waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
CNN just reported the ATF and the FBI have begun killing everyone in the United States. A press release stated this action was required because bugs had revealed that many people were doing something illegal in their homes, and statistical data indicated that those who weren't might someday do something illegal. An ATF spokesperson, just before he shot himself, stated that "this would clean up things once and for all".  If the citizens can be gathered into groups of more than 100, the FBI has indicated they will "burn them, just like we did those kooks in Waco".  It hasn't been decided how the new proposed "energy tax" will enter into this, an IRS representative stated "We're looking at the tax code to determine if taxes really end at death. With this many dead Americans, we don't want to overlook anything". An ATF agent ran into the room, and shot her.
In article 1r1lp1INN752@mojo.eng.umd.edu, chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV) writes: >In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes: >>Does a "not harmful" gassing mean that you can, with a little willpower, >>stay inside indefinitely without suffering any serious health problems? >> >>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam? >> >>What IS the difference, anyway? > >CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that >your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but >you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies. > >Chuck Harris - WA3UQV >chuck@eng.umd.edu >
In article <C5qEqv.1px@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes: [Posting the text of H.R. 893 ...] [ ... ] >8         "(s)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to pos- >9   sess an assault weapon, unless the weapon was lawfully [page break] >1   and continuously possessed by the person since before the  >2   date of the enactment of this subsection.  OB ill-wind-and-all-that:  with Bill the Prez in there, at least the anti-gunners are out of the closet.  The provision that any existing so-called "assault weapons" die with their current owners was worked into H.R. 3371 (102nd Congress bill number) a couple of years ago, in a complicated way that the anti's claimed was a "drafting error."  Can't call 'em "lying bastards" any longer.  (Not all the time ...  :-)
>Ron Miller wrote: >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer >"no, it's total amnesty".  (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)   I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is  no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing.
In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes: >> >>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. >>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day >>> in Texas. >> >>Do YOU eat all your food cold? > >Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular. >Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.   Brent, the Feds turned off the BD's electricity a couple of weeks ago...    Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the radio, TV, or newspapers,  though.                    --
jeddi@next06pg2.wam.umd.edu (Anheuser Busch) writes:  >This argument sounds very stupid.. if the ability to make guns from  >"simple metalworking" was easy,  then Drug dealers would make their own   >wouldn't they???.. why spend hundreds of dollars buying a gun that  >somebody else made cheap and is selling it to you at an  >exorbitant markup???... The simple truth of the matter is, that regardless  >of how easy it is to make guns, banning guns will reduce the   >the number of new guns and seriuosly impede the efforts of a   >killer intent on buying a weapon....  >To show why the tools argument is the silliest i have ever seen.. take an  >analogy from computer science... almost every computer science major  >can write a "wordprocessor" yet we(comp sci majors)  would willingly pay 3    >to 400 bucks for a professional software like wordperfect... why don't we    >just all write our own software???...... Because it is highly    >inconvinient!!!..  >Same with guns... secondly.. how does one get this gunpowder for the   >"home made gun" ??? Take a quick trip to the local 7-eleven???.  > If guns were really that simple to make... the Bosnian muslims would  >be very happy people (or is it the case that metalworking tools are  >banned in bosnia??? (deep sarcasm)  ).  >  >well this is my two cents..  >   i will now resume reading all these ridiculus post from people  >     who must make their living doing stand-up comedy. ** END OF FORWARDED MATERIAL **
In article <1993Apr23.034910.23729@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:  [many lines deleted] >>subject.  It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up >>the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on  e >th >>gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part. > >Actually, those of us who have experience with social workers pointedly >ignored it.  Ah, here Freeman is being prejudiced (look it up and see what I mean Freeman). Here Freeman is pre-judging someone before he knows all of the facts.  Guess it can happen to the best (and in his case the worst) of us.  > >Quit while you're behind, >-andy >-- Freeman thinks I am behind when actually I am quite on top of things.  The point he seems to be missing now is that after a certain point accuracy can be very tedious and ridiculous.  See Freeman's next post for an explanation.
Today the Texas ME found two people, a man and a woman shot in the head inside the burned compound. But these were not the people that the FBI described a few days before. The FBI said that the person found in front of the compound had been shot and several children were also. The two people found today were on top of the main inside concrete bunker that provided the most protection during the fire. So the comment that children were shot is still not proved.
In article <FINN.93Apr20102525@dalek.ISI.EDU>, finn@ISI.EDU (Greg Finn) writes: >  > 	I am bothered by the suggestion of child abuse that Janet Reno > used several times last night, both on and off Nightline as a de facto > justification for approving the raid.  If that is to be used as a > justification of potentially lethal force attack on the compound, and > doing structural damage can fairly be called that, then that evidence > had better be quite strong.  That seemed to be on Ted Kopel's mind > last night. >  > 	Reno stated that they had evidence of child abuse.  She would > not say what it was.  Koresh's now ex-lawyer was inside the compound > repeatedly and told her to her face last night that he saw plenty of > happy children playing with their mothers and no signs of child abuse > whatsoever.  No brooding silent children, no apparent bruising, and so > on.  Her reply to this was that child abuse is not always as evident > as that.  True, but what better evidence could the FBI have had?  At > this point it seems difficult to see how the FBI could have had better > evidence than that seen by Koresh's lawyer who was an eye witness. >  > 	Having lived in LA and seen the media and authority feeding > frenzy that accompanied the McMartin Preschool debacle, I have seen > just how hot a button a child abuse charge can be.  Child abuse has > been used before by authorities as a justification to discard prudence. >  > 	I find Janet Reno's repeated assertions of evidence of child > abuse rather curious.  Wasn't the warrant issued for a supposed > weapons violation?  That certainly had nothing to do with child abuse. > Are we to assume therefore that new evidence of child abuse arose > after the issuance of that warrant and the initial assault?  If so, I > fail to see now how that new evidence was gathered, and how it could > be better that on-site eye witness evidence. > -- > Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511 > Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292  On TV news this morning it was reported that the local Texas authorities who have reviewed the cases of the 21 children who were released earlier in the siege have found no evidence of physical or sexual abuse of any of the children.  I don't recall if this was on Good Morning America or our local Texas TV station.
In article <1993Apr21.175441.22582@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes: >[Followups to talk.politics.guns only.] > >In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares >writes: >>In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John >>Lawrence Rutledge) writes: >> >So, a person who keeps a gun at home is 43 times more likely to die, >at home, from a gunshot than he or she is likely to kill an intruder. > >Sounds like apples 'n' oranges to me. > >In any case, has anybody tried to make the obvious counter-study? > >What are the numbers for someone who does not keep a gun at home? >That is, what is the ratio of dying-at-home-from-a-gunshot to >killing-an-intruder, for people who do NOT keep guns in their homes? > >So, what are is the ratio of unarmed people shot to death in their >homes v.s. unarmed people who kill intruders?  Is it worse than 6 to 1? > >Inquiring minds want to know.  I don't know this specific ratio, but I do have an earlier post that says a gun is 33 times more likely to defend someone (including the times where the gun isn't fired, just scares the perpetrator away) than it is to kill someone. (including self defense)  The post is kind of long, but I'll be glad to dig it up and email it to anyone who asks.  Doug Holland  --
Relay of coverage seen: ---------------------- There was a press conference by authorities at the compound on CNN earlier  today (Wednesday).  It was explained that two news photographers were found  on the compound earlier this morning without permission.  It was explained  to the press corps. that this is dangerous and that an unknown photographer  turning around with a long lens camera could be mistaken for someone dangerous  by a Texas Ranger surveying the site. (!)    The two photographers were said to be currently in jail and  the press were warned to follow the authorities' guidelines.   It was also emphasized that the survey of the "crime" scene at this  point was crucial and that the press could not be allowed to interfere. The press will not be allowed in until the bodies are removed and the  site has been completely surveyed for evidence for a court case.    That is the gist of the beginning of the conference to the best of my  memory.  I bring this up because I haven't seen anyone else note it  and I haven't seen the regular newscasts mention it.  It will  probably be mentioned in the papers tomorrow.  My opinions: ----------- I find this disturbing.  While I believe that Koresh is largely  responsible for not ending this standoff in a peacable manner during the  last 51 days of patient opportunity, I find the secrecy surrounding the  aftermath more damaging to the authorities' position than they realize.  Since the vast majority of potential defendents in a court case are  already dead, the emphasis on the importance of building the court  case seems overblown to me.  It will be interesting to see the hearings on this affair.  I have also  heard congressional calls for a review and possible overhaul of government  enforcement agencies which you will recall I have stated would be a good  idea in previous months.  Please also note that I by no means endorse  or agree with the many  conspiracy-type theories I have read here and in other groups.  As usual,  I am basing my opinions on info gathered from various media and filtered  by my own common sense and consideration of plausibility, IMHO.  As such,  my opinion is subject to change as more information is made available.   Scott Roby                                                Standard Disclaimer
In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent   Irvine) writes: > In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.   Tavares) writes: > >In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael   Frederick Rhein) writes: > > > >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. > >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm   day   > >> in Texas.  > > > >Do YOU eat all your food cold? >  > Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular. > Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.  Brent shows his ignorance once again.  Power had been cut for weeks.  And he's   never lived in a rural area if he thinks electric stoves have favor there.    They stop working when the power fails, and power restoration come MUCH slower   in the country, than the city.  LP gas stoves and ovens are very much prefered.   >  > --  > <><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > <>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <> > <><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>  Jim  -- jmd@handheld.com
In article <22APR199317092767@zeus.tamu.edu>, mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:  > >David Koresh's lawyer seemed to think that everyone *would* come out > >peacefully sooner or later.  The FBI and ATF had NOTHING BUT TIME ON > >THEIR HANDS!  Why did they have to escalate the situation and cause > >this senseless tragedy?  Their job is to protect the public and SAVE > >LIVES NOT KILL PEOPLE for crying out loud. >  > 	Koresh had lied and lied and lied about coming out of the > 	compound. To the FBI. To his lawyer. To just about everyone.  I keep hearing this, but every assertion of this form has come from government sources except two.  As far as I am concerned, I am not ready to stipulate that Koresh EVER promised to come out except for his first promise and his last promise.  The first promise was conditional on his audio tape being given  NATIONAL exposure.  Well, it never was -- it was broadcast locally, in a chopped-up fashion, and that's all.  And even then, they cleverly  cut it off when it got to the part where he demanded "national exposure," but not so cleverly that we didn't hear it.  The last promise was conditional on the finishing of his manuscript. We'll never know if he would have kept that one.  > 	The FBI etc. can't wait forever for Koresh to come out. As > 	long as they thought that Koresh's intended to surrender  > 	peacefully. When they lost hope in that, they decided to go > 	in.   Strangely enough, the previous day they said they were prepared to "wait as long as it takes."  >	Further, while the Mondays tactics were silly and clumsy, >	they were obviously intended to drive the Davidians out of the > 	compound, not to kill Koresh and his followers.   Quite possible.  But arguments of intent do not mark the dividing  line between guilt and innocence -- only the line between murder and  negligent manslaughter.  > 	*If* it is true. *I* read in the paper that the government  > 	listening devices inside the compound picked up orders to  > 	burn the joint down shortly before the fire was started. I'm > 	waiting to see what the tapes really hold.  This would be an interesting development.  > 	The Davidian may be telling the truth, or he may be lying > 	to save his skin from possible murder charges resulting from > 	the blaze. Koresh's lawyer, being the attorney for at least > 	one surviving Davidian, has an interest in claiming that > 	the gov't caused the fire, at least as much as the gov't > 	has an interest in blaming Koresh for the fire. It's the > 	physical evidence that will decide who's telling what.  It's too tempting for one or more of the survivors to "go state's evidence," parrot the FBI story, hang the whole "suicide" on Koresh,  claim they only stayed at gunpoint, etc.  If any of them do this in the next few weeks, it doesn't prove much; but if none of them do, it would be a strong indication to me that the FBI story is dead wrong. --
In article <1993Apr17.082102.4155@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes: >In article <KCKLUGE.93Apr16155756@krusty.eecs.umich.edu>, kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:  >>  >> ...and I'm sure that people who were big fans of fuedalism pissed and >> moaned about the emergence of the modern nation-state. Imagine, the King >> allowing serfs their freedom if they could live in the city for a year! >> Times change, technology changes, viable forms of social organization >> change. While concerns about preserving Western notions of civil liberties >> in the face of cultures with very different values is a valid one, it's >> a waste of effort to try to turn back the tide. It's much smarter to focus >> on trying to make sure that the emerging forms of social organization are  > >	Your response is yet another sign of the trend towards One World >Government.  Many people such as yourself, who are otherwise probably >likeable and intelligent, show every sign of having been successfully >brainwashed.  You don't recognize that your "inevitable tide" is rolling >into chaos and in no way represents an advance for civilization.  Some >of us do indeed "lament the passing of old forms", such as the Bill of >Rights, which are indeed inalienable rights of man that cannot be >changed, transferred or surrendered...rights of man that far transcend  > >	Yes, Napoleon wanted a Grand New Order.  Hitler wanted a >Thousand Year Reich.  Lenin knew that Bolshevism would give us the >Universal New Man.  The New World Order is just so much of the same >old tired garbage.  The pathetic part is that so many Americans seem  "Put not your trust in princes" is the Biblical proverb.  The modern analog is governments.  At the time of the founding of the US, the idea that citizens had rights above those of the government was not that common, but was explicit in the writings of the founders.  To a considerable extent, Englishmen also had those rights.  Yes, times change, and technology changes.  The possibility of  a few governments enserfing all of mankind was not possible until quite recently.  In the feudal system, the lord was almost as restricted as the serfs, so having the people enserf themselves does not make anything better; most feudal lords, and even most slaveowners, did not mistreat those under them.  Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under real attack NOW.
ACLU Official Policies.  Policy 18, for example, opposes rating systems for motion pictures: "Industry sponsored ratings systems create the potential for constraining the creative process and thus contracting the marketplace of ideas. Despite the stated goal of providing guidance to parents, experience has shown that ratings inevitably have serious chilling effects on freedom of expression."  In regards to the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU states in its Policy 84: "The insertion of the words `under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of Church and State."  Policy 120 states that, "Military conscription under any circumstances is a violation of civil liberties and constitutional guarantees." The ACLU objects to the draft even during wartime because of the "anti-democratic power it gives government to wage war without support of the people."  Policy 125 states, "The ACLU calls for a broad-based inquiry into war crimes within the widest possible definition of war crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace, focusing upon the actions of the United States military and other combatants against the people of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam."  Policy 133 states, "The ACLU recognizes that US government reliance upon nuclear weaponry as a dominant element of foreign and domestic policy, while propounded as a defense of democracy, is in fact a great threat to civil liberties. Four decades of adherence to this policy has fundamentally altered the nature of our constitutional democratic process and poses a paramount threat to our civil liberties."  Policy 217 objects to roadblocks "where drivers are stopped for sobriety tests" because they "violate Fourth Amendment principles."   Policy 242 states the following on criminal sentencing: "The most appropriate correctional approach is reintegrating the offender into the community, and the goals of reintegration are furthered much more readily by working with the offender within the community than by incarceration. Probation should be authorized by the legislature in every case; exceptions to the principle are not favored, and any exceptions, if made, should be limited to the most serious of offenses, such as murder or treason."                                  Bill Vojak                                 vojak@icebucket.stortek.com 				NRA, ILA,                                 Colorado Firearms Coalition ------------------------------------------------------------ The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!) The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
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?   Also, the state of Virginia, I believe, just passed a gun control bill on Febrauary 25 of this year.  I think it limits gun purchases to one a month - is this correct?  What was the bill number?
In article 3890@rpp386, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu> blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes: >>I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson. >> >>Apparently not. >> >>Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still. > >That's right.  Despite claims that someone at Kent State fire a shotgun >at the the soldiers, the only projectiles that anyone can prove where >sent in the direction of the soldiers were rocks. >--  >John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh >Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org    No firearms were ever ever shot at the National Guard at Kent State.  At the time of the shooting, no rocks were being thrown at all.  The squad was slowly proceeding up a knoll, away from the body of students.  Some students were taunting them, and photographs of the incident show at most one or two students who were following and taunting.  The series of photographs show the squad slowly proceeding up the hill, while occasionally their NCO, .45 in hand turned back to look at where they came from. All at once, as if on command, the entire squad turned and fired their M1 Garands, firing 30.06 rounds into the crowd (the NCO can be shown with this 45 at full recoil).  At least two of the students shot had nothing to do with the taunters... they were only passing through, and were not participants in the confrontation.  There is some dispute whether the Guard was even legally on Campus... apparently they had not been invited onto the state school by the president, who had conveniently flown the coop, so as not to be around.  The governor of Ohio, James Rhodes, had just embarked on a senate campaign, and wanted it to be known that he was tough on peaceniks, so had ordered the guard in.  The matter was quickly covered up.  Some years later, wounded survivors launched a civil lawsuit against those responsible... a settlement was made, and under the terms, the plaintiffs could not discuss much, and guilty individuals were not identified (in fact, those shooters in the squad have been identified).