waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn) writes:   >In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >> >> Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set  >> by cult members.  >Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire >was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away, >we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's >claims in this matter.  Indeed.  Larry King had the two attorneys (whose clients are now dead) of Koresh and another Davidian on his show last night.  Their discussions with the survivors differ from the FBI account.  The attorneys say that they were told that the tanks knocked over lanterns in the compound which started the fires.  Government spokespeople have lied and contradicted each other  throughout this whole affair.  I'll wait for some better evidence before I form an opinion. --  paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu
In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) says: >[deleted] >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.  I am however sad to hear of the death of any >child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am. >-- >+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              | >| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    | >| Kent State University | 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |                         |
In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes: >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.  	My god, a sane person!  Somebody asking intelligent questions rather than spouting of unsubstantiated drivel and making comparisons to Nazi Germany.  I question, along with others, the initial raid by the ATF. There are some definite questions needing answers.  >1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at >some time before the Feb. 28th raid?  	Probably.  Which is why there are so many people angry at the initial confrontation.  Why attack a compound with as many people in that compound who are willing to die for their leader?  Further, they attacked in the daylight hours without proper backup, medical support, etc.  That was rather stupid...  >2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.  	This I doubt.  While I question the ATF's initial raid, I believe that the remainder of the standoff was handled fairly well with the single exception of the psychological "warfare" by blaring music, etc.  I think that was uncalled for and probably hindered the outcome.  >3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?  	See above...  >And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in >general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.  	Agreed.  >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.  	Which is actually rather refreshing nowadays.  Most of the time, the higher-ups claim "I don't remember..." or "I had no involvement..."  :-)
CAN you read ?? 	If so: read my posting about Quisling OR look in a dictionary. 	If not: Don't read this :)
Jason Kratz writing:  ... JK>If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why JK>shouldn't they have done something?  What possible use would a religious cult JK>have for a rocket launcher?  Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of JK>Rights? ...  This is taken a little out of context and I'm not flaming Jason...it's just that this was the proverbial straw....  I grow a little weary of the allegations (here, the media, people on the street) that the BD's had all these "horrible illegal weapons and other paraphenalia of destruction capable of blowing tanks 50 feet into the air..." and then, without missing a beat, discuss how the BD's willfully commited mass suicide, or killed their own less fanatical and *then* commited mass suicide, etc., etc.  If the BD's had all these things and intended to "blow up their abode, blow up Waco, blow up the entire country, or whatever suits your fancy, what happened to all the violence they were supposed to unleash? Why wouldn't they have "gone out in the proverbial blaze of glory" and "come out shooting" with an attitude of "let's take as many of those dogs as possible with us"?  Instead, they seemed to have preferred death to whatever they thought was in store for them at the government's hands.  It's totally immaterial whether they were all crazy, all fanatics, all followers of the antichrist, haters of the government, practicers of weird lifestyles, or whatever...they must have felt that they were being pressured into renouncing their beliefs, however how strange or lunatic those beliefs might appear to "you and me". There is much precedent for such devotion to cause.  My conclusion at this point is that the "authorities" seriously misread their danger to society (else why did the BD's not do as suggested above) and/or chose this incident to make some heinous point or satisfy some internal agenda, up to and including AG J. Renbo using this as an opportunity to assert her manhood.  Some people really do believe it is better to die than be subjected to what they perceive as the godless government. When I force myself to not judge others by my own personal standards and beliefs, I can almost admire their stand.  I surely believe in the Constitution but I don't know that I have such strength of conviction as evidenced by the BD's. ---  . OLX 2.2 . Obesa non cantatis!
In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes: > In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their  >>hands up while national tv cameras watch. >> > Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever > really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of > a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."  As I understand it was considered unsafe for the tv networks to get any closer. Surely the networks can judge the risks of reporting for themselves. I haven't noticed CNN being banned from Baghdad hotels yet despite the (all too real) risk of having a cruise missile land in the lobby. Incidentally has that ever been explained or are we to assume that out of the whole of the city an off-course missile just happened to hit that hotel at a probability of about 1 in some very large number?  Unsafe for who I wonder?
In article <1993Apr13.162304.16721@lds.loral.com>, kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes: |> In article <1993Apr5.164728.10847@dazixco.ingr.com> crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com writes: |> > |> >THE ARMED CITIZEN |> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |> >Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents |> >crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The |> >Armed Citizen.   |>  |> Perhaps so, but note that of the accounts cited, there was only |> one in which no shot was fired. Of the other twelve, five |> described cases in which the assailant was wounded by a shot, |> and six described cases in which the assailant was killed by a |> shot.  And, had not these citizens accepted the moral responsibility to protect their own lives, there could well have been at least 13 innocent victims lying dead and several criminals still out  walking the streets perpetrating their crimes on others.
It's truly unfortunate that we don't have the Japanese tradition of Hari-Kari for public officials to salvage some tatters of honor after they commit offenses against humanity like were perpetrated in Waco, Texas today. --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <C5D42C.88K@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes: } }>  Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up? } }Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide. } }No comparison.  You, sir, are an ignorant fool who knows nothing about either the drug business or the gun business.  Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!  Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com
In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes: >wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the >systemic effects of cumulative individual actions.  If you want fire >insurance on your house that's prudent and it has no effect on me; but >if you and a bunch of other paranoids are packing handguns in the >backcountry it makes me, and anyone else who doesn't chose to protect >himself in this manner, pretty f**king nervous.   Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.  >I mean, take this to its logical conclusion, suppose we all carried >handguns all the time, for protection from all the other people >carrying handguns. Would we collectively be, or feel, safer? Hell no. >We'd feel a lot more insecure.  Why?  I note that the available psych info says that feelings of security INCREASE.  The victimization stats say that that increase is rational.  >Another systemic effect of all the "good" people protecting themselves >is that the "bad" people are going to modify their behavior in >response:  Yes, they are, but how?  >they're going to be much itchier and much more willing to >kill people in the course of routine muggings if they think their  Nope - that doesn't happen.  Instead the switch (among those who change behaviors) to property crimes.  That's an improvement even if the economic take is unchanged.  Sure - not everyone switches, but they were killing before.  -andy
I'm not sure were this thread has been before i popped in, but I've never thought of waiting periods as having anything to do with training or competence. I just can't imagin any valid reason for having a gun that can't wait a few days. I can think of plenty of bad reasons for not wanting a waiting period: I want to buy a gun and kill so-and-so right now, I've crossed the state line to buy a gun illegally and I can't afford to spend the night here, etc.  I'm not a big fan of guns, but I feel that it is important to guard American's rights to own them. On the other hand, we license and regulate many things without seriously impeding anyones constitutional rights.
Sorry for posting this here, but noone has replied to my post from the politics side of the group.  I want to get involved in the fight to save our gun rights.  But first, I need to get a little more educated.  I've been reading all the magzines and books I can get my hands on, and sifting through hundreds of messages here in the  Internet.  I want to obtain a COMPLETE list of Senate Bill and House Resolution names/numbers.  Can anyone tell me how/where to obtain this info?  Surely there has to be a way to obtain copies of anti-gun legislation from those *&%$#@'s in Washington.  Any help is appreciated.  /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\  | Peter D. Nesbitt |     Air Traffic Controller     | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM    |  |                  |       Oakland Bay TRACON       |                         |  |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|  |  CBR600F2 Pilot  |       NRA Member CCX1380F      |  S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |
In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes: >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 ... >The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea, >blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.   >Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the >earlier.    If we are indeed talking about CS, then this is not quite accurate. CS is "just" tear gas--albeit the worst kind. It isn't a nausea gas, and doesn't have direct CNS effects. However, it's quite bad--much worse than CN gas. I was briefly exposed to it once (during an engagement in Berkeley circa 1968 8^) and it's not the kind of thing you forget. It seems to be moisture-activated--it not only made my eyes sting and water, but attacked my breathing passages and lungs. Breathing was painful, and my entire face felt as if it was on fire. These effects persisted for hours after exposure, and I was coughing for days afterwards.  If I was exposed to a dense concentration of this stuff in a closed space for several hours, I doubt whether I could find the exit. Indeed, I can't imagine living through it.
In article <93105.215548U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >>>I have been at a shooting range where >>>gang members were "practicing" shooting.  >In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: >>How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops >>or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes? > >"We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on >the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.  So?  Kratz was there - does that mean that he's a gang member?  Even in the most gang-infested areas, most of the residents ARE NOT gang-members.  >that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned >it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.  How was it obvious?  Were they not trying to hit the target?  Or, does Kratz confuse "marksmanship" with "trying to simulate a post"?  If so, that excludes self-defense shooting, but the rest of us understand that that exclusion would be an error.  (It excludes a lot of legit "gun games" as well.)  >don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by >taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.  Sounds like practical pistol or maybe IPSC.  It also sounds like how a self-defense shooter might well practice.  The only things that action excludes are hunting and "like a post" shooting.  Kratz should get out more often.  -andy
In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>, Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent >Fox) says: >> >All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as >I am not really familiar enough with handguns. > >>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly >>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having >>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks >>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex >>as the timer on a VCR. > >Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing >that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is >that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.  Ahem!!!  Hrumph!!!!  You have encurred the wrath of Glock owners.  We will beat you with our hammers.  Oooops, don't have any  :-)  Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver.  Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that autoloaders give you, that is.  Every gun has its safe moment and its dangerous moment.  If you just learn how to handle it, it becomes a lot less dangerous (to you).
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: >gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU (BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT) writes: >>I doubt if Koresh had let the BATF have a look inside his place as they  >>intended to do, "orchestrated character assassination, noise torture, and >>a holocaust" would never have come to pass. > >Do you know what a "no-knock search with grenades" is?  Once again, Koresh closed the door on an agent with a search warrant, and the door was then perforated by a rain of bullets from the inside.  They shot first.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the FREE State, the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.  I know that as a Canadian, I don't have much to stand on...  But, I think that the right to KEEP and BEAR arms is very important to maintaining a FREE society. The America is still the most enviable place to live on this Earth (by anyone with their head on straight) and will stay that way only if more people stand-up PUBLICLY for what they believe!!  Remember, that if you stand for nothing... You'll fall for anything... including "well-meaning" socialists, they did in Canada.
Richard Cower (cower@csli.stanford.edu) wrote: :  : I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it, : and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part : in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even  : suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the : context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda,  : as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof : might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests : for sufficient fire power.  :  : Important dates:  : Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban. : Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.	    :  : On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon : ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate : in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have : an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated : agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or : some: group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were : initially : at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent  : on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get  : ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued,  : even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top  : down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to : come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely. :  : ...rich       I don't know Rich. Last year when the congress was debating the Bushmans 'Crime Bill', the incident at Lubys' cafe occured. Most of the anti-gun crap was amended out of the bill anyway.          Could a president 'order': go find some 'assault weapons' and bring the media". I hope not.  Frankly, the Toon-meister* scares me. Of course  having a Democratic majority in congress doesn't help. (Apologies to all  Demos' who support RKBA)  ( *definition: toon-meister - a characatureic name for the current  president of the U.S.:   Clinton aka, Clintoon aka Toon-meister.)
ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > FBI Director's Statement On Waco Standoff >   "I had hoped to be making a very different statement this evening. >After very careful planning and extensive preparation we all thought >that today's efforts by the FBI to bring the Branch Davidians out of >their compound would result in the peaceful resolution of the >stand-off or at least meaningful negotiation. >   "Instead, we are faced with devastation and death.  However, I >have no question that our plan was correct and was conducted with >extreme professionalism and care.  I applaud the restraint shown by >agents in the face of life-threatening gunfire, and I thank them for >risking their lives to try to end this peacefully.  I have only the >greatest admiration for the courage and professionalism of all >involved."        "I have no question that our plan was correct?"  Months to get ready, unlimited funds, knowledge of a threatened mass suicide by fire, and no fire trucks on hand?   This is "extreme professionalism and care?"        I can understand the first screwed-up raid by the BATF.  They underestimated the opposition, which happens.  But not this one.   The FBI had their first team in place, massive resources, ample time  for planning and bringing up any specialized equipment or people necessary.   They still botched it.        The FBI Director and the FBI SAC in overall charge should resign, or be fired for incompetence.        I don't blame Reno or Clinton.  They gave the FBI clear orders: don't go in unless you can do it without casualties; if you can't do that, wait it out.  Those were reasonable orders.  The FBI said they could pull off a tactical solution, and they couldn't.
I'm putting together a list of the civil rights violations perpetrated against the Davidians by the FBI/BATF. Here is what I've got so far. Care to add any or provide more backup info?  First Amendment: 1) FBI/BATF violated Davidians right to free exercise of religion from the  	start. We now have a de facto precident against any minority religion. 2) FBI/BATF violated BD right to free speach by: 	a> preventing them to speak to media 	b> preventing them from practicing their beliefs 3) FBI/BATF violated the freedom of the press by: 	a> keeping them 2 miles from the Davidians 	b> preventing the media to cover the FBI/BATF actions close-up 	c> censoring media reports 4) FBI/BATF violated the BD's right to peaceable assemble 	a> proven by initial baseless assault  Second Amendment: 1) The BATF went after them because they had too many guns and guns that the 	FBI/BATF didn't approve of. 'Nuff Said.  Fourth Amendment: 1) The right of the BD's to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and    effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" was violated by: 	a> Initial baseless assault  Fifth Amendment: 1) The Davidians were "held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous    crime" without a "presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury." 2) The Davidians were "deprived of life, liberty, and property without due     process of law.  Sixth Amendment: 1) The accused were denied the right to "a speedy and public trial by an    impartial jury" when the FBI became judge, jury and executioner. 2) The BD's were never informed of the specific "nature anad cause of the    accusation."  Eighth Amendment: 1) The Davidians suffered cruel and unusual punishment when: 	a> The FBI cut off the water to the ranch 	b> The FBI used Psy-War (loudspeakers broacasting the screams of 	   dying rabbits and Tibetian Chants) 	c> The FBI prevented family members from contacting their family 	   inside the ranch. 	d> The FBI used tear-gas against them (especially the children) 	e> The FBI burned the ranch down. 	f> Thoes who escaped were imprisoned without bail without a hearing.  Anything I miss?