waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu>, blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes: > In article <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes: > >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. >   Hmm... For more recent lesson what about that little square in China?  Another lesson might be the one repeated every year in Tibet...  And of course there's always El Salvador...  And the beat goes on and on...     :^(  MESSAGES FROM GOD:  GET OFF YOUR ASS!  DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!  AT ANY TIME!  FOR ANY REASON!  -THE SCREAMING MAN       CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!!!  Ministry, TV Song
In article <93112.230800MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: >In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, >>From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound, >>the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane >>tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.  >Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places? >In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?  According to an AP report (from Texas, written by Jaime Aron) this morning, in addtion to the gas pumped in by hoses from CS generators, canisters of tear gas were thrown into the building from armored vehicles, one of the canisters hitting a man inside in the face.  This was in the part of the article *before* going into differences in the stories told by BD survivors and the gov't.  Tear gas canisters *used* to be able to start fires...      --
In article <C5t2IC.DC@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:  > >>Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people  > >>come out with their hands up several weeks ago.  > Now will you answer my question up top?  A suggestion: cameras panning over planted automatic weapons, followed by a show trial and medals all around for the valiant forces of Lawn Order? --
In article <1993Apr23.072224.13478@mixcom.mixcom.com> you write: # # Which Article of the Constitution gives me the right of revolution if things # seem to be going cockeyed?? # # Hmmm... # -- # Peter G. White, President, Synthesis 93 Inc. # Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. # Peter.White@mixcom.com
In article <199304160443.AA25231@sun.Panix.Com> justice@Panix.Com (Michael Justice) writes: }Dillon has published a letter in the Blue Press telling people }"How to Bankrupt HCI" by requesting information from them. } }Last time this idea went around in rec.guns, a couple of people }said that HCI counts all information requestors as "members". } }Can anyone confirm or deny this? } }If true, what's the impact of HCI getting a few thousand new }members?  Last I heard, HCI had something like 250K members to the NRA's 3 million. If true, and they want to play duelling mandates, well ...
good job to whoever posted the article.  I'd been saving that NYTimes edition for a while, planning to ytpe it in myself, but now I don't have to.  For all of those people who were worried about whether or not the media would even question the raid, we owe it to the NY Times (despite their rabidly anti-gun editorials) for  being willing to talk to these 4 BATF  agents.
In article <66767@mimsy.umd.edu>, tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes: |> johnston@cyberia.win.net (Robert Johnston) writes: |> >> |> >>How 'bout we embed the `card` in the forhead of everyones skull ?  |> >>Can't lose it without being already dead (ergo, no need for treatment). |> >> |> >Close, at birth we implant a smart chip just behind the ear under the skin but |> >above the skull.  We incase it in a hypo-allergenic high carbon content |> >glass.  This chip would be reprogrammed as we age with the pertinent |> >medical, correctional, taxational data.  Behave yourself or we'll  |> >input it into your permenant record. |>  |>      You forgot the part about encasing it in a small shaped charge so that |> if anyone tries to tamper with it, it explodes and kills you. |>  |>      Oh, and the shaped charge can be set off by remote control...but only |> if you get out of line. Properly patriotic citizens have nothing to fear.  At Algor's insistance, the shaped charge will automatically detonate after thirty years, a la "Logan's Run," in order to maintain population control.
In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:  >Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms >'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable.        Not provable.  It's about as "provable" as the number of votes vast for Bill Clinton in the last election.  If you accept the information available, you can prove one way or the other.  If you refuse to accept it, nothing is "provable."  >I think that that >there are actually *few* cases where this is so.         Fine, support your assertation.  But, you haven't supported any assertations just yet.        The National Crime Survey, that secret Arm of the NRA, estimates between 40,000 and 50,000 with-gun self-defenses from assaults, and is considered to considerably under-report.  When broken down by weapon, there is no form of "self-defense" including dowing nothing which is more effective at avoiding injury or death.  >The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary >opponents ...  those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who >would argue with you about a parking space, those who would >take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.        Ok, support *this* assertation.  Hell, support *one*.  >Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.         That's nice.  >In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.        That's nice, too.  >The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.         Why on Earth should we?  If you're correct we've nothing to lose by continuing to argue against it and everything to gain.
In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes... >In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes: >>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is >>next?  The Mormons or Jews? >  >The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a >propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly >concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?) >  >Be thankful that the BATF standoff at least got some of the kids out before >the cult committed mass suicide. >   	Dont you believe that the Branch Davidians committed suicide for one minute. I would not put it past the FBI to lob in some incendiary grenades while they feed your their story. Don't ever ever trust what your wonderful government tells you. Janet Reno and the FBI have the murder of a hundred people on their hands. Hope they can sleep at night....  P.Vasilion, kb2nmv SUNY @ BUFFALO <<STD.DISCLAIMERS>>
The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start violence.   When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back. But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.   If the BD were violent they would have held the ATF agents as hostages.  They would not have released them like they did.  If they had kept the agents hostage they could have used them as bargening chips for medical attention etc.   A big thing is being made of the BD collection of weapons but no one has shown that they had any plans to use them.  It is also apparent that the BD did not have any military training.  If they had, they could have dug bunkers and trenches and increased their fortifications.  They could have shot out the lights and speakers.  It appears that the BD were not violent, they shot back at the attacking ATF agents out of panic.  There were shots fired on the last day but they were in response to the FBI attack on the compound with armor.   All the violence in Waco was initiated by the federal agents, not the BD.
Ever since the siege at Waco started the FBI spokesman has been stressing how unstable and paranoid David Koresh was.  He stressed how likely it was the the Branch Davidians would commit mass suicide.  He was concerned with the safety of the children.   What did the FBI do to defuse the situation,  Did they try to reassure Koresh?  DId the FBI offer medical assistance to the BD?  Did the FBI offer them a supply of water when the BD pump stoped working?  Did the permit Koresh to communicate with anyone outside the compound?   What the FBI did was harass the Branch Davidians as much as possible. They kept powerful lights shining on the compound, shut off their electrical power, put their pump out of action, assaulted their ears with loud noise, cut off their communication with the outside and kept limiting their permitter.  The stated goal was to put pressure on David Koresh.   Was the FBI attempting to get Koresh to surrender or were they hoping to get Koresh so mad that he and some of his followers would attack the the tanks.   It appears that the tactics employed by the FBI did drive Koresh over the edge.  The blame for the deaths should be shared by both the federal experts whose tactics drove Koresh over the edge and the fools at the ATF who planed the raid.   Stupidity and incompetence of the BATF and the FBI leadership have resulted in the needless death of 90 innocent people.   If every thing had gone as planned 90 people would be alive today. Instead the ATF screwed up and caused the death of 90+.  Incompetent law enforcement can kill you!
In article <OAF.93Apr21181038@klosters.ai.mit.edu>, oaf@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Oded Feingold) writes:  > Look at history.  Rep Leo Ryan (and some staffers) visited Jonestown, > at the request of constituents who had relatives there.  Once > Jonestown was discovered, and even though they killed Ryan and his > entourage ... they all killed themselves, because Jim Jones knew he'd > be busted...  > The only way to prevent such a problem would be never to investigate > reports of child abuse or sexual mistreatment, or organizations buying > full-auto conversion kits or shipping hand grenades via UPS, on the > off chance of stumbling across cults that would kill themselves. ... >  > So, the only way the BATF/FBI could "save" those people, and future > cults, is by ignoring such signs.  The paucity of this line of argument is that it is provably false.  Texas state officials COULD and DID investigate child abuse charges. They COULD and DID apprehend Koresh peaceably.  The COULD and DID impound his weapons for the duration.  And Koresh was NOT CONVICTED.  Note that child abuse and similar accusations are STATE matters, not federal.  The state COULD and DID handle them properly and peaceably, and furthermore violating no one's constitutional rights in the process.  So maybe the best way for BATF/FBI to save people is to mind their  own fucking business. --
Two URGENT requests:  1. I need the latest update and description of MA bill S-897.  From    what I gather this bill takes the Hunter Safety Courses from    Law Enforcement and places them under Fish & Game control.  2. Has someone out there compiled a list of all MA Senate & House    Bills under consideration?  If they have, please e-mail me    the list.  If not, is there a database I can access?  	Thanx, 		Yours in the fight, 		Mike P.  P.S. My wife and I thought Nancy B. was great on Street Stories.
bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:  >Small arms rounds set off outside of a firearm pose little risk except >possibly eye injuries and minor wounds.    True.  >Large concentrations of ammo, >or 'magazines' (not the type you insert into your semi auto) probably >pose a larger risk, but mostly from heat and flame.  (This is also >covered in the above reference.)  No more risk than smaller stashes unless the stash is somehow confined so the heat from early ignitions could somehow bulk-heat the remainder.  Two  years ago this month my house and office burned.  In my office was my reloading bench.  On the top shelf next to the wooden ceiling was  about 100 lbs of smokeless powder, 5 lbs of black powder, several thousand primers and a couple thousand loaded rounds, primarily in .45ACP, .30-20 and .308.  The fire was extinguished before the area containing the  reloading supplies were fully involved.  There was about 1/2" of char on the joists, subsequently removed by sandblasting.  Lots of heat in other words.  None of the powder kegs ignited.  One 1lb can of pistol powder ignited. No explosion, as the can opened at the seam as it was designed to do. The black powder cans were charred and got so hot the plastic lids completely melted and ran down inside.  The smokless powder was contained mostly in 8 lb cardboard or metal kegs.  The kegs were charred badly enough that the paper labels burned completely off and in the case of the metal cans, the plastic lids melted completely away.  Many of the rounds cooked off.  They were in close proximity to wood on all sides so the effects were easy to observe.  In most cases with the rifle ammo, the cartridge cases ruptured in the middle.  Many bullets were found still in the neck.  Small shards of brass were lightly stuck into  the wood.  Lightly enough that brushing them with a fingertip would usually dislodge them.  Primers generally popped out of the primer pockets. The .45ACP rounds that cooked off left empty cases and bullets laying around. No dents were observed above the storage area, indicating the bullets left the cases slowly enough not to be a hazard.  Ordinary small arms ammo is NOT a hazard when cooking off regardless of what the FBI says.    John
In article <1r1j1l$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: > In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes: >  > Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right. >  > You sick bastard. > --  >  > cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company, > OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet... >   Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said  that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  However it was the Branch Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior"  (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that  what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and for many of the rest of the U.S.  I am however sad to hear of the death of any  child unlike the sick bastard I supposedly am.
In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:  > >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day   > >> in Texas.   > >Do YOU eat all your food cold?  > Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular. > Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.  And they work especially well when the Feds have cut off your utilities. --
Paul Prescod pontificating:   PP>State.EDU (Cathy Smith) writes:   PP>>     Libertarians oppose BOTH waiting periods AND background checks  PP>>-- or ANY prerequisite for exercising rights that are supposed to  PP>>be guaranteed.   PP>Let me get this straight.  Unlike the other idiots in this newsgroup,  PP>you actually support anybody having unlimited access to guns,  PP>inclucing criminals.  (or would you prohibit them from owning them,  PP>but not from buying them?)   PP>You are a supreme idiot.  You make the other idiots look like Mensa members.  Thanks Paul, for yet another fine example of the holier than thou gun control mindset. Why don't you add something intelligent to the debate, like maybe nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah. ---  . OLX 2.2 . Fight crime..... shoot back!
>>>>> On 21 Apr 93 11:28:57 -0800, yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com said:  > Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork > to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves > while watching the TV coverage. >  > Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well. >  > Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are > a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute. >  >  >  yodicet> yodicet> yodicet>  Hmm. You don't say..  L. "Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_  I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)  Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\   (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <>
On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before the raid.  This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property; any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.  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.  Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children. Government greed.  It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions.
In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:  >In article <C5t14M.Ku2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes: > >Now, notice, it says *arms*.  Not guns.  Arms. > >The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate >possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just >as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as >any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos. > >Support your right to keep and bear short range nuclear weapons.  It's >a legitimate and challenging sport.       Good. Another liberal converted by Waco!  If Dave had had something      realistic, there would have been none of this "Bradley" vehicle      crap.
> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) >  > >RM:Just a short thought:  > >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback > >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer > >"no, it's total amnesty".  >     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy  > back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can  > you get if you leave paper trail behind?  In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver Nuggets basketball game.   How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)  Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?
hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:  >The possession of nuclear arms (actually weapons grade fissionables) is >currently regulated only by market forces.  I.e.:  To own them you have to >either make them, buy them or steal them.  The only thing that stops you >is the staggering cost (more than most nations can afford), the fact that >no one who has them wants to sell to you and the tight security maintained >on existing stocks. (Just ask Saddam Hussein).  I was under the impression that to obtain fissionable materials (i.e., plutonium or reactor/weapons-grade uranium) one was required to obtain a federal permit to own such materials.  >Given a source of fissionables, you can build a bomb in your garage with >parts from hardware stores and electronic junk supplies.  You might have >to engage in some shady dealings to get the explosive charge, but that's >trivial compared to getting the plutonium.  The basic information on the >design was declassified years ago and can be dug out of any technical >library by a physics grad student.  Actually, why bother looking it up?  From the material we covered last term (in 10 weeks) of Ge/Ch 127 (Nuclear Chemistry), I could *derive* what it would take to build a bomb.  And as far as the explosive charge, I (as a chemist) could synthesize a variety of explosives from commonly available chemicals in the garage if I felt like.  The electronics  behind the detonator and the shaped charges are a little trickier, however . . . but not impossible using a few "tricks of the trade." And if I really wanted to be nasty, I could include a core of  hydrogen and deuterium . . .  Of course, the hardest part is getting the fissionable material to start with, and living long enough to put a bomb together.  (Plutonium has some *nasty* properties . . .)  >The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com) >Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                      Laws define crime. >3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483       Police enforce laws. >Santa Monica, CA  90405                            Citizens prevent crime.
In article <23APR199314304189@rigel.tamu.edu>, mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes: > >	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't  >	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?  From what I saw of the videotape, there was an explosion which looked more like one due to propane rather than (official version) ammunition.  >	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know >	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until >	the hard evidence is released. What about you?  If only we could be certain that the hard evidence will be released.