waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1qvjh9INNh4l@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)   writes: > NUT CASE PANICS!!!!JUMPS THE GUN ON THE NET BEFORE GETTING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!  I really don't understand all this!  I watched on satellite network feeds as   perhaps 90 people died before my eyes, while the two Huey's fanned the flames,   and the FBI stopped the firetrucks at the gate.   Something was VERY wrong with that scene.  Perhaps if I'd watched RAMBO movies, I might've been dulled to the pain of   fellow humans dying.  Thank GOD I still feel.  I'm very sorry for you who don't.  For you who think   they got what they deserved.  Can you really believe that?  Even if Koresh was   the sadistic mad man they said he was, did the others deserve his fate?   If,   in fact, he was mad, wasn't that even more reason to believe he duped his   followers, and therefore they were innocent, brainwashed, victims?  Is there   any scenaro that justifies all that death?  And if not, it is clear that the deaths would not have occured if the BATF has   not FUCKED UP initially, and now the FBI got impaitent and pushed Korech over   the edge.  And that's if you buy the latest version of the "story" hook, line, and sinker.    I have believed all along that they could not let them live, the embarrassment   to the BATF and the FBI would've been too severe.  Remember, this was a suspicion of tax-evasion warrant.  There were no   witnesses, except the FBI.  All information filtered through the FBI.  All they   had to do was allow one remote controlled pool camera be installed near the   building, and the press could've done their job, and would've been able to back   the FBI's story with close up video, while incurring no risk to the press.    Unless they did not want the public to see something.  The complete lack of any   other source of information other than the FBI really causes me concern.    Sick to my stomach, and getting sicker from all the Government apologists -- jmd@handheld.com
Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.  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.  1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at some time before the Feb. 28th raid?  2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.  3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?  And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.
>Be as cooperative with the police as possible! Show them where you were. >Repeat your information as often as requested. They will often ask you the >same questions over and over to verify facts, and ,unfortunately, to see >if your lying. Fill out all statements and show all required identification >and weapon permits (BOOO! Down with registered citizens!Register your  >politicians as deadly tax weapons needing to be confiscated!) If they are >required in your state. Contact a lawyer immediately if they decide to >
Those of us who questioned the mass suicide line may still have  wondered, "If it wasn't suicide, why did so few get out?"  The  answer is now available - the gas the government had been pouring in on them is so disabling that its use in wartime is banned by the chemical weapons treaty.  The U.S. had agreed not to use this gas against enemy soldiers in wartime, but used it in peacetime against civilians, including  nnocent children.  For confirmation see Friday's CLINTON:AM press briefing by George Stephanopoulous, posted in alt.news-media and other locations. (When questioned about it, his reply was that the treaty did not forbid its internal use by law enforcement agencies.    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This posting from Stephen F. Austin State University's ANONYMOUS account.  Please report abuses to newsmgr@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:  > I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors, > but here goes: >  > Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT >  >                     MURDER  MOST  FOUL!! >  > CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all > the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The > lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear > gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up. > ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that > the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit > napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. >  > THIS IS MURDER! >  > ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!! >  > THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN! >  > I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see > it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was > still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left > alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won. >  > I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**! >  > God help us all. >  >  > PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN! >  >  > W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.  The latest news I saw was that two of the eight known survivors (not NO SURVIVORS!!! as you so rudely put in all caps) said they started the fire.  I won't go on with the things the wacko of Waco did.
Few simple points:  Leadership: You are responsible for all that your                        subordinates do or fail to do.                      Law: Any deaths that occur as a result or during the                        commision of a crime are a felony against whoever dies                        during the incident, and whoever committed the crime                        establishing the incident is chargable for MURDER ONE.                        This is how criminals are charged with murder for the                        deaths of bystanders from police stray rounds and such.                        Someone dying of a heart attack is also considered a                        murder one, if it is in a situation caused by a crime.
In article <Apr15.032620.75908@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes: > >What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. Would >those work very well in stopping an attack?  Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired from something that looks like a tear gas launcher.  There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity (the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-)
I was shocked to see that the subject of my last rely to awesley was "Luser!"  That was certainly not my intention.  I meant to leave the subject line unchanged.  I believe that the NNTP server I use at columbia must have put in that subject line in protest over problems with my header.  That was rather rude of them, but beggars can't be choosers, I suppose.  In any case, I didn't do it and I apologize to awesley for the apparent insult.
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? --
In article <1993Apr23.050442.149681@zeus.calpoly.edu>, sparker@tuba.calpoly.edu (Sean Lawrence Parker) writes: >  > I just caught the last bit of the street stories segment on  > woman and guns.What caught my eye was that two woman were > shown on the program in mass. and both were carrying  > concealed. Can you obtain a CCW in mass.?( for the ordinary citizen )  CCW's are issued at the discretion of the police chief, so it varies town by town.  In my town, forget about anything more than "target and sport" (carry to and from the gun club / hunting area only) unless you're Mr. Moneybags with Large Daily Deposits.  ("Your life isn't worth shit, but your money -- now, that's important.")  In other towns, they treat law abiding citizens like adults.    Secret game hint: you never know when the rules will be changed -- a change  in police chief can throw a town from either side of the board to the other -- fun for the whole family!  Some chiefs will grant you a "personal protection" permit if you have been attacked or threatened.  Some other blue-suited assholes have been known to  count this as a NEGATIVE against applicants.  It's a crap shoot, and your rights are the stakes. --
For those of you interested, I just finished talking with a  representative of Senator Bob Krueger's reelection campaign about his  position on the RTKBA.  Krueger was appointed by the  Democratic Governor  of Texas to complete Lloyd Bentsen's unexpired term.  The representative said that Senator Krueger did not have a position and  would only comment on specific legislation that was pending.  No comment  was available on the various versions of the Brady Bill.
In article <1993Apr19.162137.1306@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) says: > >In article <C5KsE0.5px.1@cs.cmu.edu>, tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes: >> In article <1993Apr16.022926.27270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>                       U >fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.ED >(Frank Crary) writes: >>>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. >>> >> Which works fine until you end up in the hospital because you were hit on >the >> head and your wallet, with your insurance card, is stolen.  This happened to >> me, and it took six months to sort the mess out.  These sorts of plans sound >> nice at first, but in the end they just create a lot of paperwork and >> bureaucracy to deal with all the checking and filing they involve. >> >>                               Tom the non hacker > >Whoa!  Have a care what you say, Tom.  The _obvious_ answer to that problem >is to tatoo your National I.D. Number on you -- say, your forearm -- so you >can never leave home without it.  Hell, it worked once before... > >And that brings us back to my original, sarcasm-laden post:  where's the >outcry from the liberal sector over the National ID Card?  My God, if some >conservative had proposed this -- plus Clinton's "National Police" proposal >-- the liberals would be shrieking "Sieg Heil!" and "Police State"! > >You self-styled liberals ought to be ashamed of yourselves.  Hypocrites!
In article <1993Apr23.044544.24559@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:  This is where Freeman's love of accuracy becomes really ridiculous. > >Good - now let's look at those sections.  They'll prove my point.  [his point was that it is possible under certain circumstances for many people to carry concealed in Illinois] > >>     (a)  A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he >>knowingly: >> >>(4)  Carries or possesses in any vehicle or CONCEALED on or about his person >>     except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business >>     any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; > >Note that this doesn't affect all concealed carry.  (Look after the >word "except".)  It always helps to read the law before commenting on >it. > I did read the law before I commented on it.  Judging from replies I received about my "Semantics on t.p.g" post many (if not most) people here on t.p.g assume that when CCW laws are asked about the person is asking about the possibility of an ordinary citizen getting one.  It would also follow that said person would get the CCW to carry on his/her person away from their home and/or business.    >Would a prudent storekeeper carry concealed?  How about someone at >home?  Note that both are legal, and a lot of "common" people qualify >for one or the other. > >-andy >--  Maybe Freeman did prove his point but his point is not relevant.  The thing that most people seem to care about when they ask questions about carrying a concealed weapon is whether or not they can carry it concealed on their person when they are out on the street somewhere.  I'm sure that not many people are concerned with whether or not they can carry concealed at home. Speaking as someone who lives in Illinois (the only place where the above quoted law is relevant :-)) I know that it is legal to own a handgun here (I am not taking into account city ordinances).  I could care less about whether or not I can carry concealed at home.         I only care about the fact that I can't carry concealed in the place where it really counts- out on the street. Freeman loves to be accurate and I can understand that (especially not) but he seems to be forgetting that accurate facts don't always replace common sense. I am not going to followup to this thread anymore because I believe that it is useless to argue these points anymore.  The only thing that is happening now is that Freeman and I are "running around in circles" trying to prove each other wrong and I do not have the time to be playing games anymore.  Of course now Freeman will attack me about my use of common sense in some of my earlier posts but what can I do.  My only advice for Freeman - quit being so picky about accuracy sometimes and use your common sense; it really does work some- times.
In article <1r1173INNajc@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>  dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes: >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.  It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search warrant AND an arrest warrant.
In the interests of completeness, I thought readers of these  newsgroups would want to see FBI Director William Sessions' statement, as released by the FBI press office.   FBI Director's Statement On Waco Standoff  To: National Desk  Contact: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Press Office,           202-324-3691     WASHINGTON, April 19 -- The following is a statement by  FBI Director William S. Sessions regarding the Branch Davidian  incident in Waco, Texas:
> >Actually, now we have established that I don't believe what you believe, as >well as why I don't believe it.  And if it's boring, then I yield the last >word to you, if you want it.  You may say anything you like with >impunity--I am dropping the subject. > >--John L. Scott
I have been convinced of the right of AMericans to an effective  self-defense, but something strikes me as odd among the pro-RKBA arguments presented here.  The numbers comparing hundreds of thousands (indeed, even a million) of instances of law abiding citizens deterring criminal activity, seem valid to me.  Likewise the number of gun-caused homicides each year (about 11,000/year?).  However, it is surprising that the "Evil AntiGun Empire " (Darth Vader breathing sound effect here) never tries to compare "All legitimate gun defenses" vs. "All gun crimes."  Instead,  it's always "All legitimate gun defenses,"  which includes cases in which the criminals are shot but not killed, and cases in which the criminal is not here, vs. just  criminal gun homicides, which only includes case sin which the victim died.  Why is this?  Of course, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that in each crime already measured (involving guns), the consequnces are already known and it is safe to assume that a gun-based bank robbery last week will not suddenly turn into a gun-basd robbery+homicide.  Whereas in the legitimate gun defenses, one may assume that all those criminals who were deterred would have committed more crime or more serious crimes had they not been deterred.  -Case Kim
As a minor point of interest, earlier news reports claim to have been quoting the Governor of Texas when Her Holiness referred to the Dividians as _Mormons_ and called for their expulsion from TX. Any Texans have details?
In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: [deleted] >The University cops here (who are >are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most >state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live >in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news >and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here >than there.  Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper and only option available to the law-abiding citizens?  A factoid:  56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings there eh?  :-)
In article <C5tKI1.C8s@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes: >Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have >done their job well.  Just want to make a comment on this.  If you live in this country long enough, you should realize the media is no friend of the govt.  I am only concerned about fact that the media like to jump to conclusion before the facts.  But I am sure they are good in digging dirt as well; afterall, they like the controversial events, which of course make news.
In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: -> In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes: -> > But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large -> > group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people -> > every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can -> > be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it  -> > requires a continually standing committee of organizers.   ->  -> 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.   > 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."  And I have also stated that a militia that meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right" to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated by Hamilton.
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).          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.  I don't expect gung-ho opposition on the part of Senate Republicans, since they won't want to over-use their fillibuster trump card.
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. >  Did you forget to put in a sarcasm flag?