waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5vGME.GoA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes: >In article <C5v9Fv.Krt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >>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? > >Are you a moron or just illiterate? The "facts" that the FBI   Neither.    >proclaimed on Monday suddenly weren't "facts" anymore by  >the Tuesday press conference.  You don't have to pay attention to any one source, neither do you have to abandon your critical thinking, but to disregard all sources of information as 'lies' and 'distortions' and substitute your own pet theories is more likely to get you wild untruths than by basing your theories on the 'facts' as they are reported by the media and the government.  > There has beed NO evidence of >anyone setting the fire deliberately you simpleton so  Actually there was evidence of the fire being set deliberately - both testamony by the survivors and IR tape showing the fire being set in 3 places AND the petrochemical soot that the fire  was giving off (indications of kerosine or gasoline feeding the fire).    You might not believe 1 or 2 if you are totally paranoid or very skeptical, but my 3rd point is visible to anyone who watches the tapes of the fire and has started a BBQ grill.  >what are YOU basing your statements on? Oh, I forgot, you're >the guy that doesn't know microwave oven need electricity, >never mind.  Ho ho ho.  I listen to NPR, watch CNN, NBC.  I also read the papers.   Where do you get YOURS?
Today Rush was criticizing Clinton for not claiming responsibility for the actions and decisions of Janet Reno and the  FBI  early enough to suit Rush.  About 2 months ago Rush was chortling over the fact that Reagan has stumped "special persecutor Walsh" with his croaking of "I don't remember" when asked about Ollie North.  If Rush's criticism of Clinton were to be applied to Reagan and North...  Reagan would have been impeached while North was convicted (and overturned on a technicality).  Gosh, Rush sure wants to have it both ways... Clinton MUST be held  responsible, but Reagan was clever by using the "amnesia defense".
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:  >You are loosing.  [stuff deleted]  >Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will >be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...  Really?  How do you avoid situations which encourage criminals?  I'd really like to know.  Would you, say, prohibit female college students from riding their bicycles near the university during the daytime?    Sounds a bit drastic, doesn't it?  Especially when the university is locatd in a nice residential area.  A friend of mine was attacked and nearly raped in just this situation.  The police didn't feel she was in a situation which 'encouraged criminals'.  What do you think?  Should we just tell her, that it was her fault for daring to ride a bicycle in the middle of the day?  That she didn't avoid a situation that encouraged criminals?  If that's the case, then we'd all better put bars on our doors and windows and pray for a police state to keep us all safe.  Crime happens in all situations - there are no defined areas that criminals avoid.
arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:  >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.  	No, you merely have to start working on yellowcake or else devise a system to get it from other sources.  BTW: the DOE handles reactor fuel, and merely leases it to reactors.  The NRC certifies these reactors.  The military have their own sources.  A private citizen has none of these official sources.  >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.  	That's freshman-level chemistry.  Big deal.  Can you make it work?  That's PhD-level physics.  Big difference.  >  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 . . .  	So you admit that there's no law that could stop you?  Physics aside, could you make one if you had the funds and time?  The answer is yes.  So, do we lock you up now because of this?  Surely you can see where the comparison with anti-gun laws comes into play here?  >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 . . .)  	Precisely why it's not as readily utilized as you seem to have been lead to believe.  BTW: 98% U235 is far better for home-made bombs than trying to use plutonium.  The laws of physics make the creation of a device without serious manufacturing facilities very low in probability.
In article <4615@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes: >Michael Frederick Rhein (mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU) wrote: ># In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> 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. > >Not that I agree with the original theory or anything, buuuuut: >Since their utilities were turned off they might be using wood stoves >to cook their meals.  But they also might have run out of fire-wood (maybe chopping up furnature?).  They also may not have been cooking, but eating MREs and other delicacies stored for just such an occation...  Just a thought.  Brent "Yes I am well aware that their electricity was cut, thanks to the HUNDREDS of E-mail messages and replies to my post" Irvine
>>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration >>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for >>gun owners. > >       The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are >significant difference between making rules for *use on public property* >and *making rules for ownership*. > >       The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this >have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and >have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are >never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for >a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York, >Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun >owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the >numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that >intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of >the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion >they've already seen abused.
In article <C5L2BC.C2x.1@cs.cmu.edu> rubinoff+@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes: >In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >>Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David >>Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading >>he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.    That's a revisionist account of what happened.  Gritz was well-aware of Duke's presence on the ticket.  Given that Gritz is not at all shy about associating and promoting other white supremacists (such as the Christian Identity movement or Willis Carto), whatever reasons Gritz had to leave the ticket had nothing to do with Duke's presence.  >>So Gritz gave up his >>chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting >>Duke. > >I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US"; >the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still, >it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.  I believe Chip Berlet has a Populist Party newsletter from the time with a photo of Gritz happily shaking hands with Duke.
Has anyone considered how to prosecute a city holding a "no questions asked" buy-back for receiving stolen property?
In <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes: >Just to shed some light on the fire, it was widely reported (AP, etc.) that >there WERE several witnesses to BD folks starting the fires.  It has also >been reported that the fires broke out in several places at once, which >rules out a Bradley knocking over a lamp, etc. as the cause.  Consider this: The BDs had more than one lamp; The tanks made more than one hole in the building. Did anyone else notice on the video that it appeared that wherever there was smoke coming out of the building, there was a tank nearby?  The fact that it appears that fires started in several places does not rule out anything.  Also, where are these several witnesses? The way I heard it (from the FBI spokesman on CNN) the "witnesses" were all people driving the tanks.  >One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the >"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy >had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.  Too bad nothing will happen to her or him. The FBI and the media have done their job well.
In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU> mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes: >># >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. > >for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims  >that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.  This whole thread is rediculous.  Who cares if they had a stove going or not.  Does it matter if they had a stove burning, or lanterns burning, or candles burning, or someone smoking, etc, etc, etc.  The premise is that the FBI was filling the house with napalm so that it would catch fire.  This is crazy.  FBI was NOT PUMPING NAPALM into the Davidians home.  You will have to have pretty damn strong evidence to convince me of that.  I can believe mass suicide/murder by Koresh.  I can believe an accident by the Davidians.  I can believe an accident by the FBI.  I can easily believe mass stupidity on all sides but I can not believe that the FBI lit this fire intentionally.  No way.
On 21 Apr 93 02:59:52 GMT, Glenn R. Stone (gs26@prism.gatech.EDU) wrote:  > Fact:  It is a federal felony to infringe civil rights under color of >        law; where death is involved, this offense carries a penalty >        of life in prison.  Title 18, 241 and/or 242 seem to apply.  241 is conspiracy (two or more persons) against rights of citizens.  242 is deprivation of rights under color of law.  Both call for up to life in prison if death occurs.  Reno, Bentsen, and Clinton are probably all principals to the crime (as they are responsible for authorized actions on the part of their subordinates).   > Conclusion:  We have NO CHOICE, if we are an honest people, but to  >              impeach Mr. Clinton, and remove Reno from office.  You forgot one detail, they should be turned over to the Texas authorities for trial, as the crime was committed there (Article 4, section 2).   -- Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
In article <1576@heimdall.sdrc.com> crrob@sony1.sdrc.com (Rob Davis) writes: > Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun- > shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?  No, but I have several other breakdowns of accidental shootings. I've never seen one that specifically provides the info that Davis insists that he has, so I'd love to have a cite.  >If you fall, for example, > and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.  Wrong.  There's one gun design where that can happen, and it is supposed to be carried with the hammer over an unloaded chamber. (Cocking the gun turns the cylinder so that a loaded cylinder is under the hammer.  In other words, it can be usefully carried in a safe manner.)  Other handgun designs don't have that property; if their trigger isn't pulled, the hammer can't hit the firing pin.  > The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of > deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.  The breakdowns that I do have include the above category.  From them I can safely say that if Davis is right in ALL of his claims, a large negative number of people are killed by animals, because we know that the number of killings by wackos is reasonably large and that the number of accidents due to gun failures (which is a superset of the described circumstance) is near zero.  >I can find the figures if you don't believe me.  Please do.  Include a cite for those of us who like looking at context.  Make sure that your source excludes other types of accidents and suicides that are misreported.  ("Gun cleaning accident" is police-speak for "the family needs the insurance money.")  -andy
>>Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this >>thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business >>as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order? >>Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...? >> >>And if Clinton and friends have their way, (highly likely at this point) >>the New Order Government will also have all the guns...  So what if >>"1984" is going to be ten years late...  I think we are going to discover >>that we will be paying DEARLY for putting this fellow in office for decades >>to come.  Even some die-hard supporters are having serious doubts about >>their Savior.
In <C5wI8x.Cqs@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov (Doug S. Caprette) writes:  >Can anyone cite an example in which this defense was successful? >How about a source for this?  Please take this thread out of "tx.politics.talk.politics.guns" which does not exist.  How about "tx.politics,talk.politics.guns" instead, eh? --  Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780 Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234  Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110 Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: > >In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     > ><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu >>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.) > Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.  It's basic purpose - not to let the gun fire until you're ready.  Christ, I've known that since I had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't know me so don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know.  I do know that the Glock has multiple safties from reports, looking at them at a gun shop, and friends who own one.  >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 >-- From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.  Every article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.  And don't ask me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on here without someone getting right on your ass.  No wonder why there are so many problems in the world.  Everyone takes everything just a little too seriously.  By the way,  I'm not going to reply to any of this stuff anymore as someone made the good point that this discussion is getting too close to r.g (And yes I know that I had something to do with that).
In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com>, Jim De Arras writes: |> Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  Humans died   |> yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the actions   |> they did.  That is the undeniable truth.   ...the question is: for how long? Even if the FBI had done nothing, I guess the  BDs would have committed suicide, but maybe not until hunger and thirst gave them the choice between sucide or surrender.  The BDs was warned in beforehand about the FBI action. They HAD the chance to surrender and get a fair trial. No matter who started the fire, the BDs were  responsible for 80+ peole dying. No one else.
In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes: |> Thank you for remembering Matzada.  Matzada was not an insane act. It was |> a sanctification of G_D's name and the most extreme denial of tyranny |> possible. To this day the officers of the Tzahal (Isreal Defense Force) |> take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will |> not fall again! |>   Not anymore!  Recent archaeological inspection of the site presents pretty compelling evidence that the "mass suicide" at Masada never occured.  This evidence was so compelling tha the Tzahal no long hold their secret ceremony at the fortress.
>In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:  >|>  >|> Does anybody reading this group have an actual, honest-to-God >|> experience with violent crime in the backcountry to tell about? >|>   It was around 1969 in the Shenandoah Valley near Woodstock, Virginia.  Me, my wife, a friend, his wife, and his 2 kids were hiking in a totally desolate mountain area.  All of a sudden, large rocks began raining down on us.  Looking up, we saw at least 3 punks gleefully letting loose rocks from what was an obvious stash.  They were a couple hundred feet above us. Meanwhile, the women and kids were screaming and running for cover and the punks were shrieking with laughter.  Me and my friend yelled for them to knock it off.  They responded that we should "Get f***ed!".  Me and my friend drew our pistols and fired a couple of times into the trees above their heads.  They ran.  With no more 3-5 pound rocks coming at our heads, we proceeded on our journey.  Sorry, but me and my friend saw no need to let it evolve to a more "violent" level than we were already experiencing.  I guess we should have tried harder to understand and cope with the anger that society had instilled in them and was driving them to do such things.  Guess that's a cross I'll have to bear.
In article <VEAL.744.735151266@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says: > >In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     > ><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu > >>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from >>the people on the net. >> >>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You >>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their >>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is >>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you >>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there >>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)? > >       As a data point from Tennessee, a friend of mine and a police >officer essentially recommends that if you can, fade away.  Even if >you were perfectly justified you're likely in for a great deal of >hassle.  (A side note, carrying a gun concealed is a misdemeanor.) > This is exactly what I have heard before.  If you were to fade away and nobody saw you what kind of evidence would they be able to get to catch you (this is assuming that you either collected your brass or had a revolver)?  >>What kind >>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would >>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and >>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone >>saw you and you were caught? > >       It's one of those "by State" things, pretty much.  Guess it's time to take a trip to the library and look at the Illinois statutes again :-)  Just for the record folks I'm just asking this because I'm curious. I'm just trying to find out from people who have read more on stuff like this.  >David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group >PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day >your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't >love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes: >  > papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod): >  >    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up? >  >    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide. >    No comparison. >  > Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey > are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and > kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate. > Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of > booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a > demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.  	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more 	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation.  	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military 	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.  	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into 	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its 	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or 	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical. 	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on 	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and 	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer 	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way. 	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a 	good dollar/pound deal.