waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1r04h8$q5a@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> tim@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) writes: >	I was hoping that --however the situation was resolved-- the >property would remain intact, so the gov't could sell it to help pay for the >hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses incurred having to babysit >Krazy Koresh & his flock of sheep. >  In some South American countries, after political undesirables disappeared, the family would get a notice of death and a bill for the disposal of the body.  You apparently think that would be a good idea.  The Federal Government initiated this action against Koresh and his followers, surrounded them for 51 days, engaged in psychological warfare, used heavy military equipment against US citizens on US soil; and now that the compound caught fire while they were pumping in CS gas after knocking holes in the building; disavows all responsibility.  Big Brother is NOT always right.
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >You are loosing.  What's "loosing?"    >Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter >how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.   I vote.  I don't consider RKBA an abomination.   >This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your >RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.  I'm sure Sarah Brady would be delighted to hear your ranting and raving.  However, Clinton has not publically stated that he would like to repeal the Second Amendment.  "Tough titty" to you.  >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.   Are we going to "make do without" like the people in New York City?  You know New York City: That gun ban utopia you dream about, with the millions of unregistered handguns?  New York City, by the way, has a very high crime rate.  Perhaps you should know about a gungrabber's nightmare - Idaho. Here in Idaho, the police give concealed carry permits to anyone over 21 without a criminal record.  There are no gungrabber schemes such as FOIDs, waiting periods, "gun a month," or LTCs.  And horror of horrors!  You don't even NEED a permit to carry a concealed weapon while outside of city limits (although you do need a permit for concealed carry in an automobile).  I feel a hell of a lot safer in Boise than I would in your gun ban dream state (e.g., Washington, D.C.).  >The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against >you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !  The voting public in Idaho is staunchly pro-gun.  Both senators are NRA-endorsed "A" rated!  Buy a clue, pal.  >Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect >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'.  > Get out your wallet and buy another clue.  There are millions upon MILLIONS of pre-1968 (i.e., non-4473'ed) firearms out there. They have a half-life approaching eternity.  And cosmoline is not exactly tracked by the feds.  >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 ... > Gun control laws were passed to PROTECT the KKK from blacks!  Drew
In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes: [ ... ] >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. Therefore, US vs. Miller supports >limited government regulation of firearms.  Then it also supports basing such regulations on ignorance.  Miller had disappeared, and nobody bothered to present _his_ side to the Supreme Court -- in particular, that sawed-off shotguns were used in the World War I trenches, and in other tight spots ever since guns had been invented.  Would _you_ turn one down if you had to "clean" an alley in E. St. Louis?
In article <C5qEpL.1nu@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes: [Posting the text of H.R. 711 ...] [ ... ] >To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that handguns are available >only to persons with demonstrated knowledge and skill in their safe use, >maintenance, and storage. [ ... ] >8         "(1)(1)(A) An individual who is not licensed under >9   this section may not possess a handgun on or after the >10  date final regulations are prescribed pursuant to para- >11  graph (2) unless the individual has been issued a handgun >12  permit under paragraph (2).  Note that this is a "licensing bill," pretending to be a "training bill."
In article <1993Apr22.041542.11054@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:  |>From article <C5t9IA.6F9@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):  |>> If anyone wants to understand the paranoid mindset of Koresh I offer you |>> talk.politics.guns. There you can dredge the sewers of minds so hung |>> up on power and ego trips that they bend reality arround their own |>> particular set of beleifs. |> |>Just what the hell do you base that ludicrous claim on?  There are  |>*plenty* of fine, decent people people who read/post to t.p.g.  If |>any of these people are paranoid it is because of people like you.  Hey dude you are making me paranoid! What an argument!!!   |>> I long ago gave up arguing the case for arms control directly. Instead |>> I invite people to ask themselves, would you want to be in a room full |>> of the occupants of talk.politics.guns, their personal armouries and |>> attempt to enter a discussion with them? |> |>I'd have a spot of tea with them. :)  You probably gave up on arguing the |>case for arms control directly long ago because posters who *know* |>what they are talking about (e.g., Frank Crary) disproved all your |>arguments for why more gun control is needed.  So, you gave up because |>you know they are right and you couldn't refute their answers.  No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners. USEnet as a whole disproves it of humanity as a whole.  We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn down your house. See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons to support gun control.   Cuddles 'n kisses
In <1993Apr20.004532.23086@husc3.harvard.edu> kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:   >as a legal gun owner, I must disagree.  Even when I don't see eye- >to-eye with the N.R.A. on a particular issue, they are the only >national group which has effectively fought for my rights to target >shoot, hunt, and protect myself from dangerous criminals.    One more time.  It ain't about duck hunting.  It ain't about lone perps on lonely streets.  It's about DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS from the *GOVERNMENT*, which  has seen fit to ignore history and attempt once again to take them from us.  They WILL SUCCEED if we don't do something NOW.  That's why I think the NRA is a bunch of WEENIES, because they have FORGOTTEN that fundamental fact.  Pardon all my shouting, but there seem to be a whole helluva lot of people on Condition White, fat, dumb, and happy, sucking that glass teat for all they're worth.... Wake up and smell the cordite, gang, they're shooting at us, and it's high time we shot back, at least with our keyboards.....   my two bits'
arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes: >Wasn't she the one making the comment in '88 about George being born with >a silver foot in his mouth?  Sounds like another damn politician to me. > >Ain't like the old days in Texas anymore.  The politicians may have been >corrupt then, but at least they'd take a stand.  (My apologies to a few >exceptions I can think of.)   > >News now is that the House may already have a two-thirds majority, so  >her "opposition" out of her concern for image (she's even said this >publicly) may not matter.  Do people expect the Texans congressmen to act as the N.J. Republicans did? --   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000 NASA Lewis Research Center     	|     Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@gonzo.lerc.nasa.gov
///////   And we thought the unfortunate people in the Branch Dividians were           Brainwashed ??  They don't hold a candle to this guy......   D:d :wq
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735383339.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:  >NOTE!!! >My posting was in reply to those about FBI torching the plasce after >filling it with napalm, and arrested people dissapering. > >[...] > >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 ???         I don't think we've got a conspiracy on our hands, or anything vaugely similar.  I do think that the Feds showed a distinct lack of both intelligence and disregard for others safety throughout this whole mess.         I do think the FBI and the BATF screwed up big.  What made me really concerned was FBI director William Sessions being on CNN engaging in what could only be called spin control before the place had even cooled down.  Evertyhing had literally blown up in their faces and I felt there had to be something more important he should have been doing...
In <1993Apr16.202441.16032@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:  >In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear >>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapons >>that are being confiscated.  >Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16 >from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and >a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various >versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?  Well, let me see.  UZI, no.  M-11/9, no.  M-16/AR-15, maybe.  I remember there being a selector swtich on the AR-15.  If I remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) the switch would set to an "off" position or an "on" position because the gun (AR-15) is semi-automatic.  Wouldn't the M-16 have a position for semi-auto fire and full-auto fire (or maybe 3 round bursts)?  If this is correct wouldn't it be easy to distinguish each gun by this alone?  Of course if the AR-15 were modified to full-auto fire I wouldn't think it would be that easy but I'm talking about distinguishing between an unmodified AR-15 and M-16. How about the other guns?  Do they also have selector switch to switch between semi-auto and fully-auto fire?  >If so, I'd love to hear the details, if only because they'll demonstrate >that Kratz is blowing smoke.  >Considering that one can design a gun so that it looks just like >another gun, yet have very different properties, and that that's >quite common....  >Most kids in my neighborhood were quite young when they figured out >that my parents car wasn't much like Richard Petty's, even though it >looked just like it (except for the paint job).  Things must have been >different with Kratz.  Actually it was pretty hard for the kids in my neighborhood to figure that out as Richard Petty lived in my neighborhood and left his stock car in the  driveway. ;-)  >>Sure it's on TV but why does that make a difference?  >No, it doesn't, but that's irrelevant.  If visual inspection of the >outside worked, TV would be acceptable, but since it doesn't, the fact >that it's just as good as seeing in person doesn't mean much.  Well, what about what I said above?  If that is correct I guess TV would be acceptable (if you had a good enough picture and a picture of the lower  receiver of the AR-15/M-16).
In article <1993Apr23.184027.4401@swan.pyr>, cgwillme@pyr.swan.ac.uk (r b willmersdorf) writes: > american and european universities were full of Angry Young People(tm) > that wanted to overthrow the government, and wouldn't think twice > about lobbing a molotov cocktail at the national guard (military police > in Europe.)  > Certainly, it would have been very bad form to take anything > the System(tm) said at face value.  > This was in the end of the sixties and the begining of the seventies, > I'm told. I was too young to remember.  > Something wrong happened along the way, I'm afraid.  Maybe the west > became just too comfortable, or maybe I was born too late :(  > Yours, disappointed with with the youth of today,  Isn't it ironic.  I'm of that generation, and I remember the lesson.  I cry to see all the postings from domestic .edu sites that have naively swallowed everything the government has seen fit to feed to them. Especially contrasted to such a post from the .uk yet.  >     2) There *is* a difference between lining up 90 people against the >        wall and executing them, and causing their deaths through negligence/ >        imcompetence.  I honestly hope we witnessed the latter.  As they say, >        the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.  I suspect we saw the latter.  However, the injustice implied in letting those involved escape without investigation and/or prosecution is also horrible to contemplate. --
John Kim (kim39@scws8.harvard.edu) writes:  > Boston Globe, Wednesday April 21 1993 .. > LIttle in the way of rationality could be expected from Koresh, a  > self-confessed "sinner without equal."  funny, if Koresh did say that, he was quoting St. Paul. of course,  the early Christians were persecuted too. if Koresh is a loony  because he quotes the Bible, how long is it before mainstream  Christians become the target of the FBI's loving care and attention?  jason
Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote: : In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve   : Manes) writes: : [...] : > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO : > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun : > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More : > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15) : > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National : > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs : > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison). : >   : You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them : to  be superior,  I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information. It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.    : then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying    Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar gratuitous shots at?  : to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major population   : differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone might   : attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not   : comparison"?  Emphasis of what?  Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim.  : Anything else is blowing smoke.  You seddit, brudda.
dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes: >Apparently needing to clarify his comments from Thursday, Dr. Nizam >Plawaby (spelling?), the Medical Examiner for Tarrant County, Texas, >who has authority in the Waco deaths, stated that since no autopsies >had been performed, there is no evidence for bullet wounds, or  >evidence against bullet wounds.  >Janet Reno also stated that she had never been told of bullet wounds >by anyone in the Justice Department.    On the news from radio station KANU (Lawrence, KS) about 6:15 this Monday morning, I heard someone with a nasal-sounding voice (supposedly the Waco coroner?) claim that he had found TWO persons killed with a single shot to the forehead. --Myron.
Here is a copy of my first update on the Randy Weaver trial. After a large response (about 15 email messages), I've decided that there is sufficient interest here on t.p.g. to warrant posting.  *** file follows ***   Hi Folks;  As perhaps the only Boise resident on the list, I guess it kind of falls on me to keep people updated about the Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial.  Yesterday marked the seating of the jury.  Apparently no other legal activities occurred.  The jury was selected and things start today.  More interesting is what happenned outside.  About a dozen Weaver supporters showed up to stage a protest outside the courthouse.  One woman carried a sign that read, "Who stands trial for the murder of Vicki and (son's name - I forget) Weaver?"  On the evening news she said, "I am here protesting because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I thought we all did."  Nice sound bite (grin)!  The news reporter also interviewed some guy named "Tim" who refused to give his last name.  Not to prejudge the guy, but he looked like a neo-nazi.  He also said he expected many neo-nazis to show up throughout the trial. "Tim" had been handing out leaflets in support of Weaver and Harris and the news had footage of a Boise cop telling him to move along or he'd arrest.  I don't know the finer points of this one.  Perhaps there's a law against political activity within X feet of a courthouse or something (what happenned to the First Amendment?!?).  Most ominous of all was that the local reporter filmed an agent of the Gestapo...err...ATF with a minicam FILMING THE PROTESTORS!  Welcome to the world of Big Brother.  Anyhow, Gerry Spence came out and asked the protestors to leave because he didn't think it would help Weaver's case any.  He said he was confident that, once the evidence came out, that Weaver would be aquitted.  More stuff as it comes available.
In article <C5uHuo.Awq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes: >In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes: >>    Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works... > >Funny, yeah, funny how you didn't wait for the FBI spokesdroid  >latest reversal of "facts" before proclaiming the BD's burned >themselves to death.  If you won't believe anything the government says, and the press is not reliable according to the same logic, then what do you base your statements on?  Wild speculation laced with a healthy dose of paranoia?
In article <1993Apr20.195636.17742@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes: >In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >>>Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever >>>really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of >>>a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough." >> >>Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people  >>come out with their hands up several weeks ago.  No answer.  >You didn't answer the question.  The FBI took people out of >camera range.  It is thus possible that they were engaging in >questionable activities.  I do not feel like the cameras were out of range.  Cameras watched the first  confrontation.  Cameras watched the banners.  Cmaeras watched the final  confrontation with tanks.  Cameras watched the fire.  When weren't cameras  able to watch?  When would cameras be unable to watch people coming out with  their hands up?  >As to your question, please tell me what you think would have happened >had the ATF goon squad knocked and asked politely several weeks >ago (as opposed to playing Rambo with a t.v. crew in tow).  Well, that is what BATF should have done.  Either, Koresh would have gone  peaceably as he has done in the past, or perhaps it was already too close  to the apocalypse in his own mind.  It is hard to predict the actions of  a leader who would not release the children when most rational people would.  Now will you answer my question up top?  > >Drew >-- >betz@gozer.idbsu.edu >*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho *** >*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   *** >*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc, >    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes: >Does a "not harmful" gassing mean that you can, with a little willpower, >stay inside indefinitely without suffering any serious health problems? > >If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam? > >What IS the difference, anyway?  CS "tear-gas" was used in Vietnam because it makes you wretch so hard that your stomach comes out thru your throat.  Well, not quite that bad, but you can't really do much to defend yourself while you are blowing cookies.
If you haven't heard yet, US Senator Patty Murrey, a Mom in tennis shoes, is planning to introduce legislation to tax all handgun transactions and increase dealer licnese costs in order to raise money to cover the costs of un-insured shooting victums.  She plans to start with $2500.00 per year dealer fees and $40.00 or so, depending on the type of firearm, per gun transaction.  She plans to make it federal.    She was elected in Washington state under the trade mark as just a mom in tennis shoes.  She can be written to via the United States Senate, Washinton DC.  She is looking for your tennis shoes.  So if you have a pair please send them to her with your feelings regarding this tax.      She claims she has heard little from the opposition.  Lets inundate her!
In article <1993Apr14.165633.2170@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes: >As for the MOVE incident, wasn't the mayor of Philadelphia at the time Black ?  For the first Move incident (no bomb, several members killed in gunfire, circa 1978) the mayor was the very white Frank Rizzo.   For the second (bomb included) the mayor was Wilson Goode, who  is indeed black.