waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1r1ito$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)  writes: >> 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. > >Check again.  You may find that the arrest warrant was issued AFTER the >first firefight.  The letter implies that both warrants were issued before the Feb 28th shootout but doesn't say so exlicitly.  ACK!
joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu wrote: > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths > who aren't deserved of it.  There it is.  The Constitution isn't for "sociopaths", only "normal" people, eh?  We mustn't allow our Constitution to be cheapened by applying it to everybody, eh?  You disgust me.
In article <7307@pdxgate.UUCP>, barker@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (James Barker) writes: > Could someone email me a USNail address for the NRA? I'd like to write them > a letter encouraging them to see to it VERY EMPHATICALLY that the 2nd > amendment is restored to the form that the founding fathers intended.  National Rifle Association 1600 Rhode Island Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-3268 1-800-368-5714 (membership)
In <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:  >Anybody for impeachment?  Yeah, me.  Both the Slickmeister and Hillary's buddy Janet say they're responsible... I want both their resignations on my desk  yesterday.  I also want both thier butts up on federal civil rights violations.... something which carries life in prison as a penalty.  Oh, and I'll contribute $20 to Arlen Specter's presidential campaign for having the 'nads to launch the Senate investigation.
In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes: >What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to >realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you >just make me chuckle -  Steve,      It's nice that you find me laughable but I don't quite understand.  Is it because you think my firearms clash with what I'm wearing, or that my NRA sticker isn't on straight? Please state your judgement!       I find it sad that people won't accept the responsibility to defend themselves.  And I laugh with the same contempt you have for me at the sheep who expect the government to protect them.  >What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and >showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from >originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a >sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the >first place! :)  You and your friends sound like a bunch of smug intellectuals.  >Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world >perceives you gun-nut morons.   Oh,   I guess you are.  I'm still waiting for you all-knowing academic-likes to solve the worlds problems.  Let us know when you have the answers or punch lines as this case may be.  >The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national >eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the >border.  So it's not a "Yankee" thing? Are Canadians actually as uncivilized as we Americans?  >Hell, here in Britain, the cops don't even carry guns.   Well if it's anything like here it wouldn't matter if they did; they wouldn't be able to use them.  >Hell, as I recall, in People's Court, even Rusty carried a gun! Never >know, some plaintiff might go nuts. :)  )  You shouldn't waste your time watching TV, Steve. It will corrupt your mind.  > >Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes >against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny! >You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples of >why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!  Ditto to you, Self Righteous One. Lay your derogatory tirade on thick, Steve.  Y'all can keep laughing and I'll keep feeling safe and secure.  > >Steve
Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but 500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure.  Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this world. We'd do well to emulate them on that and forget about getting more rifles on the street. Let's disband the NRA and start a National Investment Banking Association, replete with red and black sticker for the back window of Bubba's Mercedes 600! We could fire Charlton Heston and get Paul Volcker for a spokesman.
jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) writes:   >If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are >true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for >the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the >US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no >exceptions.   >Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive >in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?   Jason - I've heard the people who are talking about this dismissed as conspiracy nuts, but nobody seems to be talking about a conspiracy, at least at the beginning.  There were a lot of bad decisions that went into this tragedy, and some people may now be taking some serious evasive action to avoid being held responsible for the unexpected results of those bad decisions.  Actually, the only ones I see that are tied into a conspiracy theory are the ones raving about deranged cultists with stockpiles of weapons and suicide pacts.   >Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather >than stupidity?  I think there are a lot of us that have been following this pretty closely from the beginning, and we woud probably agree that this tragedy was more the result of stupidity than malice.
In article <1rhr7s$fg1@access.digex.net> carlaron@access.digex.com (Carl Aron) writes:  >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.  You can't think of any valid reason to own a gun that can't wait?  Either you have a very limited imagination or a strange definition of the word "valid".  Here are a few reasons you might want a gun *right now*:  You're a Korean greengrocer in LA and a riot has just started in a nearby neighborhood.  You've received a death threat.  Your SO has just broken your arm and you fear for your life if you stay with him and he's said he'll kill you if you leave him.  A psychopath is breaking into people's houses in your neighborhood and robbing and killing people inside.  A violent mugger is operating on the route you have to take to get to your night job.  There are lots of dangers you might be in that won't wait for the waiting period for you to purchase a gun.
In article <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes: >From: whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) >Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1 >Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:06:42 GMT >In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: >>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the >>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type >>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit >>shoot-to-kill directives. > >You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me. > > >--  >                            REMEMBER WACO! >     Who will the government decide to murder next? Maybe you? >[Opinions are mine; I don't care if you blame the University or the State.]  Well, it seems we don't learn the lessons of history do we?  I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson.  Apparently not.  Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.  --- Rawlin Blake    blake@nevada.edu
In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes: >hambidge@bms.com wrote: >: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes: > >: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous. >: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average >: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed >: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better >: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't. >:  >: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the >: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on >: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly, >: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching >: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK. > >: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL >: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population. >: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the >: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population >: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher >: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the >: latter.  Simple enuff? > >For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers. >Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier: > >			handgun homicides/population >			---------------------------- >	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000 >	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000 > >.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more >liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER. >Your choice.         If you want to talk "less likely to get killed with a handgun" you'd have a point.  "Safer" includes other things than simply handguns, and you can't conclude "safer" by ignoring them.         Now if somebody's got the total homicide rates...
In article 23303@husc3.harvard.edu, kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes: >  >  > From the Boston Globe, Thursday April 22 1993 >  > p. 44 >  > Walpole man, 32, guilty in rape >  > Kenne, N.H. -- A Walpole man > charged with kidnapping a > mother of two from her home, then > raping and beating her, has pleaded  > guilty.  Roger Santaw Jr. also plead- > ed guilty to an attempted escape > from Cheshire County jail last win- > ter.  Santaw, 32 is scheduled to be > sentenced next week.  The rape last > fall came six months after Santaw > was released from prision, where > he spent 15 years for a rape he commit- > ted when he was 16.  (AP) >  >  >   > [end of article] >  > Any reactions?  Did he do enough time?  What should his penalty > be?   >  > BTW, Walpole is a town in Massachusetts.  Of course, New > hampshire is close by. > J. Case Kim > kim39@husc.harvard.edu >       Some women might say, "Death".  How about "life, with no hope of parole"?
In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes: >In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his >troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time >that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to >standards at least as moral as the military's. 	Here! Here!  But any call for responsibility and accountability  	from police is invariably interpreted as being "soft on crime". 	Being "tough on crime" and building more prisons and seizing more 	property is the politically astute thing to do these days.   >Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children. >Government greed. 	And citizen complacency!  >It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions. 	Don't forget the politicians that write the laws that make it 	easy for the police agencies to become corrupt.  The War on Some 	Drugs brought us this corruption and only an end to it (legalization) 	will stop the corruption.
In article <1993Apr14.143825.13476@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes: > Alaska with 1 UZI, 1 20 rnd Magazine, and 1 BIG Polar bear @                                                  ^ I'd make that, "1 BIG, MAD, and HUNGRY with CUBS NEARBY Polar bear @..."  Drew
On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 03:52:11 GMT, Peter Cash (cash@convex.com) wrote:  > I just got through listening to the 10 o'clock news on Channel 4 here in > Dallas. They trotted out a list of justifications produced by the ATF after > "months of investigation" for their raid.   CNN just claimed he bought 104 "semi-automatic assault rifles".  And they say Koresh wasn't god-like...  He managed to buy or build a collection of fully-automatic semi-automatic rifles...  Quite a feat, I would say.  ;-)  They're still making charges of "sexual abuse" and such, or course. Nobody seems to have noticed that the Treasury department has nothing to do with sex crimes.  Or maybe the feds have recently instituted a TAX on sex crimes...  Yeah, that's why the BATF was there, looking for unregistered *guns* ("this is my weapon, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for...").  > I couldn't believe the junk on this list! For example, the BDs were accused > of stockpiling a bunch of "9mm and .223 ammunition that can be used in M15 > and M16 assault rifles". Imagine that--they had ammunition!  I also heard that they're claiming to be cautious because of Koresh's "heated ammunition stockpile".  I seem to recall that smokeless powder tends to decompose at even moderate temperatures.  I would be rather surprised, after a fire of that nature, if *any* of his "stockpile" is unexploded, or unburned.  > They also had > aluminum dust! (Yeah, it's a component of thermite, but so far I haven't > heard that it's illegal to take a grinder to the aluminum lawn > furniture...)  I seem to recall that aluminum powder is a common component of fireworks...  The folks on rec.pyro could probably tell you.  > The only thing on the list that could conceivably have been > illegal was an M-79 grenade launcher. (Anybody know about this?)  I think *anything* is legal if you have the proper license.  If he had a "curios and relics" permit, I believe he could legally own handgrenades to go with his launcher.  -- Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting Duke.
jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:    From psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell) on rec.martial-arts...    >I'm sure such weapons have been developed.  Our society does not,    >however, condone their possession or use.    Actually, Joe, I wrote the above.  Peter was responding to my article.  I'm actually rather confused by your post.  I suppose I didn't make myself clear, cause you seem to have gotten exactly the opposite impression from what I intended.  I suppose "the authorities" might have been a better term than "society".  Carry and use a firearm in many parts of the country (certainly the parts I live in), and expect, at the very least, to have an awful lot of explaining to do. And there is also appears to be  a trend in society at large that actively opposes what many see as their right to defend themselves.     In a few other parts of our society, handguns are banned or    so restricted as to be practically unavailable to the law-    abiding citizen for self-defense outside the home.  Funny,     though, how the criminals in such places continue to have a     lush supply of guns and no compunctions about using them.      IMHO, you don't need to be either a political philosopher or     a crime victim to realize that there's a flaw in the gun-    grabbers' logic.    Agreed.     You're welcome to your HO, too, the First Amendment being as     important as the Second, but please don't let your obvious     good intentions be subverted by insupportable generalities     about something as big and diverse as US society.  My only intention was to comment that the existence of suitable weapons of self defense doesn't mean you'll escape a whole shitload of trouble should you be forced to use them.     Or by the    naive hope that making gun possession a crime will give pause     to someone who would be a criminal anyway.  I made no such statements, nor do I have such a naive hope or outlook.          Wishing you peace and the wherewithal to defend yourself    if others' thoughts are not that kindly,  That's all I want: the opportunity to leave in peace, or to  have the means to defend myself when that in not possible.  I *think* we agree on this issue.  I guess my position didn't survive the transition from cognition to ASCII.
arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:  >Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement. >Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive >decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the >weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things. >(Can you say "neutron flux"?)  	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?  >  Plus these things have no self- >defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as >a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use >(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration >(translation:  cities and population centers).  	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.  They won't be too useful in certain areas, but leveling the Pentagon would be a "good thing" for said overthrow and it's likely one man carrying a backpack would stand a better chance than one thousand armed with Colt Peacemakers.  Don't let self-defense become the only reason you can have a gun and your sole means of justification. Myself, I won't overthrow my government until it ceases to be my legal government, but if I need to I want every weapon I can get.  	One can just as easily say no rifle larger than a .22 is needed to kill a human being.  They are right.  When that human being is wearing armor and riding in an APC, things get a bit different.  I don't see where the weapon is a problem.  It's not. Only the manner of use is in contention here.  >  Not to mention that >for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live >requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .  	I guess you either don't have an alarm clock or have never heard the terms "timer" or "martyr" either.  Don't forget remote detonation devices.  That CB radio in the pickup next to you can easily transmit ten miles in decent weather.  That's out of the blast radius of many portable nuclear devices.  	Just what is it about radioactive decay that has you worried?
As quoted from <C5J5IM.3C9@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> by rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat):  >  > |	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area. > |	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production > |	would have to be local. There are not all that many people > |	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile > |	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could > |	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and > |	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would > |	pay through the nose for it.  >  > This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very > serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were > of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness > machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we > have a road system that is the envy of the world? >  If anybody wanted proof of the nonsense of the "you can't build guns" claim, they need look no farther than the Philippines.  Amateur gunsmiths there regularly produce everything from .45 automatics to full auto shotguns.  Now if this guy wants to claim that the Philippines is either technologically superior to the US or that their transportation is better than ours, all I can say is that he's living in a fantasy world.
Just saw on CNN that the independent team that examined the Waco fire and reported that it was started inside by the BDs is now under question.  The attoneys for the BD's are claiming that it's not an impartial team for the team leader is the wife of one of the BATF agents. HA!  The goverment continues with it's propaganda.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -	This is not a secure line.                                       - -	Daniel R. Oldham			oldham@heron.icd.ab.com  -
In article <C5yCou.M5B@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope) wrote: >  > From article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>, by  (): >  > >  > > I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup > > and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear (sic) olds.  >  > So out of the numerous baptists that you hang around with you haven't > seen any of the above behavior? Which trait (stocking food for more > than a week, or owning a firearm) is the definition of a cult? What > proof ( aside from David's aquittal ) leads you to believe that any > "banging/marrying" of thirteen year olds was going on? Does your > wife know that you equate 'marriage' with 'banging'?  (sic) Oh, you're really bright. As if nobody would have understood it was a typo.  Several parents with children who either had at one time or currently were inside the compound made the aforementioned charges. One parent actually spoke about said charges (in reference to his 13-year old daughter) WITH Koresh on the phone.  You missed my point entirely.  >  > > You're a sorry > > son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things. >  > Since this guy doesn't like the concept of freedom of religion, he's > going to insult you AND your mom!  Since you're unable to formulate a cogent response, you make a lame joke.  >  > > People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend > > sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the > > paranoia. >  > Sociopath - person with asocial or antisocial beahavior. > Sociopaths - 200 persons, all who can't stand other people, sharing >              the same ranch-house.  Anti-social. Normally meaning a response against societal norms. Stealing is sociopathic behavior. It's not an oxymoron to have a GROUP of SOCIOPATHS. I guess you're NOT a psychologist. Oh well...  >  > > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu >                                 ^^^---It all suddenly becomes clear.  Maybe YOU should get an education, my man.  >  > Why does everyone discover the Net in the spring?  Why won't some assholes use a sig so I can send them mail instead of wasting bandwidth?  >  > 	Random >