!
Mark Wilson responding to C.D. Tavares:   MW>|So the laws exist, and the penalties are as you say, but nobody is ever MW>|prosecuted under these laws.  They are "traded away" for easy pleas.  MW>Having such gun laws on the books is still better than nothing. MW>What would the DA have traded away in order to get the guilty plea if the MW>gun law had not been in effect.  Our liberty?  Right...don't even think about enforcing the law and imposing the prescribed penalty....let's hose the citizens instead. ---  . OLX 2.2 . Madness takes its toll - please have exact change
In article <C5rtLJ.Aqz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:  > I can't see these people standing calmly around while they burned to > death. Sorry. I just can't see them choosing a death as horrible as > this. The story doesn't wash. It'll take some convincing to get me > to believe it. The FBI said today that Koresh had earlier intended > to strap himself with explosives, come over to the FBI agents and > detonate, but lost his nerve. He lost his nerve for a quick, clean > death but not to roasted alive? Sorry, don't believe it, even if he > was nutty as a fruitcake.  On Ted Koppel last night, the ubiquitous Australian woman claimed that Koresh trained the women (years ago) how to commit suicide by swallowing cyanide or by putting a gun in their mouth.  With cyanide on hand, why choose to roast yourself?  There are too many unanswered questions here. --
In article <1rgolaINNqjf@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: >I just called Texas' legislative bill tracking service and found out >that HB 1776 (Concealed Carry) is scheduled for a floor vote TODAY! >Let those phone calls roll in.  Well, I don't normally like to quote myself, but I just got some additional information.  I called my state rep (to express my support), and the person there informed me that it's actually just a second reading of the bill (three are required) for further consideration. I'm not 100% sure what *that* means, and I'm also not sure why there's a discrepancy between what the two offices are telling me.  Still researching....  Daryl
>Does anyone have any idea about the size of Waco?  I'm just curious because >if it were a small town that may have something to do with it.  Possibly not. >It sure didn't take it very long to burn down though.  I was watching ABC and >it only took like a little over 30 minutes to burn down.  	Waco is a city of about 100,000 people.  The population temporarily    raised to about 102,000 people when all the feds, and state police officers    arrived.  	I tell you what, I stayed in a hotel room about 4 miles from the BD    compound around 3 weeks ago.  I have never felt more paranoid in my whole    life.  There were at least 100 state police in the hotel.
In <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:  > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things. > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths > who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.    I am not a paranoid, nor a government toady, nor even am I the guy you were talking to originally, but I think you are simply NOT PAYING ATTENTION.    A bunch of people living off by themselves with a lot of guns nearby is not that wierd in Texas.  My own family, very quiet taxpayers with extremely con- ventional views, has something like 10 rifles and shotguns in a two-person home.  Some of them were mine, but I don't live there anymore.  I now have my own shotgun in my apartment.    Texas Child Protective Services (which loves to find child abuse) found no, I repeat NO, evidence of abuse when they first looked at the BD, and is saying that they see none in any of the kids who were released.  There is no evidence that Koresh was banging anyone but his wives.    It is not against the law to stockpile (most) weapons or campbell's soup.   Nor is there any hard evidence in the form of actual hardware (as I write this) to prove the BD really had any *proscribed* weapons.    I feel they were all loonies, but there is no indication that they ever  bothered anyone.  They were gone after in the wrong ways for the wrong reasons, and the BATF and FBI who are so busy trumpeting this child abuse angle hasn't got a leg to stand on or any right to be involved in such abuse cases anyway.  If there was any real danger of the BD's going out on a rampage, then that is up to the officers of the state of Texas, who are probably getting a per- verse bit of pleasure at getting to torque the Feds for fucking up something in their state.  semper fi,
Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 21-Apr-93 The Dayton Gun "Buy Back" (.. by Larry Cipriani@cbnews.cb  > 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.  Pro-gun people can take used pot-metal guns with sale values LESS THAN $50.00 and turn them in, thus making a profit at the gun-grabbers expense.  -Seth  __________________________________________________________________________ [unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry