waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <1993Apr21.202659.28336@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:  >> 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. ;-)  	Why sell them at a low price to poor people immediately?  The NRA is an educational organization too, after all, and it would be a shame to pay all that money for new guns when these cheap guns would allow a lot of money thus saved to be used in opening more classes.  Mention that the NRA trains our boys in blue and you've got the media between a rock and a hard place.  	"City pays $50 per gun to reduce crime." 			or 	"NRA to pay $50 per gun to provide training guns for police 	 and citizens.  Classes expanded with money saved."
In article <C5n0vy.EJ6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:  >In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >->  >-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since >-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support >-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from  >-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the >-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it. > >No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit >and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are >an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the  >people.  These representatives of the people have already decided >that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some >cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional  >interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority >of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example >of the people using their power of government.  If this is not >how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.         I'll point out that the whole point of the difficult amendment process was to require a super-majority to change the Supreme Law, making it impossible for a "majority" of the people to simply change the law on a whim.  Simply changing the meaning based on "the representatives" of the people effectively destroys the amendment process.  The State's, you know, are also entitled to a say under that process.   >> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the >-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated >-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a  >-> number of times.   > >No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well >organized militia."          I'll note that that right could be considered protected under the first amendment's protection of peaceful assembly.  Unless you would consider a militia inherently non-peaceful, then they've stated the same thing twice.
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?) >...  Let's see if I have this straight.  A law is created that says "you can not have a automatic weapon" and therefore it's ok for the government to use any level of force to enforce that law.  Doesn't matter if the entire  population of the planet is destroyed as long as that law is obeyed.
16. What is the condition of the propane tank mentioned by the BD survivors? I.e. is it crushed and does it have tread marks on it? --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
|QUESTION: |What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald |denny trial?  The Wall Street Journal had an article on how the police were whining about all the new guns; excuse me, but police are EMPLOYEES of the government. Rather like having your janitor complain about job conditions.  I say Californians should form armed block clubs that would engage in coordinated strategies should BATF attempt to disarm them based on the "nefarious tipster" theory of law enforcement. Unlike Waco,  Californians should be able to destroy armored vehicles in city streets with incendiary weapons, acetylene after slowing them down with abandoned car blockades. M-1 Garands should easily outclass BATF shock troops with their H&K MP-5 SMGs, and there should be enough Sony Walkmans and Boom Boxes to overwhelm any FBI psy-war operation... yes, a good time would be had by all. Billary Clinton would get what he wanted, a War on Gunowners, the BATF would attempt to show the anti-gun press they they really, REALLY were in charge with a 500-man "Charge of the Light Brigade," and the FBI would attempt  to show how _THEY_ really were in charge by asking the Californian  National Guard to level the area with artillary!
In article <1r9bfc$bm1@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)   writes: > In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU> mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael   Frederick Rhein) writes: > >># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. > > > >for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims  > >that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this. >  > This whole thread is rediculous.  Who cares if they had a stove going > or not.  Does it matter if they had a stove burning, or lanterns > burning, or candles burning, or someone smoking, etc, etc, etc.  The > premise is that the FBI was filling the house with napalm so that it > would catch fire.  This is crazy.  FBI was NOT PUMPING NAPALM into the > Davidians home.  You will have to have pretty damn strong evidence to > convince me of that. >  > I can believe mass suicide/murder by Koresh.  I can believe an > accident by the Davidians.  I can believe an accident by the FBI.  I > can easily believe mass stupidity on all sides but I can not believe > that the FBI lit this fire intentionally.  No way. >   I tend to agree, but I would like a better explanation of why the FBI stopped   the firetrucks at the gate.  I saw this in realtime.  It concerns me that the   FBI "appeared" to not be too interested in stopping the fire after it started,   and actually started flying hueys around the compound, which had to add in some   small part to the winds driving the fire.  > --  > -- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com) Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes: > From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound, > the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane > tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns. >  > Medical Examiners have found no bullet wounds, as was stated by the > FBI, on the corpses. >  > I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept > the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.  But then > again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that > his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office. > If people will believe that of any politican, it is little wonder they > will believe all of the factoids being given out as fact by the > Clinton/Reno/FBI/BATF confederation.  CNN reported tonight that some bodies were found with bullet holes in their heads.  However, I have no information on the possible causes.  This is not to say that Government stories are to be taken at the face value in this case, but to jump to conclusion at this stage may be the source of embarrassment in the future.  Let's be paranoic, this may be a ploy to smoke out the opposition and decredit them.  :-)  Comparison of this incidence to Tienanmen Square is made in soc.culture.china.  Just in case you need more ammunition to shoot at each other.  :-)  No matter which side you are on this Waco issue, are you ready to die defending your cause?  Peace be with you.
In article <1993Apr23.162517.14029@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, kam@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) writes:  > Good question.  Take an objective look at what happened, listen to the  > things that the FBI said ("The BD's started the fire."  "The BD's bodies > were found with gunshot wounds.") that are now being refuted by the  > evidence being recovered.  Seems that the FBI is deliberately making > statements that have no rational basis in fact, and trying to make > them sound like fact.    That's another sad thing.  I'd expect this sort of shit from the BATF. But I'm goddamn disappointed in the FBI.  They used to be professionals. --
|in L.A., the first recorded survivor of a .357 shot to the heart.  That |lady not only killed her attacker, but chased him down to do it!  All |four of her shots, fired after SHE had been shot, struck the perp.  Atta |girl!  The bullet entered her on a downward angle, went through the apex |of her heart, down through the diaphragm, clipped her liver and |destroyed her spleen.  It then exited her back leaving a tennis ball |sized hole.  She died about six times on the operating table, but was |out of the hospital in 15 days and was back on full duty in eight |months!  She was off duty at the time and not wearing her vest.  She was |on her way home so happened to have her gun.  No, she doesn't think |civilians should have the same rights.  Sigh.  Well, if police think they are so special that only _THEY_ are worthy of self-defense, perhaps we start putting the arm on police; maybe we should start demanding that police are only police when ON-DUTY, that after that they are just like the ordinary disarmed helpless chumps they consider "civilians."  Let's prohibit arms carrying by police when off-duty. Or, if they make the assertion that "Well, I need to maintain my gun" let's make it regulation that they can carry an UNLOADED firearm home, that it's only fair that they be just as helpless as poor schmuck coming home from his computer operator job...  NRA Director/ex-San Jose cop Leroy Pyle states in the latest SWAT magazine that anti-cops better watch out for this schism between RKBA folks and the police. He asks the rhetorical question of 'What if what's left of the gun lobby starts demanding the disarmament of the police?"
In <9304200955.aa09758@angel.qdeck.com> burge@qdeck.com (Bill Burge) writes:  >(I've heard that the color strip on the Bianchi was put there to identify >the Bianchi fanny pack to law enforcement.  They suposedly recieved a flyer >indicating the color combinations for easy sighting.  This has led to  >lackluster sales for the Bianchi.)  Well, that was an easy decision.  No more Bianchi anything for me.
For those who didn't figure it out, the below message was a reply to another in sci.crypt, for which the poster put t.p.g. in the Followup-To line. I didn't notice that. Apologies to those who were confused.  The substance makes little sense unless one reads the prior messages.  However, I don't wish to enter into this discussion here, as it will be yet another rehearsal of a long-tired set of arguments. Suffice it to say that I disagree both with the interpretation of "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment offered by gun lovers, and what I think to be their distortion of the same phrase in the associated Federalist papers. My Webster and my reading of the language convinces me that the word meant both under control, and disciplined, and not 'of good marksmanship'. I think the latter a special interest pleading. No one has yet shown a contemporateous reference in which "well regulated" unambiguously meant 'of good marksmanship', and not under control/disciplined, etc.  Thus I continue to believe the Second Amendment is a militia clause and not an 'arming everyone' clause. Others are welcome to disagree (as I know many do) and little would be served by rehashing this topic in this particular forum.  To avoid flames, or unproductive rehashings, I note that I've come in here to post this one message, just to clarify the one below. I'm now outta here again though I'm available via e-mail.  David  In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:  > >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 >--  >David Sternlight         Great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of >                         our information, errors and omissions excepted.   > >
Bully, Them; Bludgeon Them, Bury Them. --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <scottj-230493091606@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>, scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes: > In article <dusek.735489223@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) > wrote: >> 	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the >> burning building? >  > Okay, James, tell you what: I'll but you in a building with 90 other > people.  I'll put you in a highly tense situation.  I'll subject you to > sleep deprivation, remove your utilities, march tanks back in forth in > front of you, play recordings of tortured rabbits at high volume, shine > bright lights in your windows, threaten to attack you at any time, and cut > you off from the outside world, all for weeks at a time.  Then, I'll begin > to smash in the building you're in, destroying passages and stairs and > spreading debris everywhere.  At the same time, I'll pump in massive > quantities of nasty tear gas, for six hours.    STOP IT!!!! ENOUGH!!! I'm out of there!  I mean, I'm a relatively sane person.  God knows I'm weak and will forgive me.  But I'm not stupid enough to stay in this place any longer.  I WANT OUT!!!  >You'll be holed up in a small > area with 90 sweaty people on a hot day.  Then the building will fill with > smoke and become a inferno.  90 people in a small room will try to leave > with you.  And Jim, if you don't make it out, won't you agree that it must > be because you wanted to die? >  > Besides, nine people *did* successfully flee the fire.  Yeah, and at least one person ran back in. SOunds like a personal choice to me. Religious fanaticsm, and a beleive that dying in the 'defense' of your beliefs, is probably at the core of what happened in Waco. We in the west tend to disregard fanaticsm of the type displayed by many Moslem fundamentalist groups who see nothing wrong with dying for their beliefs/convictions. I suspect that this same type of fanaticsm was displayed by the BDs. BUt we'll probably never know...
> In article <C5uA7r.DAD@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>, pprun@august.it.uswc.uswe > >  > > Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and  > > Senate so that we can all write letters?  Unites States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510  The House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515  The White House Washington, D.C. 20500  -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
In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes: >You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on >the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the >Constitution.   This is REALLY STUPID nitpicking.  Capitalization rules in the late 18th century were quite different from today, and what was posted matches current capitalization rules.  We also don't make 's' look like 'f' and other such things done in the late seventeen hundreds.  In the original Constitution, "militia", "arms", etc. were capitalized simply because they were nouns.  This is also done currently in German.  There is no special significance to these words simply because they are capitalized. The capitalization denotes no special emphasis.  -Pete Zakel  (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
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. >   	I HOPE THAT YOU ARE IN THE WAY OF THE NOBLE FEDERAL ENFORCERS and are blown away accidently by the governments goons.  You would cheer the death to 25 childern?  This is the sort of person who served as a death camp guard.
In article <1993Apr23.010640.4583@news.columbia.edu>, pgf5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Garfiel Freeman) writes: > Janet Reno should be lauded for her decision to attack the  > compound of the Davidians.  I mean, the last thing we  > need in this country is more gun-toting hicks who want > to end the world.  I think ATF, the US Marshalls, the FBI and local > police forces should make a concerted effort to rid us  > of the scourge of rebellious freaks. >  > Welch eine Wonne!  Welch ein Leiden! >  >  > Pete >  >  	While dedicating the Holocaust Memorial Museum, President  Clinton remarked:  	``The evil represented in this museum is incontestable,  but as we are its witness, so must we remain its adversary in the  world in which we live, so we must stop the fabricators of history  and the bullies as well."  	Clinton made this comment shortly after giving Janet Reno  the go-ahead to hastily construct a gas chamber and crematorium in Waco... on the fiftieth anniversary of the Warsaw uprising.  	Say, wasn't Monday also the anniversary of Paul Revere's ride? Is that a clue?
I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit shoot-to-kill directives. --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
Daniel Oldham (oldham@ces.cwru.edu) wrote: > The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored > transports. ...  > 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.  Is this a joke?  The legal way to serve a search warrant is to knock on the door.  Tossing in a grenade to serve a search warrant violates the US Constitution and is hence, illegal.  The BD complied with legal search warrants in the past.  I do not understand why the BATF used an illegal means to serve their search warrant last February.
In article <C5t14M.Ku2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes: >	Well, this is still the land of the free for the time being. Individuals >are supposed be able to do what they please unless it infringes upon the rights >of someone else. Owning FULLY automatic machine guns is also permitted by >law if you have a CLASS III FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE and have paid the transfer >tax. If you are refering to the .50 cal the feds claim the BD to have had,  >I have used .50 cal for 3000 yard target shooting. It a legitimate and  >challenging sport.   I'm getting tired of these wimpy Liberals whining about gun control, too!  Ya know, the Second Amendment says  	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a 	free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, 	shall not be infringed.  Now, notice, it says *arms*.  Not guns.  Arms.  The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos.  Support your right to keep and bear short range nuclear weapons.  It's a legitimate and challenging sport.  And screw the limit.  							spl
In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:  > > Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right. > > You sick bastard.  > Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said  > that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.    Let's go to the videotape.  Here's exactly what you posted:  > > THIS IS MURDER! > > ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!  > Flame on!! > 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).  >    Any ways one of Koresh's DEVOTED followers that DID I REPEAT DID survive this >    "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine  >    survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David > -> was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  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).  Also >    someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat >    then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)  So if you weren't saying that the deaths of "bastard children of a sacreligious zealot" was no big thing (and I know I am not the only one who read it that way), just what the hell WERE you saying?  > However it was the Branch > Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior"  > (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that  > what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their > lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's > who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and > for many of the rest of the U.S.   So who brainwashed YOU into believing that whatever the government says it the truth?  Or that Koresh was any actual threat to you and the rest of the  US?  Haven't you ever stopped to wonder WHY the government raided this farm? This raid was NOT ABOUT RELIGION, SEX, OR CHILD ABUSE.  To the best available evidence at the moment, this raid, psychological torture, and group death was  about Koresh's failure to PAY A $200 TAX on ONE grenade launcher that he may  or may not even have had!  That's why it was the BATF doing the raiding in the first place.  Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and a holocaust?  > I am however sad to hear of the death of any  > child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.  Then think before you post. --