waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr19.203606.27625@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: > >In article <93108.172544U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     > ><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu >>The point that I forgot to bring up here (and this has nothing to do with    g >bein >>a gang member or not) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in   s >thi >>area (or in the state of illinois for that matter). > >Right - it nas nothing to do with whther or not the person >is/was a gang member, but that's what Kratz inferred.... > >Wrong - there are people who can legally carry concealed in IL and >there are circumstances under which MANY people can carry concealed. > >Is accuracy really too much to expect? > >-andy >-- No it's not.  If you would have read my other post I was accurate.  Here's what I said:  [material from another post]------------------------->  The other point that I would like to make because I know it's true (looked this one up in the Illinois                   this is for you Andy-----> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ statutes before) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois. ^^^^^^^^ <------ Also for you Andy.  And then I went on to say: There is no such thing as a CCW for us ordinary folk here. [end of quoted material]  Of course I forgot to mention who "us ordinary folk" are so just for Andy I'm going to go to the library tomorrow and photocopy the part of the Illinois statutes with this information and post it.  Ordinary citizens CAN NOT get a license to carry a concealed weapon.  There are very few people who can.  I even asked my lawyer friend about this and he told me that only certain people can get licenses for concealed carry.  He couldn't remember which people but he knew for sure that regular citizens couldn't get that type of license.  He told me to go check at the library for the statutes which I did.  I'll post that info tomorrow night.  Until then.......
wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:  >Then post what the press has said, not what you wished they said. >The Medical Examiner has refuted the FBI "facts" and if you don't >believe someone who has a LOT more reason to be impartial then  >what do you have to say for yourself.  In the interest of accuracy (seems a liitle late to start that, I know) the medical examiner has *not* contradicted the FBI.  The FBI said they found some folks who had been shot in the head, and the medical examiner said "we have not seen evidence of this".  At the time the medical examiner said that, they were dealing with charred bodies in the compound - this sounds like typical medical examiner not releasing details until a thorough investigation.  The medical examiner saying he hasn't seen something is *not* the same thing as saying that it isn't there.
In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes: >In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >>Consider a similar structure: >>"A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a >>free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not >>be infringed." >> >>Now, does this mean only the electorate can keep and read books?  Does{ >>it mean only registered voters can keep and read books?  Does it mean  >>only those who have voted can keep and read books?  Does it imply any >>restrictions AT ALL on the right to keep and read books? > >But it would imply that the state had the right to regulate and enforce >education.  That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.  There is a difference between "the feds can mandate literacy" and "the feds can't interfere with literacy/book possession".  >>As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already >>ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v. >>Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what  >>the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back >>as the Dred Scott case, in 1857. > >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.  Actually, the Miller court did nothing of the kind.  It remanded the case back to the trial court because the miller court didn't know if the weapon in question was a militia weapon.  (Doesn't it bother anyone that a major constitutional issue was taken up in a case where there was no defense?  Miller had been released by the appeals court and disappeared - only the govt was represented.)  We don't know what would have happened with the reasonable "all guns are militia weapons" argument.  -andy
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu says:  Ah I love posts like this.  Many people have already replied to this one as I knew they would.  I'm not going to say much as this just seems like baiting to me.  Someone decided to post to see how many people would get mad and reply.  I am just going to ignore it but I do have one thing to say.  See below. > >Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect >them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Listen buddy, if you're going to quote Star Trek get the quote right.  It was "Resistance is futile".  Get it right the next time :-)  Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu
In article <2077@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: >I am sick, dismayed, discouraged.  And ASHAMED of our Administration. > >Anybody for impeachment?  I have already called senators, legislators and the Governor demanding that the warrants be unsealed, and that all involved in this atrocity (including the President, Attorney General and Governor) be suspended pending an investigation.  I seriously doubt, however, that anything will ever be done.   Welcome to Amerika!
"Freed om of Religion" has absolutely nothing to do with building a small arsenal and grooming 10-year old children to be your wife. "I'll come out as soon as I finish my manuscript on the Seven Seals." Oh, OK, David.  I agree that Koresh was as much of a victim as a perpetrator; this because he grew up inside the cult, and engaged in a power struggle where his supporters helped inflate his ego.  That doesn't change the fact that he was a loose fucking cannon with a shitload of serious weapons. Or that he was banging thirteen year olds and twisting their impressionable little minds.  This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously. There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the stuff in. No chance of starting a fire there. Kerosene lamps? Maybe one, but not three fires. No way. Koresh wasn't just talking out of his ass. I expected this to happen.  Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower to die. Fuck all of you "Big Brother" paranoid freaks. The only good thing to come of any of this is that there will be one less group of crazoids to attract some of the more rootless members of our society.
In article <1993Apr5.153951.25005@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, pspod@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) writes: >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?  There is a (likely) veto proof majority in the house.  The Senate, unfortunately, is a different story.  The Lt.Gov. has vowed that the bill will not be voted on, and he has the power to do it.  In addition, the Senate is a much smaller, and more readily manipulated body.  On ther other hand, the semi-automatic ban will likely not live, as at least fifty per cent of the house currently opposes it, and it is VERY far down in the bill order in the Senate (I believe it will be addressed after the CCW bill).  And I thought my TX Political Science class was a waste of time!
In article <1993Mar30.191157.8338@synapse.bms.com> hambidge@bms.com writes: >In article <93088.191742U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >>What is a CCW >Acronym for Concealed Carrying of Weapon; basically, a permit to carry >a concealed pistol or revolver.  I phoned Licensing Division in Washington State to ask for an application for a CCW.  Instead they promptly sent me an applicationfor becoming a  firearms dealer in Washington!
In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:  >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.)  >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.
dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:  >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.    	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining these weapons, and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.  I'll give you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction, biological in nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So, where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: > >I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas >in 1991 that was caused by guns.....  That includes suicides.  Since it has been shown in other countries that suicide rates are pretty much independent of the means available for doing oneself in (studies include some done/published in Japan, Canada, Austria, Norway), suicides ought not be included in the count.  If this is done, the number of vehicle-related deaths greatly exceeds that of firearms-related deaths in Texas.  >*I* should not suffer because of others....  Certainly not.  >We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor >we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').  Why?  Unless it's doing something that directly hurts someone else, what's the point?  (Otherwise, you'd better stop operating all motor vehicles, since the price of operating them *greatly* exceeds the cost in lives of firearms.  >One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could >only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....  WEll, it's been done at least twice.  South (North?) Carolina did it a few years back...and watched its crime rate relative to the rest of the country rise quite a bit.  Virginia just passed the law...no word yet on what the results will be, but I'd be willing ot bet that a reduction in crime rates won't be one of them.  >I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on >other people.  Self-defense doesn't "inflict" on other people (except perhaps the criminal who's tried to do you damage, and maybe indirectly on future potential victims who might not become victims).    --
|	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area. |	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production |	would have to be local. There are not all that many people |	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile |	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could |	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and |	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would |	pay through the nose for it.   This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we have a road system that is the envy of the world?  I seem to recall incidents in the past where Chinese entreprenaurs attempted to smuggle AK-47s (semi-autos) into this country to get around import number limitations (May have been Gunweek where I read that years ago...)  Any person with high-school drafting skills and vocational school machineshop training could produce a submachinegun. You talk about the average person not being able get even a zip-gun; well now, think of all that private CNC controlled machinery that is not being used for 3 shifts a day; do you think that if guns were being sold on the black market for say, $150, an enterprising mechanical engineer could be using that machinery to produce workable submachineguns for sale? After all, GUNWEEK had an article and pictures on how BATF was looking for the manufacturer of quite efficient silencers that were of commercial quality and finish.
In article <1r6a50$ln4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton) writes: > >In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says: > >>The Comsymp ZOG wants you to think that it is the only legitimate >             ^^^ >>possessor of nuclear weapons.  Unconstitutional!  You and I have just >>as much right to a kilogram or two of nice weapons grade plutonium as >>any cruddy little pointy headed liberal Los Alamos pinkos. > >Ah yes, yet another anti-semite anti-gunner blunders into tpg and makes >an ass of himself.  satire \'sa-tir\ n [MF or L; MF, fr. L _satura_, _satira_, fr. (lanx) satura full plate, medley, fr. fem. of _satur_ sated; akin to L _satis_ enough - more at SAD](1509) 1: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.  2: trenchent wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.  syn see WIT.  							spl
In article <1993Apr5.220457.6800@spdc.ti.com> dwhite@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Dan White) writes: >	I have a question about the second amendment that has bothered >me for awhile.  The amendment guarentees our "right to keep and bear >arms." Currently, the gun prohibitionists are trying to restrict or >eliminate our right to keep arms with the Brady Bill and the assault >weapon ban.  However, haven't we already lost our right to bear arms?  >	It seems that in most states, like Texas, a citizen may own a >gun and carry while at his home or business.  But a citizen is severely >restricted from bearing outside these areas.  Here in Texas you cannot >carry in your car except when "traveling" which is usually defined as >"traveling across a county line."  How did this come about?  Are there >any court rulings on the legality of restricting the carrying of a >weapon outside the home?    There are, but not any that would help Texans: In many states, such laws have been found to violate the state constitution.  But the federal Second Amendment does not apply directly to the states. It was written to limit the federal government only.  The Fourteenth Amendment was written to extend the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to the state level. However, the exact wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is very vague. The Supreme Court has been dancing around the issue without facing it directly for over 100 years. In practice, the Bill of Right (indirectly applies through the Fourteenth) applies to the state governments only if the Supreme Court has ruled that  particular provision. The Court has made no such rulings on the Second Amendment.
Hmmm... I hadn't heard about rockets. ATF must be escalating their tall tails... anyway >If they had rocket launchers and such (as the press and gov claims) why >shouldn't they have done something?  Why should they have "done something"? The Davidians had not attacked or even threatened anyone.  >What possible use would a religious cult have for a rocket launcher?  It is not yours nor the governments right to tell others what they have a legitimate right to own.  >Also, is child abuse covered by the Bill of Rights?  Is child abuse now within the jurisdiction of the department of the treasury? Attacking citizens without due process on the strength of unsubstantiated rumors about a violation of a law which does not fall under your jurisdiction is a pretty serious breech of rights.  >Shit, if people dont get what they want right away there is an instant >problem. >Clinton has only been in office for a few months.  Give him a chance to get >something done.  The guy had a lot of shit thrown in his lap in the beginning. >Give him a chance to work on things a little.  As they say - Rome wasn't built >in a day.  If he gets any more done we will really be in trouble!
In article <donbC5sL69.F7I@netcom.com>, donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:  > It's hard to know what/who to believe.  However, the letter I received from > the BATF, in response to one I sent to Bentsen, said that there was a search > warrant AND an arrest warrant.  Check again.  You may find that the arrest warrant was issued AFTER the first firefight. --
Ok, here goes.  Yes folks, I realize I have stuck my foot in my mouth quite a few times already so please let me make some clarifications.  My inaccurate information in my posts was due to lack of knowledge.  Thanks to you kind (and some not so kind) people I am learning.   Some people have given me several good points to ponder and I see how I was wrong. In no way was this inaccurate information supposed to be trying to further the anti-gun cause.  I have said several times before (but nobody seemed to be listening) that I am pro-gun and anti-gun-control.  As far as the race can of worms that I have opened up I have only one thing to say - I am in no way prejudiced.  Some of the things I have stated were said to demonstrate that I am not prejudiced and/or a racist but I have been accused of being too aware of race and prejudiced.  I will not say anymore about that subject because no matter what I say it will be the wrong thing.  Boy, what a start to being on a new group.  Oh well, things have been worse in my life.  I hope this clears things up but I guess that will remain to be seen.  By for now,
In article <1r1lp1INN752@mojo.eng.umd.edu> chuck@eng.umd.edu (Chuck Harris - WA3UQV) writes: >>If so, why was CS often employed against tunnels in Vietnam?  >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.  I think the is BZ gas, not CS or CN. BZ gas exposure results in projectile vomiting, loss of essentially all muscle control, inability to concentrate or think rationally and fatal reactions in a significant fraction of the population. For that reason its use is limited to military applications.
In article <C5spov.LrE@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   writes: > In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De   Arras) writes: > >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   > >writes: > >> I agree that they deserved a trial.  They had more than 40 days to come  > >> out and get their trial.  They chose to keep the children with them and  > >> to stay inside.  They chose to stay inside even after they were tear   gassed. > >> I do not find these actions rational.  Even Noriega was smart enough to  > >> give up and go for the trial he deserved. > >>  > > > >Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.   >  > Unworthy of comment.  But apparently true.  My opinion, only, of course.  >  > >Humans died   > >yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the  > >actions   > >they did.  That is the undeniable truth.  I cried for them.   >  > Nor would they have died if they had come out with their hands empty. > That is undeniable truth.    No, it is not.  It is possible the FBI planned for this to happen, and the   gunfire heard was the FBI keeping the folks inside.  I'm not proposing this as   the way it went down, but just to point out that it's not "undeniable" that if   they walked out yesterday, they would be alive today.  > My heart bleeds just as much as yours for  > the children who were never released given 51 days of ample opportunities  > to do so.  My heart also bleeds for people so blinded by religious devotion  > to not have the common sense to leave the compound when tanks came up  > and started dropping in tear gas early in the morning. >   My heart "bleeds" for no one.  You are the "bleeding heart".  And I'm sure   beyond any possible doubt that you do not feel for those people as I do.  You   can not say the heartless things you have said if you did.  > >You seem to say   > >they got what they deserved. >  > I do not think this.  However, if they did set the fire (which started in  > more than one place and spread very quickly), then they got what they  > wanted and put into motion themselves.  "they got what they wanted".  What kind of creature are you that you can   believe this? >  > I see the BATF is going to be investigated by the Justice Dept. and likely  > by Arlen Spectre and congress.  This is good.  They have bungled the affair  > from the start. >   We agree on this.  Now lets have your God, the FBI, investigated, too.  > >Jim > >-- > >jmd@handheld.com >   >------------------------------------------------------------------------------  - > >"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't   rethought   > >that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93 > >"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was   landed   > >in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!" > >WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777 >  >  > --  >   Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:  >>Ron Miller wrote: >>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback >>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer >>"no, it's total amnesty". > (good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)  > I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is  >no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing.  >  >   >	Myron Petro >	NRA, USPSA >        DVC y'all >	************************************************************************** >	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility. >	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the  >	 Second Amendment.