waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:  : failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it in : plain view.    Brent, I'm still waiting to see if there are any evidence of how the fire got started, so I'm not going to tell you who did it...  As far as you keep talking about the Davidians pouring kerosene all over, stop and *think* for a second if it is possible the stove or lamp was knocked over and started a fire, and the Davidians were pouring water on it (wrong solution but I doubt I can do much better in their states of mind...) to try to put it out?       By the way, just how far where you standing from the Davidians when you saw them setting the place on fire?   Oh, in case you are new in town, microwave ovens doesn't work very well when there's no electricty. :-0    Get some *facts* before you post next time!
In article <C5sE5E.Coy@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes: >Ahem.  See the War on Drugs, as sponsored by the Bush and Reagan >administrations.  The precedent had well been set for federal agencies to >step on more than a few of what people consider "rights."  I won't make >excuses for anyone, but most of the damage had been done before Clinton >even entered the race in '92.  Not to mention last year's Weaver affair.  Anyway, here's how I see the Waco affair; I'd be interested in other peoples' interpretations...  1. Koresh and his people were basically minding their own business. 2. Some weapons violations may have been committed and I wouldn't have    disapproved of prosecuting him for those violations.  However, I think    the BATF was criminal for starting negotiations with a military style    assault and for firing into a house where there were children and other    noncombatants. 3. I don't see they couldn't just leave a token guard on the place and wait    the BDs out; I don't approve of the tear gas approach and, if it caused    the fire to be started, I think the FBI agent responsible should spend    10-20 years in jail. 4. However, if Koresh's response to the tear gas was to kill everyone there,    I hold him largely responsible for their deaths.
In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes: > You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make  > sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out. >  > Say U.S.C. 922 : >  > (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for > any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. >  >  Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person"  > might also be an artificial entity that is created by government    ^^^^^ > and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I  > don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on  > an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell > me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > does not make it LAW.    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.  > Everyone knows that laws are constitional > until it goes to court.  Not exactly:  "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes  no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal  contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."  Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442  "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the  form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and  ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the  time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so  branding it."  "No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are  bound to enforce it."  16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177       late 2d, Sec 256  > So, has it ever gone to court, not > just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail" > Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told > by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?  Automatic weapons?  No.  The Supreme Court has never heard such a case. --
The best reason to abolishing the ATF is that they don't have enough to do.  If the organization were disbanded and its duties assigned to the FBI (firearms) and IRS (tobacco and alcohol).  Both of these organizations have enough to do.  The FBI is probably not going to try to get a criminal charge of illegal machine gun for having a broken gun.   There have been postings stating that law enforcement should be divided and and weak.  But there is nothing more dangerous to liberties than a law enforcement agency without enough criminals to chase.  The ATF is one and look at the trouble it started in Waco.
In a previous article, gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) says:  > >Fact:  Both Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have admitted responsibility, >       even grief, over the deaths in Waco. > >Fact:  Regardless of who started the fire, there are more than enough >       things on tape to make a civil rights case against these two. >       Cruel and unusual punishment (dying tortured rabbits on tape?) >       come to mind.   > >Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of >       law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty >       of life in prison. > >Fact:  Impeachment is allowable for "high crimes and misdemeanors." >       Anything that's a federal felony should qualify. > >Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to  >             impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.        I HEARTILY agree.  Now that the BATF warrant has been       unsealed, it is CLEAR that Clinton and Reno supported an      ILLEGAL raid.  Did they not KNOW this?         NO authority for a 'no-knock" raid      NO authority to use helicopters.      NO authority to search for a "drug lab"      And, apparently, not even any authority to search for "automatic     weapons".
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:  >In article <1993Apr16.190829.17141@cunews.carleton.ca> akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous) writes: >>In article <VEAL.729.734979393@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: >> >>> >>>       No, what you said was that we had spent money on "guns" rather than >>>"people," as Canada does.  Which is ridiculous. >>> >> >>Once again I have over estimated the general level of intellegence of >>the average reader of rush-limbaugh.  Canada PER CAPITA spend more >>money on people where the US spend more money PER CAPITA on guns.  >What exactly do you mean when you say the U.S. spends more per capita on >guns than Canada does?  Are you talking about the U.S. government or are you >talking about the purchase of guns by private citizens or both?  If you are >referring to private citizens then your point is irrevelant because what >individuals do with their money is essentially *their* business.  >If, on the other hand, you meant that the U.S government spends more per >capita on guns than Canada does then your point *is* relevant.  So, if this >is true then the U.S. needs to get its priorities straight.  People are more >important than guns.  That is not to say that guns aren't important.  I'm >just saying that if the U.S government *does* spend more per capita on guns >than they do on people then something is awry.       He meant the US spends more per capita on guns than Canada which isn't really surprising because we were so busy protecting the western world from the USSR that all other countries could slack off on their defense spending.
In article <93105.215548U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz   <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: > In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, > andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: > > > >>I have been at a shooting range where > >>gang members were "practicing" shooting. > > > >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.  There > are many, many bad things going on in that area.  Also, I have several   friends > that live very close to that area who have had problems with some of these > folks.  By the way, where did I say that they were minorities?    That was what I got from your phrasing, too.  Well, then, were they (the ones   you saw) black?  You don't deny seem to deny it, either.  > Do you think > 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.  I > 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.  That is the recommended way to practice with a CCW, too.  Aim alone is no good   for defense, if you can't get the gun rapidly.  >  If > you would have been there Andy it would've been obvious to you too.    What, outside of prejudice, would have made it obvious?  > Of course > it might not have been.  Who knows.  All I do know is that I was there, I   live > here and I know that they were gang bangers.  When you live here long enough   it > becomes pretty easy to spot them via gang colors, gang signs, etc.    Yes, prejudice is more subtle in the north, isn't it?  > One last > thing.  My sister is a social worker.  She makes it her point to find these > things out (gang signs, colors, etc) because it is in her best interest to do > so.  She is nice enough to let me know these things so I can watch out for > myself as I live right on the border of the west side of the city. Enough   said. >   More than enough.  I understand you completely.  > Jason  Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
In article <94102@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt5311b@prism.gatech.EDU   (BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT) writes: > In article <1r4ef7$408@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.   Tavares) writes: >  > >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 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. >  > The BD's killed members of the BATF on the first day. "Orchestrated character > assassination and noise torture" seem like a small retribution.    Does the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" have ANY meaning anymore?  > The use > of tanks is quesionable however. >  >  >  > --Abhijit > --  > BHATTACHARYA,ABHIJIT > Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 > uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5311b > Internet: gt5311b@prism.gatech.edu  -- jmd@handheld.com
In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu  writes: >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.  That's open for debate.  Certainly, an excessive number of people are murdered every year but people also do save innocent lives with firearms. The media just don't tell us when it happens...  >Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.  >In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.  I think there are more of us than there are federal marshalls...  >No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking, >than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.   Crap.  It's simplistic thinking on the part of feather-headed dolts.  >The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.  Nuts.
In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: > I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe > a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the > contrary.  Murderous, huh?  Yeah, there was all sorts of carnage going on there in the 60 YEARS they were there -- BEFORE the government assaulted them. Oh, I forgot -- you probably consider self-defense as murder.  > Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under > the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still > prefer to believe the cultists?  Damn right.  This is not a partisan thing; it's about individual  liberties -- the right of a citizen to be left the hell alone.  > (No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)  That's another indication that you don't understand the issue.  > So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty > people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up > one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States > to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.  Maybe they said:  "Our appropriations are coming up soon.  We need a good PR boost.  Let's find a socially unpopular group who happen to have a lot of guns, go in like gangbusters, be heros, and have the local media get it all on video  tape.  Then we won't have to worry about our budget until next year."  > Does [Bill Clinton] look good in a cape?  Why don't you knit one to match his jogging outfit? --
Anyone who worries about his own gun should not have one.  If you carry any pistol with a empty chamber and safety the chances of it going off are about zero.  Unless you sit it on top of a lite stove for a couple of minutes or put it in a fire. :-)
In article <1qibs0$flk@vela.acs.oakland.edu> awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley) writes: >In article <1993Apr14.225910.14964@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: i]>>Since there was no sniper fire, doing nothing was equally effective, >>as was yelling "stop that".  Of course, if one wants to credit the >>tanks with stopping non-existent sniper fire, we might was well credit  >>it with stopping an invasion by Martians.   >>  >>See "Firearms, Violence and Civil Disorders" (from SRI) and "Sniping  >>Incidents - A New Pattern of Violence" (from Brandeis University's  >>Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence). > >>>>There was precisely ONE >>>>verified sniper in the 67 riots, a drunk firing a pistol out a window. > >Actually, there was only one confirmed sniper to >die< in Detroit, >according to Sauter & Hines, _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion & It's  What sources did Sauter and Hines use?  In Congressional hearings later, the newspaper folk admitted that their reports were completely wrong.  (Some of their excuses are understandable, while others amount to gross negligence.  Then there's their "we lied".)  As far as I know, they never did the followup.  >>So?  People other than snipers can shoot firemen.  If they are, >>shooting at "snipers" can't help.  Blowing big holes in buildings that >>don't contain "sniper nests" or worrying about travelling "sniper >>squads" is a complete waste of time. > >Interesting.  Just curious, they do you believe that tanks did blow >big holes in buildings in Detroit 67?  I don't have any relevant knowledge about the counter-sniper tactics or what the govt did with the big war toys.  That's why I've only commented on what they couldn't have accomplished, no matter what they did.  >>Nope - the "sniper" fire was coming from other police/guard positions. > >The guard certainly needed to learn.  But I don't agree with the >idea that there were no snipers at all.  From p. 121 of Sauter & Hines: > >     "Despite the force of the National Guard in alliance with the >Army troops, the snipers did not stop.  The snipers boldly lay siege to the >Fifth Precent police station and took pot shots at the Seventh.  Firemen >were under constant harassment from snipers fired from half-closed >darkened windows in high apartment buildings and from roof-tops."  Not in Detroit, not during the 60s.  That's newspaper copy and they admitted later that they were wrong.  -andy
In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes: >The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do  >they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it  >only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?  This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital, you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills.  In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them,  you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within 24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.
In article <16BB910F7.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David Veal) writes: >In article <16BB8C820.SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> >SBANKA@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes: >  >>I'd appreciate any help anyone could give me on these two questions: >> >>The Brady Bill was in the news throughout 1992 but what actually happened to >>it in Congress?  Did Bush veto it?  If so, when? >  >       The Brady Bill passed the House in 1992, but failed to reach a >vote in the Senate.  As such, it never reached Bush.  (Sarah Brady's >condemnation not-withstanding).  I have a joint House-Senate conference committe report (i.e., crime bill) for the 102rd Congress which contains a "Brady Bill -- 7 day waiting period" within it.  I believe it just died and never came up for a vote in either house.  >       It'll probably pass the House again, and will probably pass the >Senate if they can get it to a vote.  Whether of not they'll be busy >with other things will be the question.  They got four years of Clinton's support to pass it.
Cathy Smith posting for L. Neil Smith  Dear Bill --   Very, VERY good -- you made my whole day with this post. Thanks a lot.  L. Neil Smith
>True, Congress has said that possesion of an unlicensed automatic  >weapon is a violation of the law.  Congress did not, however, say >that such possesion was a capital offense or a transgression worth >getting four good government agents killed and 16 others wounded.   Even if it were a capital offense, the warrant was not even an arrest warrant, but a search warrant.  In other words, there was no evidence of illegal arms, just enough of a suggestion to get a judge to sign a license to search for illegal evidence.
In article <1r6klv$64f@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >> In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes: >> >In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes: >> >>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works... >> > >> >Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid  >> >latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned >> >themselves to death. >>  >> 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? > >Funny, Brent, but so far we have heard two versions of the "facts:" > >1) What the government says.  This includes what the government says that >   two survivors have said. > >2) What Koresh's lawyer (who was actually inside the compound) says, >   including what he says that most of the survivors have said. > >Strange, but they seem to disagree in most important particulars. > >If anyone has actually seen news reports of any of the survivors >speaking first-hand, feel free ot pitch in.  I may have missed it. >But my money is that their story will sound a hell of a lot like >case 2, and not at all like case 1.  Since neither side would be particularly interested in telling the truth, you have to weigh the 'facts' given by each yourself, and weigh it with the newsreporting if you care.  Many cult members will probably side with the attorney, and if he is lying, change their stories to match his.  And if the Feds also lie, the cult members who become disillusioned will change their stories to match the Feds.    Neither sides are interested in the truth.  The Media is more interested, but usually either don't have the time to get it straight or tie themselves to the ratings and deliberately distort.    For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter.  I doubt the Feds did that as they were more interested in arresting Vernon.  The real unbalanced one (at least the one that lost his cool) was Vernon, so I figured that he was more likely to do it (after all he was Jesus  being persecuted by the authorities, and had followers to hold onto, so made the decision.  He and his followers also probably felt that they were rocketing to heaven by doing this stuff).  Thsi conclusion, I came to after umpteen million hours of listening to NPR and other radio shows (I always have the radio going when I am in my office on some innocuous talk-show or news program as background noise).
In article <1r00ug$d60@btr.btr.com> michaelh@public.btr.com (Michael Hahn  michaelh@btr.com) writes: >Pol Pot				100,000s Killed?  I've read estimates that Pol Pot killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million.  Drew
In article <C5y9x7.7v0@well.sf.ca.us>, seelowe@well.sf.ca.us (Hudson H Luce) writes:  >  I suggest another name change:  >    Thomas Parsli .... to .... Vidkun Quisling  This is really uncalled for.  You cannot expect a European, growing up in a culture of "rulers" and  "subjects," to immediately grasp the concepts of individual independence and citizen sovereignity in the US.  He's less at fault than the countrymen we have here who also can't grasp it. --
Well, I dropped by the library yesterday, and picked up back copies of the National Crime Survey (1986-1990) in an effort to examine what it said about self-defense with a firearm.        I haven't ground through much in the way of numbers yet, but a couple of things jumped out at me.  First only 1986 and 1987 specify the type of weapon used in self defense.  1988, 1989, and 1990 refer only to "weapon." The second is that while assaults rose about 3% from 1986 to 1987, w/gun defenses reported *fell* by almost 25%.  Unless there's an explanation for this, I'm tempted to mark it as a reporting problem, and as such going  ahead with any examination of the numbers would be a waste of time.        Anybody have an idea what might have cause a real difference, and not just a reporting difference?  The survey doesn't appear to have changed significantly between 1986 and 1987.
jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes: :An 'edu'er not towing the "party" line, thank you! : :Jim  You're welcome!  ;)  Actually, I'm probably something of an outcast, because I've committed the ultimate college-student heresy:  I'm not a liberal. (This is NOT liberal-bashing.)   Mike