waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
|You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of |mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a  |neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve |gas on his/her property.    There is no law prohibiting having biological weapons or nerve gas on his/her property, or even walking on government property with such items: ipso facto it is now one's _RIGHT_ to have such weapons of "mass destruction."  Hell, the U.S. patent office has patents on the manufacture of nerve gas that anyone can obtain simply by sending a $1.50 to the Patent Office in Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 8). These same patents are verboten to English citizens from their own patent office, which doesn't surprise me based on the mistrust of the UK government against private ownership of semi-automatic rifles.  |If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of |the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?
In article <1993Apr27.154255.18227@synapse.bms.com> hambidge@bms.com writes:   > >In article <C65E95.D7u@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >>In article <1993Apr27.071223.3508@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes: >>>James P. Dusek (dusek@rtsg.mot.com) writes: >>>> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes: >>> >>>>     They did, they used CS that would NOT harm children. >>> >>>i REALLY hope you're being sarcastic here, but i've seen so many >>>stupid things said in complete seriousness that it's hard to tell >>>without a smiley. >>> >>>do you actually believe there's a CS gas that can discriminate based >>>on the age of the target? >> >>Yes, the gas used was a mild concentration or formulation compared to >>the 'heavy duty' stuff. > >You know this for a fact? How do you know? Or, are you just making >things up for flamebait? > The FBI has claimed from the begining that it wasn't standard use tear gas. How do you know it was? Or do you just assume it was for flamebait?
irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: :cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: :>mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) 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.  Hey, Einstein, ever tried to use an electric stove or microwave WITHOUT ELECTRICITY?  It's been shut off for weeks now, courtesy of your local FBI assault squad.  Now, are you going to put your foot in your mouth or shall I get a crowbar and assist you?   Mike Ruff
***************************************************************** *                                                               * *                        MONSTER RALLY!!                        * *          ==  For the Right to Own and Carry Weapons ==        * *                                                               * *    TOMORROW, Sunday, April 18, 1993, from 1:00 to 3:30 p.m.,  * *       the Denver LIBERTARIAN PARTY will sponsor a rally       * *              AT THE STATE CAPITOL in support of               * *         the individual right to own and carry weapons.        * *                                                               * * Speakers will include former Colorado deputy attorney general * *  DAVID KOPEL, radio host KEN HAMBLIN, DLP Chair DAVID SEGAL,  * * pistol instructor LENDA JACKSON, and novelist L. NEIL SMITH.  * *                                                               * * Your presence and participation are highly welcome.  For more * *       information call David Segal at (303) 296-4059.         * *                                                               * *****************************************************************  Cathy Smith
In article <1993Apr1.015043.5662@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.  >    "It is ironic that Jim and I are observing this March 30 in a > country that finds America's level of gun violence not only > unacceptable, but unbelievable," said Mrs. Brady, chair of Handgun > Control Inc.  So where was she?  And would she consider staying there? --
Has anyone noticed or commented on the fact that so many of those who were willing, nay demanding, that we wait forever for Mr Hussein and Iraq, that we use tremendously costly "sanctions", to avoid a loss of life, are now at the fore front of those clammoring that we should have smashed those "religious radicals" and we were wasting money allowing this stand off to go on  ?  How the worm turns when the sect changes.
In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes: <In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu> <jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote: < <> [ ... excellent exchange deleted ... ] <> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give <> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the <> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit <> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think <> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately. < <    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This <    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit <    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, <    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or <    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." < <    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate <    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August <    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the <    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ... <    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of <    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order <    to raise an army upon their ruins." < <So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy <our Liberties and Rights.  What I find so hard to understand is how come some people, apparantly NOT connected with government or otherwise privileged, will go to great lengths, redefinitions, re-interpretations, in a full-bore attempt to THROW AWAY THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTS under the Constitution!!!  Almost makes me think of lemmings running into the sea during a lemming year...  I really wonder that Jefferson and Madison would say to these folks?  <------------------------------------------------------------- <"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be <drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render <powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will <become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we <separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821  Excellent quote.
In article <1993Apr23.151855.7011@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes: >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. > >joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu   This is, apparently, what passes for intelligent discourse at Trinity. Joe "FBI cultist" Kusmierczak gets angry when its pointed out that the FBI has told him is a LIE, the mounting evidence is that  they've lied about almost every detail of 4/19 except that they were there. What can you expect of cultists like him, somebody oughtta burn him out, and if he's trapped, well, good riddance! Right Joe?
rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:   >||	Wrong again, but if you want proof: turn on your TV and look >||for a show starring Chuck Connors.  It was called, "The Rifleman." >||Time how fast he can fire that old lever-action rifle.  >|Believe it or not, I remember seeing an advertisement for someone >|selling one of these; apparently Winchester produced a bunch of >|these commercially to commemorate the television show. I believe it was  >|being sold as a handgun because of the barrel length and lack of a stock.  >I might be mistaking the above weapon for the gun used by Steve >McQueen in "Wanted: Dead or Alive." If so, sorry. Did Winchester >make any commemorative models of the rifle used by Chuck Connors >in the movie? Chuck Connors was an NRA member before he died recently...  I don't know for sure if Winchester made any commemeratives.  If I recall correctly, the rifle itself was a .44-40 Model 92 with an oversized loop lever.  I don't think Winchester makes this rifle any more.  Rossi make a Model 92 look-alike in .38 Special and .357 Magnum.
From article <93859@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone): > In <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: >  >>Anybody for impeachment? >  > Yeah, me.  Both the Slickmeister and Hillary's buddy Janet say > they're responsible... I want both their resignations on my desk  > yesterday.  I also want both thier butts up on federal civil rights > violations.... something which carries life in prison as a penalty. >  > Oh, and I'll contribute $20 to Arlen Specter's presidential campaign > for having the 'nads to launch the Senate investigation.  I second that motion wholeheartedly.  Also, how about s**tcanning the cigarette cops (a.k.a. as the ATF).  Comments anyone?  > -- Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)       ================== > America in Distress                             ================== > (flag upside down = SOS)                        *******=========== > Save your Republic before                       *******=========== > it no longer exists.                            *******===========   Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot
dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer) writes:  >Rick Bressler (bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com) wrote: ><forgot to leave in his quote source> >: >What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of >: >had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the >: >compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened. >The BATF is a part of the dept. of treasury, not justice.  If they needed >to assault a place they could just do like the IRS does...call in the >federal marshalls service,  The IRS doesn't need to rely on the Federal Marshall's Services; the IRS has its own Swat teams. I saw a picture of one in an article on the IRS in some magazine or other. --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
I came across the following notice in the Denver Post classified secction this morning (April 26, 1993):  \begin{quote}  NOTICE:  The Denver Post will no longer knowingly accept any advertisement to buy or sell assault weapons.  The Denver Post finds that the use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of its readers.  \end{quote}  Now I suppose the Post is within its rights to refuse such ads.  However, the second sentence is so noxious, I feel compelled to bring it to the  attention of the t.p.g/c.g readership.    I called the Post classified number (825-2525) and expressed my displeasure.  According to the supervisor I spoke to, the Post was reacting to public complaints regarding the running of assult weapon ads.  However, she said the paper was keeping track of the reaction to the change in policy.  I  strongly encourage Denver Post readers to call and make their feelings known.
Well, the question of why fire equipment took so long to reach the  compound has been answered. ABC aired a report including the 911 tapes  from Monday. The FBI called 911 within 4 minutes of the fire's breakout.  Unfortunately, dispatch of vehicles outside the Waco city limits  required approval of a deputy chief, who was not available (literally  out to lunch?); the 911 operator desperately called around to local  community volunteer fire departments to get something out there. By  the time trucks arrived 27 minutes later, the whole complex was aflame  and it was clearly too little, too late; there were just two pumpers  and no water supply. The FBI made another call requesting a tank truck,  but the Waco department apparently depended on hydrants and did not  have one. Though clearly unwilling to risk firemen's lives in the  line of fire, it seems they might have done so had there been sufficient  equipment and water to make a difference.  They even aired a tape of a woman who called Waco 911 from Georgia  asking if anything was being done. Civic-minded, but probably  irresponsible; if everyone watching television did that, no local  calls could get through.  ABC also aired the comments of an independent fire investigator who  viewed tapes from more than one side of the compound (not just the  standard "pool shot"), and agreed that the fire a) must have been  started in at least 3 places, and b) must have had an accelerant  to spread so fast.  Neither of these is conclusive proof that the Koresh crowd offed  themselves more than the FBI offed them, but it's a heck of a lot  stronger proof than some of the "theories" floating around the net.  Score 2 FBI, 0 Branch Davidians. Or is that -89 Branch Davidians?
In article <C4txEK.FCq@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes: >Morris the Cat (rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com) wrote: > >: Well, as Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition points out, the full >: force of the anti-gun ruling class, their multi-millions, their >: polling organizations, their schools, their news media, their >: "entertainment" media > >The entertainment media... a "force of the anti-gun ruling class"?? >Is this the same media that's made billions producing films and >television that glorify guns and gun users?  Or is that another >anti-gun media? > >You've got to be kidding.  I'm afraid he isn't.  They are a hypocritical lot.
In article <mvpC5rp8n.3ts@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <16BB5124A0.PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> PA146008@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU (David  Veal) writes: >>       Be cute if Koresh hit the trail. >> >>       Maybe he was bodily assumed into heaven.  Wouldn't that just >>make AG Reno's day? > >*snort*  I sorta doubt it... > >However... No bodies?  By the time this message gets out >they'll doubtless have found bunches, but wouldn't it be >interesting if they had a tunnel and  are long gone?   If they hadn't killed the ATF people in the original raid, I think I would  laugh my ass off.  (Actually, to be honest, I still might.)
In article 27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: > In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: > >All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as > >I am not really familiar enough with handguns. >  > That's not all that Kratz doesn't know. >  > >Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing > >that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is > >that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety. >  > Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to > do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist"; > Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the > outside.) >  > A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's > what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go > off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work, > it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks. >  > -andy > --      I agree very much.  I have read almost every article written about    the Glock, and IMO, it is probably the safest auto-loader made.  It    has the best safty of all, Jeff Cooper's First Rule, "Keep your finger    OFF the trigger until you want to shoot."  If everyone just observed    this, there would be fewer "accidents".     David N. Bixler    Auburn University
HB 1776 is for Concealed Carry in Texas.  It provides for licensing citizens to carry concealed firearms if they pass an instruction course (30 hours, if I remember correctly), pay a $140 fee (good for 4 years), and meet several other criteria related to personal character, etc.  While I don't agree with all of the criteria, I feel it's high time that pro-gun types fight the same way HCI et al. do -- by getting incremental changes in the law.    Daryl
In article <93111.094609MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes: > Has anyone noticed or commented on the fact that so many of those who > were willing, nay demanding, that we wait forever for Mr Hussein and > Iraq, that we use tremendously costly "sanctions", to avoid a loss > of life, are now at the fore front of those clammoring that we should > have smashed those "religious radicals" and we were wasting money allowing > this stand off to go on  ?   No.  I see many of the same groups protesting both.  I also know people who feel exactly the opposite (i.e., treat citizens better than Saddam).  > How the worm turns when the sect changes.  Hey!  Sect changes are still illegal in Texas! --
In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes: >  >   The problem with the FBI as a monolithic entity doing it is that it requires > *everybody* involved to keep their mouths shut.  While they tended to behave  > like total idiots, that does not make them homocidal maniacs, either.  And if > it was one nutcase agent, then it serves no purpose to blame the whole agency.  A great deal of documentation exists on exactly that phenomenon. Especially regarding Vietnam and the Mai Lai (sp?) massacre  Not that I'm suggesting that they started it on purpose but even if they now know that they accidentally started (or contributed to it) you can be sure the initial reaction is to lie. Remember the Iranian airliner which the US navy mistook for a fighter and shot down?
In article <1993Apr22.143329.4296@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes: > 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??? >  Please note that my above comment was not intended as a flame of Ken's call for Congressional leadership to conduct a proper investigation. It was merely to call attention to the hazard of having Specter involved. If anyone took it that way, I apologize.
What happened in Waco is not the fault of the BATF. If they would of had the proper equipment and personal then they could of captured the compound on the initial assault and none of this would of happened.  The BATF needs more people, better weapons and more armored transports. When they meet hostile fire they should be able to use more force instead of retreating to a stand off. If you are going to do a job then do it right. The BATF is there to protect us and they must have the proper equipment and people to do the job.  With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country of ours.
| Do you think a $200 tax evasion justifies an armed assault by the government | with 100 armed men in trailers, orchestrated character assassination, noise | torture, and a holocaust?  Shit, i'm going to be a lot more carefull filling by income tax!
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:  >	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public >	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that >	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold >	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  				Declaration of Independence 					4 July 1776
In article <1993Apr19.201300.27080@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: > >Clue - Kratz' position isn't a defense against inaccuracy. > >I oppose gun control because it doesn't work.  If it did, I'd support >it.  In fact, I supported gun control before I did my homework. > >There's no demand for pro-gun people who don't know what they're >talking about.  In fact, they'd be much better off if they didn't say >anything. > And why is this Freeman?  Even if a pro-gun person doesn't know what they are talking about there is always the possibility that they will learn a thing or two.  I am and will continue to post even if people get angry with what I have to say.  I have several good sources of material now that I know where to look so calm down.  >There's lots of information flowing on tpg for those interested in >learning.  One can participate in those discussions without ranting >inaccurately.  Failure to do so has consequences. > Ah, Freeman seems to forget from my statement that I am learning.  I have also asked several of the not-so-hostile folks on this group for sources of information to read.  Do you think, Freeman, that maybe this means I am interested in learning?  I think it does because as you said people who don't know anything won't be good for the pro-gun cause.  >Another good habit to get into is to go read-only for a while, to take >the time to figure out how things work. > Another good habit to get into is to realize that not everyone is you Freeman and accept mistakes.  Sure, maybe it could have been some type of misinformation being slung by some anti-gun nut but it wasn't.  I made my statement to inform everyone of this and everyone who replied said don't worry about it but also to learn as much as you can.  They accepted my mistake and gave me sources of information and told me to read as much as possible.  I have read several posts of yours and have found them informative.  Why don't you give me the same chance?  >-andy
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:   [other uninformed, purposefully ignorant gun control ranting deleted]  >*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the >effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap >and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help >investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing >- trace the explosives involved.  I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the  explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the  consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based one.  Ammonium nitrate, to be exact . . . of which about 90,000 tons disappears per year (if I recall the stat correctly; I don't have it here.)  Just one more disregarding of reality to push a point.  [more bunk deleted]
In article <C5y36B.8MG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with >how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the >compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter.  	Lots of house fires give off black sooty smoke.  And as far as 	the speed of the fire the winds were gusting to 30mph at least 	that day.  I guess you're forgetting the way Oakland and Berkeley 	looked back in 91.  Did those folks use accelerants?  						smg