waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wa yne J. Warf) writes: >In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvin e) writes: >> >>If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press >>is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base >>your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose >>of paranoia? > >Are you a moron or just illiterate? > [...] >Oh, I forgot, you're the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need >electricity, never mind.       And you're the guy that doesn't know that illiterate people can't write  coherent sentences. Does that make you superior somehow?                                          Steve []
Oh Christ, here we go again. I'm actually going to assume that this was a serious posting, fool that I am.  In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms >'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that >there are actually *few* cases where this is so.    And I suppose I should just take your word for it. Did you ever think that many people who use firearms to protect themselves might not admit to it because of the ridiculous laws which exist forbidding concealed carry?  >The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary >opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who >would argue with you about a parking space, those who would >take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.   I already own a cool jacket. I ride a bicycle to work and park it behind my desk. And if my woman decides to go with someone else, I'd be disappointed but killing her new suitor will probably not endear her to me any more than before. Frankly, I've never met a woman worth killing for anyway. (Now, an AR-15 with a chrome barrel, THAT's worth killing for ...!-))  >Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.  >In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms. >No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking, >than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.    Does this pinhead know something the rest of us don't? I'm not too worried about federal martials coming to get my guns. The government can't seem to keep violent criminals in jail since they don't have enough prison space, and the legal system is over- burdened anyway. Where are they going to put all the millions of gun-owners who won't fork over their weapons? Maybe you'd like to volunteer the services of your humble abode, since you obviously feel sooooo strongly about this.  >The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.   Your argument has been rendered useless. Accept this. Find another newsgroup.  ------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Gaucher   NRA                |  My opinions. gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu   |  No one else's.
In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more >	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation.  >	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military >	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.  Proof by assertion!  I love it!  Uh, please explain why the smugglers do not also rank a notch below (or above) the military in terms of communications, intelligence gathering (e.g., why fight officials when you can bribe them..."I'll give you a hundred grand to let that semi past..."), and firepower.   >	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into >	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its >	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or >	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical. >	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on >	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and >	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer >	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way. >	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a >	good dollar/pound deal.  > What's the point here?  You're arguing that the black market WORKS (which it does, of course).    >	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.  This is the wrong way to quantify things.  The smuggler would be concerned about value/cubic foot.  Go to a gun show and price out a crate of good quality handguns.    >	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production >	would have to be local. There are not all that many people  What's "local?"    >	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile >	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could  What is a worthwhile firearm?  Hell, anything that WORKS!  Go get yourself a copy of the Army's 1969 Improvised Munitions Manual. See how easy it is to make a functional firearm.  >	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and >	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would >	pay through the nose for it.   If paying $10 for inconspicuous parts at the local K-Mart is "through the nose."   Drew
In article <shepardC5p2y6.GC1@netcom.com>, shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard) writes: >Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about >the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).  Good! > >1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill? >     What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee". >     How close is that to being made law?  Not very.  Thanks to the filibuster in the Senate, things are backing up.  The House judiciary  is going to start looking at our friends from the ATF, so that bill will be held up a little, too.  NOTE: Things can change quickly.  > >2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important >   differences I missed? > >3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes: >  A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during >     the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals >     process once the required instant background check system is established, >     but not before).  I thought there was a correction process in both bills for both parts.  >  B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving >     using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an >     inaccurate record corrected?)  Very correct.  >  C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person >     can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an >     immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member. >     But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does >     it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception >     statement.  Welcome to the world of "the privileged".  >True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?  How about no compulsion to allow purchase if there is no evidence against?  > >4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from >   buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks? >   At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?  It is already illegal to do this.  > >   'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed >   (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised >   to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun >   registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.  This is the "health" card.  Or so some "paranoids" claim.  I say that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.   :-) 1/2  > >Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current >legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits >of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.
|> In article <1993Apr5.220457.6800@spdc.ti.com> dwhite@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Dan White) writes: |>  |> >However, haven't we already lost our right to bear arms? |>  |> >	It seems that in most states, like Texas, a citizen may own a |> >gun and carry while at his home or business.  But a citizen is severely |> >restricted from bearing outside these areas.  Here in Texas you cannot |> >carry in your car except when "traveling" which is usually defined as |> >"traveling across a county line."  How did this come about?  Are there |> >any court rulings on the legality of restricting the carrying of a |> >weapon outside the home?   |>   In Texas, it is legal to carry handguns while "traveling", and also to and from sporting activities.           ^^^^^^^^  Chapter 46 of the Texas State Penal Code does NOT restrict long guns. Therefore, it is legal to carry and transport long guns any place in Texas.
Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote: : What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of : had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the : compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     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!       QUESTION AUTHORITY!    <SNIP> : 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. Look : at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country : of ours. :  : With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with      Show me some evidenence instead of repeating what the FBI/ATF   told you.  : mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few : women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn : to death 51 days later.      Then I'm sure you won't mind if the ATF or the DEA raid your house   someday on a bogus informant tip.  So what if they killed/wounded your    family "accidentally" during the raid, it's just a fair price to pay   for law and order in this country, right?  Answer this question    honestly before making anymore ignorant statements!      What is even more disturbing than out of control government agencies   are citizens who allow them to be irresponsible.
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: >I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas >in 1991 that was caused by guns..... >This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS! >(Yes, there could be that low sentences or high poverty could influence the >figures but they're still *pretty* high right??) >I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA......  And you'd be wrong about that too.  Note that Texas isn't unique in this "more with-gun deaths than with-car deaths", but some of the other states where it happens have extremely strict gun laws.  Oops - so much for the "meaning".  It isn't clear that the comparision means anything anyway as car accidents are unintentional while gun deaths aren't, but if we're going to make it, let's at least be honest.  >*I* should not suffer because of others.... >We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor >we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').  Give it up for what?  Gun control doesn't have any benefits, so it fails by this standard.  >Do you have an insurance?? >Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...  Note that insurance gives me something in return - gun control doesn't.  >-What the hell is he trying to say ?? >When you live in a society (USA are stilll counted as one...) you >have to saccrifice. >The question is HOW MUCH.  That's half the question - the rest is "and what do you get for your sacrifice".  If the answer to the second question is "nothing", as it is for gun control, then we don't have to ask the first question because getting nothing means that no sacrifice is justified.  -andy
In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes: >What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of >had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the >compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened. > >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. > >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. Look >at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country >of ours. > >With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with >mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few >women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn >to death 51 days later. >   Well, it's said that people get the government they deserve.  Don't worry, you'll get yours.  You'll sleep much better when everyone with thoughts not on the government 'approved' list is rounded up and executed.
OK, here's something for all of those people who think cops are always more responsible then the rest of the population.  I found this article in the Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado State University's newspaper.  	SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED IN REVENGE TRIPLE HOMICIDE  PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer afraid he would be fired for allegedly assaulting a teen-ager walked into an auto body shop wher the youth worked, said "You're going to die" and fatally shot him and two others, police said.  A fourth youth was wounded.  A fifth escaped injury by hiding under a car.  The wounded youth ran about two blocks to a house after the shooting at about midnight Tuesday and called police.  He was hospitalized in satisfactory condition Wednesday.  Suspended police officer Robert Sabetta, 23, of Cranston, was arrested at gunpoint over three hours after the shooting at Wilson's Auto Enterprises in Foster, a rural town of about 4,000 people in northwest Rhode Island.  	Well, this just goes to show that cops are capable of snapping, just like everyone else.  Now who was it who said only cops should have guns?
In article <1993Apr18.061532.3288@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) says: > >Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes: >> >> Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody. >>  You give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in >> their action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My >> question is what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops >> or should you collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and >> get out of there (provided of course you don't think that you have >> been seen)?  What kind of laws are on the books regarding this type >> of situation?  What would be the most likely thing to happen to you >> if you stayed and waited and it was a first offense?  What would >> happen if you took off but someone saw you and you were caught? > >ghods. do you have -any- idea how much trouble you'd get into for >taking off like that? leaving the scene of an auto accident is bad >enough! killing someone & leaving is 10 times worse. who's going >to seriously believe it was self-defense when you took the time >to collect your spent casings? "But officer, I reload!" > Well, like someone said in a reply to this it really all depends on the area that you live in.  See David Veal's reply to this.  I have heard exactly the same thing that he said in his reply - to fade away if you think that you haven't been seen (I heard this from a police officer).  For the record though he was talking about in Tennessee - not everywhere.
In article <C5w448.2np@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> pwithere@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (patricia anne withered) writes: >                        The Ballad of David Koresh. [ ... ] >At Concord and at Waco >the tyrant's minions failed. >Though they all died in the fire >Koresh's people have prevailed.
In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes: >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   >writes: >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come  >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and  >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear gassed. >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to  >> give up and go for the trial he deserved. >>  > >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.    Unworthy of comment.  >Humans died   >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the  >actions   >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.    Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty. That is undeniable truth.  My heart bleeds just as much as yours for  the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities  to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion  to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up  and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning.  >You seem to say   >they got what they deserved.  I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in  more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they  wanted and put into motion themselves.  I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely  by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair  from the start.  >Jim >-- >jmd@handheld.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought   >that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93 >"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed   >in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!" >WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777
douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes: [...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...]  > What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic  > bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack?  last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.  jason
In article <0096B9BF.EB6A4220@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> icsgh339@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes:   >This is my first time on the network, but I am very concerned with this >incident in Waco.  I will refrain from stating my opinions until after I have >read the FAQ.  Could someone tell me how to get this?  I must say that I >believe the Govt. was wrong in the actions that they took in this situation.           As far as I know, there is no FAQ for tpg.  Somebody was working on one, but I think it "died in committee."
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735413309.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:  > I`m NOT saying you should ban guns, OR that you should take them away > from responsible owners.  But this is all gun control laws end up doing.  Politicians can never manage to get a handle on those who obtain arms illegally, so all their laws can ever do is further restrict people who obtain them legally.  Karen McNutt, a local attorney, states that there are about two MILLION licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.  In the past year, the number of licensed gun owners involved in gun crimes was something like SIX. Yet, there were a large number of gun crimes in the state last year.  Does passing laws that will further restricting only those people ALREADY obeying laws pay any dividents?  > All I`m saing is that guns should be treated with respect from owners, sellers > AND legislators.   So far, I've seen them treated with the least respect by legislators.  > I believe guns are a problem in many countries and that crime rates > WOULD fell if they were more restricted.  See, this is what I call the "argument from religion:" "I believe."  Don't believe -- it's not NECESSARY to take this on faith.  Go look at the history of countries that passed gun restrictions.  Pay particular attention to whether or not violent crime was HIGHER before the restrictions and LOWER after.  (Don't look at "violent gun crimes," that's begging the question.) You may be very surprised.  > If ALL crimes done with guns stopped AND all accidents also stopped or > was reduced to a minimum THEN I would consider lifting all gun control.  You have this absolutely backwards.  If crime stopped in the presence of strict gun control, there is NO WAY I would consider lifting any of it. However, if gun control made absolutely NO IMPROVEMENT in the violent  crime rate, THAT'S when I would have it lifted.  Think about it.  So far, none of the stats show any improvement...  > Likevise if car-accidents fell to a minimum in europe, I (and probably > most people I know) would demand easier drivers-tests. > (ca. 20 hours and more than 2500$ today....)  Do you really think driver's tests are any indication of your propensity for having accidents?    I've never known anybody stupid enough to take a driving test while  drunk; after having been up all night; with two fighting kids in the  back seat; with a hot cup of coffee on their lap; or while putting on  makeup, reading the newspaper, or talking on their cellular phone.   But that's what they're doing when they have those accidents.  > In other words -We should have legislation because it`s neccacery !!  How can anything that has no positive effect at all ever be "necessary?"  > The one gun/month case in Virginia: > I was thinking about the reactions on the proposal... > Loud screeming about civil rights and 2. amendment.  And it didn't help, any of it.  > Winnie the Poh: > Do you want peace or weapons Winnie? > -Yes please!  I'm sorry, I don't remember any story where Winnie the Pooh was offered weapons. --
In article <1r2d2rINNa7e@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) says: > >NUT CASE PANICS!!!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF >THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE >MERCY ON HIM!!!!
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli  <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: > 	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or  > 	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY   Well, may I point out that paranoia is an IRRATIONAL fear, without basis in reality.  As we've seen here in the US, there is nothing irrational about it.  Perhaps you folks in Finland have been down on your knees being good little boys and girls so that the former Soviet Union didn't come across the border and stomp the snot out of you for so long that you just figure everybody should be so accomodating to tyranny.   >  > 	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where).. >  > 	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup   If you don't like us talking about political issues involving attacks on people for owning guns, don't read talk.politics.guns.   >  > 	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil  > 	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to > 	let's say 1000 people ???? > 	  Nobody's trying to save YOU from anything, so butt out.  I couldn't care less about what somebody on the other side of the world thinks  about this. Of course, you do have a right to an opinion...  but I've always figured that opinons are like hemmorhoids.  Every asshole's got them, I just don't care about yours.