waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
From article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu: > You are loosing. >  > There is no question about it.  >  > Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter > how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.   Only irrational fools such as yourself are set against RKBA.  There are *plenty* of people who support it.  > This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your > RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.  The government will be overthrown *long* before that happens.  A *huge*  millitia composed of all available men and women who care about their country will defeat the forces of the evil Klintonistas.  The people *will* prevail!  Oh, so you think armed citizens alone can't overthrow the government? Consider this:  do you think *all* law enforcement officials and members of the Armed Forces will turn against the people that they are entrusted to serve?  Not hardly.  You can count on a lot of people in the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, National Guard, police officers, and so on joining in the cause to defend the liberties and freedoms of American citizens.  COUNT ON IT!  THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DISARM EVERYONE WITHOUT STARTING A CIVIL WAR!  > You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of > cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you > can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it.  >  > The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against > you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it ! >  > Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect  Wrong again.  People will just hide their guns so these "officers" (more like jack-booted stormtroopers) will not be able to find them.  > them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time. > Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an > immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.   They will unless they are idiots.  They will realize that if they don't then they will be *next* including you.  Believe me if what you describe happens they will be coming for *more* than guns.  Disarming citizens would require that everyone's cherished freedoms and liberties be suspended temporarily.  More likely, they'd never be restored unless the *people* do something about it.  > Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions > are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will > be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...   Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot
mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell) babbles from Scotland, one of England's last remaining colonies:  >Are you for real?  >People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's >jesus deserve all they get  People who were dumb enough to believe Klinton was a moderate deserve what they get too.  It's a real laugh to hear them try to justify this massacre with bullsh*t about how concerned they were about how our tax money was was being spent.  (Wasting money keeping Texans alive?  Hell no. let's spend it to import Haitians with AIDS so we can treat them at taxpayer expense.  %^P  )  >Anyway, he killed a few feds  So what?  The Feds killed 90+ civilians when they "ran out of patience", to use their own phrase.  If the Feds hadn't attacked them, they'd all be home eating  dinner with their families tonight.  Too bad, but they started it.  Maybe next time they'll think twice.  That's worth 4 stormtroopers.  >He's not the goddam hero here  Nobody says he is.  What he was was a victim of a left-wing government, that violated its pledge to protect and uphold the Constitution, run amok.   Don't worry, though dweeb, we're gonna take it back.  (Hey, I'm a white guy, but would it be OK if I quoted Malcolm X here, and said "by any means  necessary"?  Nah, never mind.  We can do this legally...  >He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!  NO, you're just a brainless f*cking trogladyte.  Go beat up some soccer fans.  Ignorance is bliss, so drool on with that stupid smile on your  face when people die needlessly. I hope a badger climbs up your kilt.  (Don't expect these UKies to care about this, folks...  these bastards never did like the idea that we Americans had the means to defend ourselves  and wouldn't stand for tyranical governments, which is why we sent them packing  back to their dreary little island with their tails between their legs twice.)
In article <C5u7Io.uMw@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes: > >Try the firearms archive.  Larry Cipriani's instructions follow.  By >the way, thanks for the archive Larry..  There are a few bills not yet in the archive, but these are the main ones we need to fight.  And thanks to David Robinson for scanning so many of them in for us!  The subdirectory bills are stored in was moved from "congress" to "Congress", that is:  godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu:/usr0/anon/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/Congress
In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu>, () writes:  > 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?  You're sitting in your home reading a good book.  Your neighbors think you're a quiet, upstanding citizen.  A random person anonymously calls  the authorities and tells them you beat your children, sleep with all  the neighbor wimmen, and own a bunch of "nasty 50mm machine guns."    Now what are they supposed to do?    > Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right > the first time.  Ah, I see.  They're supposed to send 100 men in horse trailers with automatic weapons, storm onto your roof, and throw grenades at your  house with no warning.  Then, after subjecting you to noise torture and telling the national news media for a month what a filthy son of  a bitch you are, they're supposed to gas you and knock your house  around a bit until they manage to collapse it, cause a fire, or  something equally conclusive.  Hope your neighbors don't tumble to this -- at least none of them that might have a craving for a ringside seat at some cheap but dramatic  local entertainment at someone else's expense.  Or maybe even PARTICULARLY at your expense.  At least they won't have to read you your rights, Joe -- obviously you had no use for them anyway.  > joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu --
In article <1qicep$obf@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes: >> In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >> >As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already >> >ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v. >> >Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what  >> >the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back >> >as the Dred Scott case, in 1857. >>  >> It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction >> of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun >> was not a proper militia weapon.  > >No, they noted that no one had CLAIMED that it was a proper militia >weapon (despite having been used in at least two wars).  This was true, >since neither Miller nor his lawyer appeared before the Court.  Did they or did they not sustain Miller's conviction? I don't have the text of the case handy.   Yes, shotguns had been used in WWI, the Spanish-American War, and the US Civil War. That was not in question. The possession of a sawed-off shotgun was, i.e., a weapon altered to improve concealibility.  >> Therefore, US vs. Miller supports limited government regulation of  >> firearms. > >Don't go arguing down this road unless you are willing to abide by  >the consequences that you find at the end of it -- mainly, that the >law-abiding common man has a right to own any weapon that has a militia  >purpose, from handguns to sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons. >That, in fact, is what this decision says.  You are free to produce evidence that I'm not willing to abide with all the implications of this.   Just because I don't whole-heartedly endorse the NRA position does not mean that I oppose the RKBA. This attitude is what makes the NRA unpopular.
In article <1993Apr20.151131.8531@news.uit.no> paale@stud.cs.uit.no (Paal   Ellingsen) writes: > In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com>, Jim De Arras writes: > |> Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  Humans died   > |> yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the   actions   > |> they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  >  > ....the question is: for how long? Even if the FBI had done nothing, I guess   the  > BDs would have committed suicide, but maybe not until hunger and thirst gave   them > the choice between sucide or surrender.  > The BDs was warned in beforehand about the FBI action. They HAD the chance to > surrender and get a fair trial. No matter who started the fire, the BDs were  > responsible for 80+ peole dying. No one else. >   This is, of course, your opinion.  I differ greatly.  There can be NO doubt the   FBI at least shares in the blame.  > --  > ============================================================================ > Paal Ellingsen       | Borgensvingen 67/102 | Tlf.: 083 50933 > paale@stud.cs.uit.no | 9100 Kvaloeysletta   | DATA = Dobbelt Arbeid Til Alle > ============================================================================  -- jmd@handheld.com
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / steiner@jupiter.ca.boeing.com / 12:07 am  Apr 15, 1993 / >douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes: >[...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...] > >> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic  >> bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack? > >last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.  Also, you need to consider our legal system.  Since any of these things CAN be lethal, you are going to have a hard time explaining why you applied  lethal force when you DIDN'T think it was necessary.  (If you thought lethal force was necessary, you wouldn't be using rubber bullets, would you?) Ouch.   If you are justified in shooting them at all, you are justified in using  the best self defense ammunition you can get your hands on.  It might actually IMPROVE the legal outcome.  This is why hollow points hold up in court.  They are safer for you, safer for innocent by standers, (don't as a rule go through the perp) and actually safer for the perp.  If you are using military hard ball, you may have to  shoot him 'MANY' times, where one or two hollow points might stop him and  do the job.  As a rule, the fewer wound channels, the better the chance  for his surviving the incident.
In article <93110.165704U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >In article <1993Apr19.203606.27625@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, >andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: >>Wrong - there are people who can legally carry concealed in IL and >>there are circumstances under which MANY people can carry concealed. >> >>Is accuracy really too much to expect? > >As I said before no it isn't.  In another post I referred to the Illinois >statutes and how I looked up the law for concealed carry.   I will type in the >complete law and post later  but I would like to prove that I was correct using >accurate information so I will put sections down here now.  Good - now let's look at those sections.  They'll prove my point.  >     (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.  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
In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes: >In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >> >>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv  >>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their  >>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas. > >This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the >fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you >want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night >in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes >out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke >and then fire? > >Do tell. > >  -joe  Not to mention that the story was rewritten today. Those two BD's who "admitted to starting the fire", forget 'em, they don't exist anyone. Today, "a few saw someone starting a fire" and "our aerial surveillance showed them starting fires" at this morning's press conference.  Tomorrow, even this excuse may evaporate. A reporter pointed out that a BD being brought to arraingement shouted that tanks knocking over lanterns started the fire. Curiouser and curiouser.
Re: More on Gun Buybacks  The Denver buy back, trading guns for Denver Nuggets tickets was pretty much a bust. Very few guns were turned in. The news tried to hype it but  when the best they could do was ".... including a loaded .38..." well, you get the picture.  A side note- the news also reported that the guns would be checked for whether or not they were stolen. STOLEN GUNS WILL BE RETURNED TO THEIR OWNERS!!!!! (They say)  (Does this have anything to do with the rally on the Capital steps yesterday  in support of the RKBA????)  Even the rally made the 5 pm news on 3 channels :-)
J. Spencer (J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk) wrote: : manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:  : >Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote: : >: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental : >: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK : >: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population : >: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted : >: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the : >: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as : >: > many people with baseball bats.  : [snip]  : If you examine the figures, they do. Stabbing is favourite, closely : followed by striking, punching, kicking. Many more people are burnt to : death in Britain as are shot to death. Take at look and you'll see for : yourself.   It means that very few people are shot to death in Great Britain.
The FBI released large amounts of CS tear gas into the compound in Waco.  CS tear gas is a fine power.  Is CS inflammable.  Grain dust suspended in air can form an explosive mixture, will CS suspended in air form an explosive mix? Could large quantities of CS have fueled the rapid spread of fire in the compound?   Please note I am directing all followups to talk.politics.guns
In article <1993Apr15.201756.29141@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:  >In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes: >>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal >>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information, >>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes >>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.) > >>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information >>stored in the card. > >Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting >kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have >known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet. > >Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to >argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument >that it disclose public info.         As perhaps some insight into how this sort of thing works, the local college newspaper had a big crusade to have the U.T. police release crime stats.  (The school claimed that to do so would violate federal education records privacy laws).  They swore up and down they weren't interested in student discipline records, only for stats so people could make an evaluation of how safe the campus was.         It was barely a week after crime stats were released before the Daily Beacon had an editorial calling for student disciplinary stats to be released, because they complained certain segments of the campus population were treated administratively rather than turned over to the police and therefore the criminal states weren't accurate.         What people say they want public today may not be what they say tomorrow.
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu /  6:26 am  Apr 14, 1993 /  >	The vast majority get through life without ever having to >	own, use or display a firearm.   I suppose that depends on how you define 'vast' majority....  You are correct about 'majority.'  Somewhere between 1 out of three and  one out of 10 will at some period in their lives experience a violent  assault.  The risk is generally higher than emergency medical problems like heart attack and stroke.  'Vast' is probably too loose a term.  With approximately 1,000,000 Americans using firearms each year, over a 30 year period we get (roughly, since some may have to do this more than once) 30 MILLION Americans with experience in  using firearms for self defense.  30/250 yields 12 percent of the population. (Yes, I know that is a REAL rough estimate.  We're closer to 270 million now,  but many of these are minors and should be included etc, thus the percentage if anything is low.)  At any rate, most minority groups in this range are not usually referred  to as 'tiny' minorities, so I don't see how the other part of the group  can be referred to as the 'vast' majority.  A little more work might  support a 'simple' majority of Americans never use, own or display a firearm.  Certainly when you are talking about OWNERSHIP you are wrong.  Nearly half of your fellow citizens own one or more firearms.    >	                               Besides, there are other >	means of self-protection which can be just as effective >	as firearms.   Please provide a list of other means that are as effective.  Then you might  convince your local police departments to switch.  Good luck.
croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) writes:   > 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).
On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to tear gas, the first thing that came to mind was the location of the exit.  If there had been anything in the way, corners to negotiate, doors to open, or  any other obstacles to movement, I would have had a difficult time exiting the chamber.  And any concentration of tear gas is hazardous to individuals with respiratory problems, and the wearing of soft contact lenses in a tear gas  contaminated area is considered a REAL BAD IDEA.  So hoping the BD's would peaceably come strolling out the door after being gassed is a bit unrealistic. If they could have found the door, having them staggering out retching wouldn't be too far fetched.  Throw in the factor of 50-51 days of being under siege and subject to psychological warfare, and all bets on functional abilities are off. Anybody tried to get Amnesty International to jump in on this one?
>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun- >> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?  There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year. The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500 fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably well under 250 per year.  >>If you fall, for example, >> and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.  Handguns designs have included a "hammer block" since around 1960 or earlier. This is a metal part which physically seperates the cartridge and the firing pin: Even under impact, the gun cannot fire. The hammer block is connected to the trigger and is pulled out of the way as the trigger is pulled. As a result, modern pistols can fire _only_ if the trigger is pulled (or  in some cases, if they are cocked by hand and then dropped.)   >> The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of >> deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.  I don't know about animal attacks, but there are 23,500 murders  each year and under 500 die in the manner you suggest. If only 2.1% of the murders were killings by "wacko"s, you would be wrong. Worse, there are also 102,500 rapes and 1,055,000 aggravated assaults each year. These numbers make violent attacks, and  preventing them, thousands of times more significant than the accidents you are worried about.  (These figures, by the way, are from the FBI's "Uniform Crime Report" for 1990. I'll stop by a library tomorrow and look at the "National Crime Victimization Survey", which is more specific about where and when the crimes occured.)
In article <1993Apr15.165952.25970@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >In article <1qibs0$flk@vela.acs.oakland.edu> awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley) writes: [ ... ] >>Actually, there was only one confirmed sniper to >die< in Detroit, >>according to Sauter & Hines, _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion & It's > >What sources did Sauter and Hines use?  In Congressional hearings >later, the newspaper folk admitted that their reports were completely >wrong.  (Some of their excuses are understandable, while others amount >to gross negligence.  Then there's their "we lied".)  As far as I >know, they never did the followup.  This, BTW, is normal behavior for newsie's.  The followup isn't "news" ...
rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:   >|>Would somebody please post evidence that the gun control act of >|>1968 is "a verbatim transcription" of a nazi law?  >|The "evidence" is that the two laws are basically identical. >|However, that's not evidence that one is a copy of the other.  >|There's no evidence that the 68 GCA's authors used the nazi law as a >|guide.  Yes, they ended up with roughly the same thing, but that comes >|from their shared goal, disarming those menacing minorities.  >I thought the same thing too, until JPFO's RKBA article  >in the latest Guns & Ammo >at the newstands. This article makes it certain that Sen. Thomas Dodd >(D-MD?) back before 1968 definitely asked for a translation of the  >German weapons laws back then. Read the article, and see what you think >of JPFO's argument. They note that Ted Kennedy and John Dingell are >among the three of the originals left from the 1968 stuff, and they >are asking that folks request of John Dingell that he introduce  >legislation to lift GCA '68, something which I would support whole- >heartedly!  >|-andy