waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes: >        (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT. -- A person not pro- >    hibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm shall have >    the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use fire- >    arms in defense of self, family, or home.   So, you have the right unless the Federal Government says you don't. I don't think I like this very much.  This would be much better if it said "everyone except those who have been striped of this right by due process of law" or some such thing.  Also, I don't care for the Federal Government stepping on states rights regardless of which state right is being stepped on.  If the constitution doesn't give the Feds some power then they have to just shut up about it.  The only way the Feds should have anything to say is if the Constitution prohibits localities from infringing on the RKBA.  In which case this bill should just reiterate that the RKBA is guaranteed by the Constitution and that the Feds will take appropriate action if it is infringed.
In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:   >I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors, >but here goes: > >Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT > >                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!! > [...] > >THIS IS MURDER! > >ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!! > >THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!         Well, chalk one up for driving away sympathies by looking like a paranoid lunatic.   > >I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see >it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was >still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left >alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won. > >I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!          Last I heard there were nine.  Apparently as of this point they've found no bodies, except those killed during the initial assault a couple of months ago.          Be cute if Koresh hit the trail.          Maybe he was bodily assumed into heaven.  Wouldn't that just make AG Reno's day?
In article <C5MzyK.E7G@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes: > >No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed >is defined as: >	To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath,  >	an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate. >	To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach. >This definition implies the following of some form of existing  >agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance.   The rights guaranteed by the Constitution were considered to be pre-existing.  The only agreement was that they exist.  Therefore, no law grants such rights. Laws can only guarantee, protect, or infringe such rights.   Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged  1986  infringe   1.a. to break down:DESTROY     b. DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE     c. CONFUTE, REFUTE     d. IMPAIR, WEAKEN   2. to commit a breach of : neglect to fulfill or obey : VIOLATE,      TRANSGRESS      vi : ENCROACH, TRESPASS  infringement   1. the act of infringing : BREACH, VIOLATION, NONFULFILLMENT   2. an encroachment or trespass on a right or priveledge : TRESPASS                                       ~~~~~    Now, by what stretch of the imagination do you get your ideas about infringement of rights?
In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >In article <1r1j3n$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >>In article <1r19tp$5em@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes: >> >>> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. >>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day   >>> in Texas.  >> >>Do YOU eat all your food cold? > >Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular. >Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.  Ever hear about cutting off the electricity? That was done. How effective is an electric stove then?
|Question #2  |As I understand it, in Evanston, IL, they have a ordinance banning handguns. |Is there any way to get around this provision?  Why don't you call the City and ask? Oak Park also has an illegal handgun ban as well, but does allow those with a "collectors FFL" to possess ("collectible?") handguns.  |What would the penalty if you were found out be?  Probably a fine in practical terms.  |What if you used said handgun in a defensive shooting in your apartment  |there?  How would the city law apply to your impending  |trial for the shooting?  It wouldn't impede your defense at all. There was an actual incident in Oak Park where a gas station owner engaged in a shootout with a handgun; the grand jury decided not to presecute. On the other hand, a black man used an illegally owned handgun in Oak Park to defend himself, and the Village tried to make an example out of him. An NRA Director who lived there made a stink about this, and it was decided not to charge the guy. Of course, pissing off anti-gun police thugs has it's own drawbacks, like when the Oak Park Police Chief came to his house, and told him: "this is stepping over the line; this could get dangerous for you." Whereupon the few black Oak Park police officers watched over his house to ensure that the white anti-gun police chief and his anti-gun cronies wouldn't f*ck with him, his home or family.  |Also, what is IL state law concerning short barreled weapons?  Short barreled |shotgun is what I would be interested in if a handgun were not available,  |either that or a shortened 9mm carbine (ie Colt, Marlin).    L.V. Cipriani states that the "Any other weapon" category is allowed, but the exact relationship between an Ithaca Auto-burgular, which I believe is in the "Any other weapon" category and a chopped barrel H&K HK-94 (Class 3 for sure) is not clear to me...  |One more thing, what is the chance of getting a CCW permit in IL without being |rich or famous or related to the mayor?  In your dreams, buddy. As long as Democrats reign in Chicago, Illinois residents will always be disarmed and helpless in the streets. Politicians get around this by provisions in the law that allow them to carry concealed weapons. Voters in Chicago are too stupid to vote these a**holes out of office; because the Dems are always in power, the Illinois  Supreme Court is always tilted to the Democratic Party's views on guns. [All candidates supported by political consultant David Axelrod are anti-gun, which explains anti-RKBA Crook County States Attorney  Jack(ass) O'Malley being a so-called "Republican."]
I have NEVER spoken for a ban against guns in America ! What I've said is that there seems to be to MANY of them, and especially to many in wrong hands....  Now IF you would like to reduce the number, how would you do it without affecting good/responcible gun owners ??   I DO believe in a persons freedom. What I don't believe is that you can have it all and don't pay for it.  MOST europeans believe in a society of individuals, and that you HAVE to give 'a little' to make that society work.  Cars and guns should really not be mixed, I just tried to make a point. Like America, Norway has some spaces you have to cross to get from a to b, so a car is essential in most parts....  Guns on the other hand are not essential in Norway, so we don't  argue that IF we 'banned' guns we HAVE to ban cars.....   EVERYONE who believe that Hitler and WW2 could be avoided if there were more guns in Germany in the 30's: PLEASE read some HISTORY!   Is this discussion about  1. Banning weapons for ALL Americans             or 2. Making it harder for criminals to get one ??    Change of name....... Wrote that one after reading the first postings about the Waco 'incident'. I still think there are 'some' posters should move their post to alt.conspiracy or make a new newsgroup. (If you read the first postings after the Waco fire you should see who I mean......)  Did the BATF get the warrant for a gun search only or was there other reasons. (Child abuse for instance)  Doesn't the people reading this newsgroup have access to the clari.news.* hierarcy ?? (Some seems rather mis/unInformed)  (Or is the clari.news.* hierarcy ruled and censored by the corrupt facist goverment??)
Look, folks, I don't know what happened in Waco.  I do not claim the BDs are   angels, I never did.  Koresh may very well be the devil incarnate.  I just   don't know.  But I do know that I must question any single source of   information, such as we have here.  And I must question even harder given that   it is single source at the insistance of that very government.  What ever else   happened at WACO, that is perhaps the biggest evil done.  And even more so in   light of the discrepencies turning up between the federal officials and the   state officials.  But what I really don't understand is the hoards of devoted government   worshipers who believe the government could not possibly do any wrong.  They   are fanatic to the point of making things up, such as Brent's microwave oven   disclaim of the BD's using fire for food heating.    I am hard pressed to see any real difference between the claimed power Koresh   held over the BDs, and the demonstrated power the government holds over those   rapid apologists.   Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
Just saw a new commercial(?) by the NRA. It starts out with a  bunch of politicians talking about how to get rid of crime. They finally realize that they need to put criminals away longer but there isn't enough jail space so they decide on another gun law.( During this whole seen there quoteing various statistics on how easy criminals get off )  In the next seen the politician is announceing on tv how this gun law  will get rid of crime and there is this grungy looking guy (criminal) watching him on tv just laughing his ass off. Classic.
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? Fuck him. Fuck the ATF, too. They should've done it right the first time.
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.
In article <1r569aINN7ss@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) writes:  > 	How is Clinton responsible?  It was a law enforcement action. > Granted, it was a nationally covered incident but Clinton had no more to > do with the outcome than Fred Flintstone.  Do I think Clinton conceived of it?  No. Do I think Clinton ordered it?  No. Do I think Clinton was aware of it before it went down?  No. Do I think Clinton was aware of it after it went down?  Of course; who wasn't? Do I think Clinton prejudged these people to a certain extent because he                    believed the BATF crap about child abuse and stockpiling                    "evil semi-automatic weapons?"  Yes. Do I think Clinton ever questioned federal jurisdiction in this matter?  No. Do I think Clinton ever considered the civil rights of the victims?  No.  > 	As for the rest, I won't argue whether BATF handled the initial > confrontation well (or as it should have).  But from day 2 on, I have no > problem with the way the operation was handled or the decisions made.  Some of us suspect that ALL the unlawful mistakes made on Day 1 were made  on the government's end.  That makes days 2-51 nothing but a macho  alternative to delivering an apology.  > As > for day 51, as long as the FBI and BATF didn't INTENTIONALLY set the fire > then, while it is certainly tragic, the majority of Americans (according > to a recent poll) have no problems with the operation itself.   Who gives a good goddamn about some bullshit "opinion poll" of "most  Americans?"  Most Americans swallow the government line that they're fed -- not because they're stupid, but because it's the only line they ever hear.  "Most Americans" thought the staff at the McMaster(?) school was guilty, guilty, guilty.  Woops, turns out they weren't.  "Most Americans" once thought that black slaves weren't human beings.  Woops, wrong again. "Most Americans" thought Saddam Hussein was the Antichrist.  Oh dear, he was a "special friend of the American government" until two years  previously.  You know, maybe truth ISN'T determined by majority vote of a half-informed public after all.  > In fact, > most Americans (according to this poll) think it should have been > resolved sooner...  You're just testy because of all those newsbreaks that were interrupting "Roseanne." --
"Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes:  >>The 2nd Amendment does say "keep and bear."  If "bear" is defined to >>mean "carry," then most people are physically unable to carry a several >>hundred pound nuclear device.  >As I understand it, sub-kiloton nuclear demolitions are man-portable >and carried in a backpack.  As I recall, in the 60's the Kennedy Administration had sub-kiloton nuclear weapons withdrawn from Europe and destroyed.  They were man- portable and made for use in shoulder-mount rocket launchers.  The smallest nuclear test I've seen data for was a .1 (yes, one-tenth) kiloton weapon tested either in the late 40's or early 50's.
Okay.  I have my copies of all relevant gun-control bills.  I'm mad as hell. I want to get involved.  I want to join the battle to protect our Second Amendment Rights.  Who do I write?  Who should I concentrate on writing my comments to?  The actual author of the bill?  The supporters of the bill?  My Congressman?  My Senator?  Newspapers? Magazines?  All of the above?  I don't believe that I will change the world, but at least I am going to throw a few punches.  Can any of you offer any advice or suggestions to me as I now begin to get involved here?  Thanks for replying directly to me via e-mail.
In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes: > Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him > for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation > into the Waco mess. >  > Ken  	You are talking about the man who as a federal attorney did so much to frustrate the proper investigation of the JFK assassination by the House sub-committee on assassinations.  Fox and hen house???
How we survived ww2: We mailed postings about things we didn't know any thing about to ONLY the wrong places.  I'm NOT trying to censor this or any newsgroup, I'm just trying to give some hints about OTHER newsgroups. Doesn't this belong to alt.conspiracy ??  NOTE!!! My posting was in reply to those about FBI torching the plasce after filling it with napalm, and arrested people dissapering.  >We all know what a quisling is, right? Obviously we don't..... Vidkun Quisling is known to be a traitor in Norway, not a 'censor'. If I have betrayed my country (Norway) bescause I implied that som of  you jumped to conclusions/sound a little paranoid then I think there is a LOT of quislings in Norway.......   About Waco It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this. The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)  It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???    	This is not a .signature. 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
In article <C5wMp5.5u9@boi.hp.com> jeffw@boi.hp.com (jeff waldeck) writes:  >Where did you hear about the thermal imaging? I haven't heard this yet  >(not that I doubt it, I'm just looking for sources...)   This was reported in Canadian papers Thursday, 22 April - I _think_ the source was UPI, but don't recall for certain.  >It seems to me that if they did have this kind of info, they could >broadcast it and it would resolve (or at least help to resolve) alot >of doubt in people's minds.   >Personally, the way the (FBI/BATF/Reno/etc) is claiming all sorts of >things without offering one shred of proof (other than their "good word") >is very suspicious to me. A picture is worth a thousand words...  I understand that at least two goverment investigations have been ordered, so we may learn more during their hearings.   >I sincerely hope you are right and it turns out (with indisputable >proof broadcast across our land) that the Government groups had nothing >to do with the fire. But until I see such proof, I think it is just as >likely that a tank did knock over a lantern as Koresh torching the place. >The only "evidence" I have seen is a tank crashing through the front >wall, withdrawing, and seconds later flames are seen (the first flames >on the video) erupting from this very same spot. Coincidence? Perhaps.  Tough call without more investigation, but if the thermal imaging story holds up, I think the government will be more credable... of course, paranoia fans won't believe their results anyway, will they?  >If such proof exists, the Government should publish it and put all this >speculation to rest.  Hear, hear! I'd also like to see the autopsy reports confirm news reports that multiple victims were found shot (in the head), and in positions inconsistent with fire victims. It is simply too early to draw conclusions either way about this nasty incident, but I tend to believe the government side.
In <1r600fINNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:  > In article 5589@news.eng.convex.com, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes: > >In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes: > >>  Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did > >>not break out for several hours.   > >	Minor quibble back at you.  I am in the same general area as > >	the Koresh compound and I can tell you that the air was quite > >	chilly that morning, especially with the high winds that > >	were blowing. (Of course the swiss cheese walls made it > >	even worse. ;-)    You are correct WRT the idea of some heating being nice that morning.  But  part of that line was also for the guy who said "minutes later, the fires started".  I did forget how cool it was that day.  > Those choppers flying around didn't make the wind any more still, either.    When you got 30-40 mph winds swinging across the Texas plain, a couple of Hueys don't add one whole hell of a lot.  semper fi,
In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes: > >Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that >a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated" >in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.  What interpretations?  Just read it as it's written.    "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Where does it say "The right of the people to be members of a militia shall not be infringed" or "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"  NOWHERE.   "Well-educated businessmen being necessary to the ability of the nation to compete in the international marketplace, the right of the people to attend schools shall not be infringed."  Would you "interpret" this to mean that only businessmen should have a protected right to attend schools?  Why or why not?
In article <1993Apr5.213034.10706@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes: >In article <1pdmgaINN95f@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes: >> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >>  >> >> If she *needs* a gun right now, why doesn't she already have one?   >>  >> >You are the victim of a cut-and-run purse-snatcher.  He makes off  >> >with your purse, containing your ID, your house keys... and your gun. >>  >> So you're saying she can RUN RIGHT INTO A STORE, BUY A GUN, RUN BACK >> OUTSIDE AND SHOOT THE GUY IN THE BACK AS HE RUNS OFF?  This doesn't > >No, he's saying she just lost her gun and she wants to buy another >so that as she sits home alone tonight, she's not a sitting duck to >any bastard who wants to break in.
>>This is a stretch.  In fact, a great many of the persecuted Indians were >>Christian, a great many.  It would be simpler to state the obvious, that >>white people wanted land the Indians dominated or threatened.  I really >>don't think the government cared a hill of beans about the Indians' religion.  >My Native American Girlfriend asks: "If the government really doesn't >'care a hill of beans' about our religion, how come they're still >busting us for it in Oregon, Washington, and a few other places? >You'd be a Christian, too, if the U.S. Army marched you into church >at gunpoint."  Are you saying that the Indians who became Christians did so because the US Army marched them into church at gunpoint?  This will be news to the Indians of the Great Lakes and upper Mississippi basin-- of the Southwest-- of Mexico and South America-- who converted even before there was such a thing as the US.  Are you saying that Indians are incapable of coming to a decision themselves about their religion without being forced to at gunpoint?  What about the Christian Cherokees who were given the boot by the US government after the Civil War... because the Cherokee nation gave mild support to the Confederacy, since they themselves owned black slaves.  No, reducing it all to a matter of religion is to support a much too narrow view of history.
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:  >In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes: >>The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea, >>blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.   >>Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results all the >>earlier.    >If we are indeed talking about CS, then this is not quite accurate. CS is >"just" tear gas--albeit the worst kind. It isn't a nausea gas, and doesn't >have direct CNS effects. However, it's quite bad--much worse than CN gas. I  Has anyone publically considered the possibility that the fires were set for defence instead of suicide and the destruction and confusion caused by the tanks and gas caused things to get out of the BDs control?  -- "Spending programs are now 'investments,' taxes are 'contributions,' and  these are the same people who say _I_ need a dictionary?"  - Dan Quayle 2/19/93