waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr21.200151.4937@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes: > >                                     A BILL  > > To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and > >     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and > >     to provide for the enforcement of such right.  > In article <1qkshq$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) > writes: > [ ... ] > >Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right," > >I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.  > Hey, guys.  You're absolutely correct, and well on the way to winning > this battle ... and losing the war.  Yes, there are serious philosophical > flaws in HR 1276.  Technical ones, too -- how'd you like to sue the Feds, > lose, and have to pay _their_ "reasonable Attorney's fee" ... ?    :-)  > Still, I have one basic question:  compared to what we've _got_ is HR 1276 > (a) better, or (b) worse?  This one shouldn't even take you three guesses.  Compared to the Second Amendment?  I think it's worse.  The problem is, the devil is in the details.  You know, the Brady Bill sounds like a "good idea" too, until you discover that there is NO check, and that the police DON'T have to allow your purchase even if you check out, and that you have NO recourse if they don't.  Are there any loopholes here?  I'm no lawyer, I can't be sure.  I would have never noticed the second one mentioned above in the Brady Bill, for example.  The more words involved, the more details.  What was that saying about Abraham Lincoln requiring 200 words to free the slaves, and the modern Congress requiring 3,000,000 words to describe price controls on rice?  > If there's a good enough show of support for HR 1276, maybe for a change > _we_ could be the ones saying "it's a reasonable first step" ...  That only works with bad laws.  Good laws are like good computer programs.   Quality has to be written in from the start, not added on later. --
One of our ASU students needs data and or a copy or an article regarding  accidents, injury or death to "children" (articles which state the age  limits of "children") relating to firearms for a sociology report.   We have a copy of the long Edgar A. Suter, M.D. article and but we can't find  the Paul Blackman (NRA) "expose'".   Any articles (or sections thereof) which deal with comparisons over time,  locations, age groups, other reasons for accidents, injury or death, with  percentages would be welcome.   Please send same to our I.D. and node.
In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim)   writes: >  > papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod): >  >    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up? >  >    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide. >    No comparison. >  > Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey > are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and > kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate. > Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of > booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a > demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.  I beleive this was the source of the Kennedy clan's money. >  > So unless there's something I'm missing, I think your argument that guns > won't be smuggled because theyr'e more difficult to manufacture, smuggle > and hide won't wash.  If enough people want something, somebody will try > to supply it. > --  > Allan J. Heim   allanh@sco.COM   ...!uunet!sco!allanh   +1 408 427 7813 Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) [me! :-] writes: >                                     A BILL  >    > To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and >     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and >     to provide for the enforcement of such right.  ... in response to which ...  In article <1qkeo9$drg@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes: [ ... ] >So, you have the right unless the Federal Government says you don't. >I don't think I like this very much.  ... and ...  In article <1qkshq$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: [ ... ] >Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right," >I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.  ... and ...  In article <1ql3aiINN41c@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clement s) writes: [ ... ] >right mentioned in the bill is already established under the Second >Amendment; the bill should be reworded to reaffirm the Second Amendment   Hey, guys.  You're absolutely correct, and well on the way to winning this battle ... and losing the war.  Yes, there are serious philosophical flaws in HR 1276.  Technical ones, too -- how'd you like to sue the Feds, lose, and have to pay _their_ "reasonable Attorney's fee" ... ?    :-)  Still, I have one basic question:  compared to what we've _got_ is HR 1276 (a) better, or (b) worse?  This one shouldn't even take you three guesses.  If there's a good enough show of support for HR 1276, maybe for a change _we_ could be the ones saying "it's a reasonable first step" ...
In article <1993Apr20.220335.9235@linus.mitre.org> glover@tafs2.mitre.org   (Graham K. Glover) writes: > If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented  > and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >>  > (and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism <<  > absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite  > (which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?  Of course not.  The USA's only hope is for Yelsen (how ever you spell it) to   fail the referendum, and have the hard-liners take over again.  >  > Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply! >  > ---------------- > Graham K. Glover > ---------------- >  > UNMUTUAL  -- jmd@handheld.com
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.
wrote: : In article <1r6p8oINN8hi@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De : Arras) wrote: : >   : > I have not made up my mind about Waco, but there sure seems to be a group of   : > devoted government following fanatics willing to believe whatever that   : > government wants to tell them, without any shred of doubt, nor thought of thier : > own.  They sure get shrill whenever their belief structure is being shaken. : >  : > Kinda reminds you of the BDs, doesn't it? : >  : > Jim  : Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping : generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed to do? : Just let him be?   Yes.  Given the history of the BD's and the fact that they were just  peacefully minding their own business, I think this would have been the correct course of action in the very beginning.  Everything that followed was a direct result of the major media fuck-up that the BATF perpetrated just over 51 days ago.  :Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right : the first time.  : joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu  Yep, no doubt about it.  They should have just bombed those kooks right from the git-go.  Yeah, sure!  So much for any resemblence to an America that abides by the Constitution.  So much for feeling safe in your home.  So much for any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights being upheld.  Why bother?  They just get in the way of an effective government.  That is, a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.    Joe, attitudes like yours frighten me.  You have very few facts about what actually happened, and what information you do have came from a  single source, the FBI/BATF.  Yet you are more than happy to pronounce the BD's guilty-as-charged based on this one-sided testimony.  Scary!
If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented  and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >>  (and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism <<  absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite  (which it does), did the USA really win the cold war?  Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply!  ---------------- Graham K. Glover ----------------
Fellow Texans and Members of Crime Strike in Texas   Crime Strike in Texas has a loosely knit coalition with most Victims Rights Groups in Texas. We ask that you write a letter protesting the release of the following murderer.   This letter should be written to :   Raven Kazen - Victims Services Board of Pardons and Paroles P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station Austin, Texas 78711   The letter should be written if at all possible on RED PAPER as that was agreed on at one of our first meetings . It represents the coalition and all of its parts as well as the heart ache of those left behind and the blood spilled by these criminals. The letter should have only one name on it so it can be filed in the folder of that criminal waiting for his next try at parole.   List of Criminals:   Today we have only one parole to protest , On October 4, 1990, Mark Steven Hughes rendered numerous blows to the head of James Allen Pompa . Ten month old James went into a coma and died two days later.   On July 8, 1992, Mark Steven Hughes pled guilty to Injury to a Child and received a ten-year sentence. According to Texas law, Mark became eligible for parole on January 4, 1992 -- six months before he was even sentenced!   Would you join us in strongly protesting the release from prison of Mark Steven Hughes, who beat a baby to death .   Mark Steven Hughes - beat to death the baby boy of Russel Pompa -- Reference Mark Steven Hughes - TDC# 633546     Mark your envelope   "PROTEST LETTER" on the front and back.   A typical letter is indicated on the next page ---   THANK YOU VERY MUCH.   Irvin Wilson - Volunteer Crime Strike Texas     Date: April 13, 1993   Raven Kazen - Victims Services Board of Pardons and Paroles P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station Austin , Texas 78711   I protest the parole of Mark Steven Hughes TDC#633546, who, murdered James Son of Russel Pompa.   He should be kept in prison for his full sentence and not be released at any time prior to his full sentence for any reason.     Irvin Wilson Houston, Texas
From article <1r492jINN5fo@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, by nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish): > In article <1993Apr19.184303.6205@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes: >> >>both of my Senators, and my Rep.  I also called the White House >>comment line (was on hold for 8-10 minutes so maybe LOTS of people >>are calling).  Please call your Congress Critter/WH comment line NOW! >  > 	Just a general note, I have seen several polls lately and they > show a large majority (a) thinks that this incident was handled ok and > (b) thinks that the FBI and BATF gave them more than enough time (51 days) > to come out.  I take it that when something happens that is wrong it's okay if a bunch of people say it is?  For instance, if some people go on a murderous rampage and lynch some blacks and then a poll is taken which shows that the majority of people think that this is acceptable then does this mean that what these people have done isn't bad?  This is an example of mob rule not a democracy---a democracy in which people's rights are protected.  I hope that I've made myself clear on this.  >>Make the following points: >> >> 1) Your outrage over todays behaviour. >  > 	And what if I'm not outraged?  Fine...you have the right to hold any opinion that you want to.  But, let me ask you this:  are you outraged over this tragedy?  I hope that you are, your opinions of David Koresh and his followers not withstanding.  I know I am.  >> 2) Since BATF Chief Higgens AND Janet Reno were the 2 who "signed off" >>    on this plan, demand that they be fired! >  > 	Actually, they should both be commended...  Why?  I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.  >> 5) Point out that even if the fire was set by someone inside of the >>    building, it came as a direct result of the actions of the FBI/BATF. >>    And the people inside (including 17 children) deserved a trial, instead >>    of this. >  > 	What I want to know is what exactly did you expect them to do?  I > can see it now...the 11 o'clock news...  "FBI and BATF agents still > surround the Waco compound after 451 days..."  I don't think so.  They gave > them every chance.  They had 51 days to surrender to proper authorities. > They had attornies representing them, etc.  Koresh lied time and time again. > I don't wish them dead but you can't let it stalemate forever.  It was time > to do something and the FBI and BATF did.  What happened was unfortunate > but acceptable (as long as the FBI didn't set the fire intentionally). >  > --  > Michael G. Larish       | Amateur Radio Callsign:  KD6CTZ > nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu | Golden Empire Amateur Radio Society (GEARS) - W6RHC > California State        | Chico State Amateur Radio Society (CSARS) > University, Chico       | Butte County Sheriff's Search & Rescue - #317   Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot  Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets           the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets           [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me
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. Everyone knows that laws are constitional >until it goes to court. 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?    >--  >Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?" >Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'    	  >Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark >brians@atlastele.com           U
Rick Bressler (bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com) wrote: <forgot to leave in his quote source> : >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 is a part of the dept. of treasury, not justice.  If they needed to assault a place they could just do like the IRS does...call in the federal marshalls service, their fugitive collection teams do similar type assaults all the time.  And they are very, very good about it, in both the tactical and legal parts of it.  But I suspect that the marshalls would not have touched it, because the search warrant (which is still sealed I believe) was so bogus.    Besides the BATF also could have gotton SWAT teams from: federal marshalls service; FBI; secret service; national park service; texas rangers; nearby large city police forces; the military.  But they had to use their own guys, nobody elses SWAT team was good enough for the holy cause of gun control.     	I also find the timing of the raid to be extremely interesting.  Initial raid: two days before the NJ senate was going to overturn their "assault weapon" confiscation law; a couple weeks before the BATF's budget was going to come up in congress for review;  shortly after Reno got confirmed as AG (I don't need to remind you about her anti-gun line); right around the presidents 100th day in office.   As a wise man once said: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.    I don't believe that these four things are conincidental.  Do you?     food for thought...
In article <1qk3jm$9sh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members. >I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.  I've been a member of the NRA for several years and recently "joined" HCI.  I wanted to see what they were up to and paid the minimum ($15) to get a membership. I also sent the NRA another $120.
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.  Killed by handgun, or killed?  If I'm dead, I don't much care if it was by being shot or stabbed to death.  >: 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. >--  >Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com >Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o  I don't think you can get an accurate indicator of how safe England is compared to Switzerland by concentrating only on handgun murders and   completely ignoring murders by other weapons, not to mention the rate of other violent crimes.  If there are more guns in circulation, if follows that more people will be killed with them 'cause they are available to the person intent on committing a crime _regardless_ of whether they have to do it with a gun, knife, or bare hands.    The gun control lobby doesn't seem to understand this point.  If people are intent on committing a crime, they will do it with whatever means are available to them.
>If one reasons that the United States of America at one time represented  >and protected freedom << individual liberty and personal responsibility >>  >(and I do, in fact, think that this is true) and that totalitarianism <<  >absolute government control and tyranny >> represents freedom's opposite  >(which it does), did the USA really win the cold war? > >Standard disclaimers ALWAYS apply! > >---------------- >Graham K. Glover >----------------  The Cold War has not ended.  The only thing that has happened is that  the two sides have exchanged roles.  The USA has a higher imprisonment rate (400 per 100,000 population) than any country in Europe by a factor of 10 or so.  In California, it is over 600 per 100,000 population.  The prison population in California is now over 100,000, a quadrupling since 1980.  Most of these inmates were convicted under the drug prohibition laws.  Police now confiscate property, without trial, under a "good faith probable cause" standard, in the name of depriving the horrible ghastly drug dealers of their ill-gotten gains.  Conduct an opinion poll, and a majority will answer "yes" if you ask them whether civil liberties and due process should be diluted in order to Send Our Young People The Message That We Are Serious About Winning The War On Drugs.  I don't know whether anyone has measured such a figure among gun owners, but I would expect the same result.  They certainly seem to vote that way.  According to Jack Herer's book _The Emperor Wears No Clothes_, over TWELVE MILLION YEARS of prison time have been served under the marijuana prohibition laws, by people who were minding their own business and causing no harm to others (and less harm to themselves than users of tobacco, with 400,000 confirmed kills/year).  Under the "War on Drugs" campaign of "zero tolerance" due process protections have eroded, and mandatory sentences of ten years without parole have proliferated.  By and large, gun owners have voted for the politicians who favor such measures.  And now, all the precedents--not only legal, but political:  "My fellow Americans, we must send our young people the message that we are serious about winning the War On Murder"--are going to be applied to the oncoming wave of gun prohibition laws.  Gun owners are about to get a taste of the medicine they voted for believing it would be used only on those with different tastes in recreational drugs.  What goes around comes around.
I do not think it is at all unlikely that Clinton ro his policy wonk facilitators arranged the Waco raid as a display piece for  the Gun War on the Constitution.  Look at what the Bush administration did to get material for the Drug War on the Constitution--remember that baggie of crack George waved at the cameras?  They took a dealer from the ghetto and brought him to the White House so they could say drugs had been dealt onb the White House Lawn. And I don't think anybody could honestly think Clinton would have any moral qualms about the raid... The only really worrisome thing is that the BD's heroic defense of their ranch will make Clinton's Gun War on the Constitution _more_ successfull--exactly as he wanted.  The media and politicians will filter this so that the general public will think the BD's are bad guys!  Don't help them.  Stand up for the BD's with your friends and family adnd in public anytime you can--their supposed moral qualms are not important to the issue.  They are heroes in the fight against oppressive government;  it could just as well have been you. -watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu  (Brian E Watkins)
I will add my voice to the (hopefully) growing multitudes.  I hereby pledge $1000.00 towards the purchase of CNN, under the same conditions as already described.  I will also post this idea on the other nets I can  access (RIME and Libernet).  We may have to organize this ourselves, so I am looking for help.