waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Karl Auerbach writes:  >>> Besides, nine people *did* successfully flee the fire.  >Yeah, and at least one person ran back in. SOunds like a personal choice to me. >Religious fanaticsm, and a beleive that dying in the 'defense' of your beliefs, >is probably at the core of what happened in Waco.  	Religious fanaticism?
The Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus in Fort Collins, Colorado, submitted this as a questionnaire to the city council candidates in the upcoming election. As expected, very few of the candidates (3 of 13) responded, but they know we're watching.  Feel free to use any and all of these questions that strike your  fancy or use them as inspiration for your own.                                  *****            1.  Would you be willing to state, in writing, that if you are        publicly demonstrated to have violated your oath of office        you would resign and never run for office again?            2.  Under what circumstances do the rights of the group come        before the rights of the individual?            3.  Would you support a city charter amendment prohibiting the        city government, its officials, agents, and employees from        initiating force against any human being for any reason?            4.  Please put the following list in order of precedence (from        lowest to highest): a) city ordinance, b) city resolution,         c) state law, d) federal statute, e) U.S. Constitution,         f) state constitution.            5.  Do you believe that it's appropriate for any city official or        employee to be paid more than his or her average private        sector constituent?            6.  Do you believe that involuntary contributions are a legitimate        means of funding council programs?            7.  Would you support a program recognizing the right of        taxpayers to "earmark" their taxes (either as "must be used"        or "must not be used") for specific programs?            8.  In the event that the candidate "None of the Above" were to        win a city election, which option do you believe most        appropriate? a) The candidate with the next highest vote total        fills the office. b) A special election is held to fill the         office, with none of the previous candidates eligible to run         again. c) Let the office remain unfilled and unfunded until         the next election. d) Abolish the office.         Please return your questionnaire to: [address of your choice]  A signature and date line were added here.      Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.                                   ******  The questionnaires were sent with self-addressed, stamped envelopes.  P.S. One person _did_ get a perfect score on the questionnaire, and, no, he didn't help write it.  Cathy Smith
Andy Freeman (andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : >NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP : > : >San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News : >1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr. : >San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190 :  Hmmm, the SJ Merc. carries Targemasters West, National Shooting club,  Reeds sportshop, Sportsmens supply and Big 5 ads. They all sell guns. No they don't have any adds like in Shotgun news.  If they won't at least run the current adds I swear I'll cancel my subscription and end to cash to the CRPA.
I need quotes from Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, or any of the other founders, that support the idea that the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution so that the populace could protect itself it the government began to degenerate into tyrrany. If you have any (with sources), please mail them to me. Thanks.
Today's atrocity in Waco has finally impelled me to start working on something I've been thinking about for some time.  Over the last few years I have heard of one case after another of government running completely amok.  Unfortunately, most people are oblivious of the government's crimes and still think of it as their protector.  So I intend to put together what I call the "American Horror File": a compilation of cases where the American government has run roughshod over the rights of its citizens over the last few years, focusing especially on deaths and injuries resulting from no-knock warrants, and financial ruin to innocents resulting from civil forfeiture laws, but including any other cases for which I can find decent documentation.  I hope to make people blood-boiling, artery-bursting, red-hot enraged at their government.  The end result will probably be a book in electronic form (ASCII text and postscript files) detailing the government's crimes of recent years.  This book will be distributed at cost, and I will encourage people to post copies to BBS's, send copies on disk to friends, and print out copies and give them to neighbors.  This is a call for your help.  Any information that you can send me on how government is running amok will be greatly appreciated.  I would prefer information that is well-documented, with sources given, about specific instances of governmental abuses.  I also welcome anyone who wants to join me in collecting and researching information for this project.
<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork >to defend the burning of the children.      Actually all the liberals I've seen have deplored the burning of  children. I would far preferred that the Davidians had not set the  fire that burned themselves and their children to death, but I don't  believe that the responsibility for the fire (or the almost complete  absense of attempts to escape the blaze) can be placed at the door of  the Federal authorities.  >Probably drooled all over themselves while watching the TV coverage.      Not so. My wife got me a convenient plastic "drip pan" for Christmas...  >Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.      Yeah, those Nazis. You know how we liberals just love those Nazis.  >Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are >a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute.      Yeah, as information trickles in... funny how that works...
My sig has generated more mail than any of my posts.  Robin Hood is a school financing plan wherein property rich school districts will have a portion of their tax revenue taken from them and given to property poor districts.  The laudable plan is to equalize the per student spending.  IMHO, however, it is a disaster waiting to happen.  Taxes will go up in 50% of the districts and we will lose control of how OUR tax money is spent.  It penalizes districts that have excelled.  And the election is Saturday. Along with city council, school board and the unfinished Senate term.  And after I exercise one right, I'm going to exercise another!
| The U.S. Government has become a garrotte around the necks of its | citizens.  Just as with a garrotte, the more people struggle to breathe | the air of freedom, the more the government tightens its stranglehold. The | only possible outcomes at this point are the death of government or the | elimination of personal freedom.  I think this is a little extreme, i am concerned about a couple of things i've seen lately. It seems to me that the government is *beginning* to  enforce political correctness. the first King verdict was polically incorrect so the hell with constutitional protection from double jeopardy, try the cops again. the BD's are far as i can tell didn't do anything wrong. nothing that would justify the horrable end they were subjected too. they were simply polically incorrect in the extream. i can't help but wonder "who's next"
In article <1993Apr9.134525.21567@medtron.medtronic.com> rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls) writes: >Kenneth D. Whitehead (kdw@icd.ab.com) wrote: >: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes: > >: > Questions for the media and the politically correct: >: >    [...] >: > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits  Some of the Davidians *are* black.  Next question?
In a previous article,  () says:  >"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.           Interesting that Janet Reno has publically announced that         we need steal ourselves for more Wacos.  I wonder if I can         get the gasoline concession.   >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.        Yup.  Kill that bastard!  > >This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound         Ah, yes.  The ILLEGAL helicopter, searchign for the non-existent      PCP lab.  I remember it well, even if the media ( and y'all ) tell      me I don't.  Call me Winston.  >that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously. >There were no CS CANISTERS... a specially modified Abrams was pupming the         Ahhh, yes.  The "non-existent" canisters.  Call me Winston again.   >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.       I did too, but for different reasons.  The FBI has a habit of burning      up people in fortified areas.   >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.         Yup.  Good.  Dead.  YEAH!   Maybe Janet will do some more, just       like she's promis, er, WARNED us about.        Like I told y'all before.  I would SERIOUSLY consider the following:
Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) writes: > cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: > >mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes: > > > >> >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. > >>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use  > >> on a warm day  in Texas.  > > > >Do YOU eat all your food cold?  > Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular. > Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially.  oh, i see. electricity is a natural right & our wonderful government would -never- cut off the power to the people they were besieging. are you really this dumb, or just acting like it for the sake of argument?  jason
v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:  >Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes?  	Generally the ship sinks (sorry, there's a picture of the USS Iowa next to my desk).  > Bullets go flying every >where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines  >went up.  	First, unless that round is chambered there is little threat of penetration by the bullet, or the brass for that matter.  Unless that expanding gas is held in an enclosed space you get a nice "pop" and not enough threat for even firefighters to worry about.  Finally, it's rather simple to tell if a person was shot prior to being burned to a crisp.  See, by the time the ammunition went up those people were quite dead.  Look for blood around the wound, particularly bruising.  	However, it's my contention that it makes little difference whether they died from exploding ammunition or fire; the Feds seem to have shared responsibility for both.
reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes: |There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some |regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD |to take a drivers safety class.  I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  My car |MUST be registered.  I MUST (at least where I live) have liability |insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an |accident with it).  Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration |of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for |gun owners.  As I'm sure others will have pointed out to you by now, none of the above measures are required for you *on your own property*.  You do not have to have a license, your car does not have to be registered or inspected, and you do not have to have insurance or safety training classes, when you own and operate that vehicle on your own premises.  If you are going to make use of this dubious analogy, at least make it accurate.  And by the way, in Texas you can drive a car in public (with the proper credentials), but an ordinary civilian can't carry a gun legally in public to save his/her life.  So I won't even consider registration, *manadatory* safety classes, or *manadatory* liability insurance unless I get a federal law repealing all local, state, and federal gun control laws which abridge the Second Amendment, and a non-discretionary federal weapons carry permit, good anywhere in the United States.  Come on, you wanted the analogy.   Mike Ruff
In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes: > >1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at >some time before the Feb. 28th raid? > Yes, the local sheriff stated that anytime he wanted to talk to Koresh, all he had to do was call him and Koresh would come down.   > > >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.  Full agree with you here.  I think its ridiculous that he did not even talk to Janet Reno until sometime Tuesday, however, he did talk with Wendell Hubbel(?).  So who really is the Attorney General????   Hopefully the investigation will answer some of these bizarre questions.
In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes: >That the gas was "not harmful", as the sensitive, caring Janet Reno described  >it?  Is it? As far as I know, tear gas, especially in large concentrations, is very dangerous (even toxic) for small children. This makes the FBI's supposedconcern for the safety of the children seem rather  hypocritical.
In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes: :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 : :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 : :With the arms build up in Waco they needed to hit that compound with :mega fire power. They could of gone in there blasting and killed a few  I hope this is a joke... if not, here's my response:  The BATF has a history of no-knock raids with poor evidence, often resulting in innocent people being killed or suffering injury to person or property.  I will NOT support the BATF until they clean up their act... Maybe...  As to equipment, the BATF has damn near anything it wants...  Their faults were in intelligence (military and civilian definitions apply), tactics (attacking during DAYLIGHT??), methodology (the FBI stated that it is against government policy to assault a position where there are non-combatants/potential hostages without attempting negotiations first), and legality.  The BATF's jurisdiction is TAXES on firearms and tobacco.  They are a branch of the department of the treasury.  They have very curiously backed away from their claims of illegal weaponry to push the child-abuse charges... The BATF has no jurisdiction over non-firearms/tobacco issues! And the charges of child-abuse had been investigated in the past with no violence and no validation.  This was a clear case of first the BATF, then the FBI, having watched too many Rambo movies...  My opinion is that the agent in charge should be charged with executing an illegal raid, criminal negligence, murder, civil rights violations, and breaking his/her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US.  The warrant should be unsealed to reveal to the  public what justification the BATF thought it had in committing an armed assault on American citizens.  And while on the issue of investigating this issue, the Randy Weaver case and the Johnny Lawmaster case should be investigated for BATF wrongdoing.  James  btw, if the BATF came busting in my windows with concussion grenades, you could damn well bet I would return fire to the utmost of my ability.
As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu: > 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area. > 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in.  That depends only on the profit of doing so.  The differences in cost of production will determine local vs smuggle.  > 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people > 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile  Those of us who have actually made semi-autos (full-autos are easier) are getting quite a giggle out of this.  I'd estimate that 5% of the people at my high school couldn't do it.  (I was one of the few who failed shop.)  People who have actually seen me do mechanical work would probably say that 1% is more like it.  Starting with even 90% of the population, you can be sure that "enough" people will be motivated.  > 	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.   How much is "through the nose"?  After all, we know quite a bit about how much a gun is worth to a criminal, so if that is dwarfed by the price demanded by the "bad" part of that 90%....  The relevant economic analysis has been made.  The "profit" of gun crime is high enough that the price required to push criminals out of the market is high enough that everyone will be motivated. That analysis ignored some "improvements" in the criminal gun market that could make them even cheaper.  (They're not efficiently used now, but a "loaner" set up would drive the value still higher without affecting criminal use.)  -andy
In article <1993Apr17.235338.2819@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) says: > >>>>...I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by >>>> taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting. > >>>That is the recommended way to practice with a CCW, too.  Aim alone is no   d >goo >>>for defense, if you can't get the gun rapidly. > >>Very true but the way it was being done was just a little unusual.  It looked >>to me like they were practicing to shoot someone...  The point that I forgot to bring up here (and this has nothing to do with being a gang member or not) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in this area (or in the state of illinois for that matter).  This is not to say that people in Illinois don't carry concealed weapons illegaly but practicing like that when there are other people around wasn't too bright of an idea.  > >There isn't necessarily a conflict between practicing with a concealed >weapon for self-defence and practicing to shoot someone. Armed >self-defence does occasionally involve shooting an attacker. > >                                              Frank Crary >                                              CU Boulder  I agree.      If you don't practice at all and carry a gun for self-defense you most likely would be in big trouble if a situation were to arise.
In article <1993Apr23.153005.8237@starbase.trincoll.edu>  writes: >In article <1r6h4vINN844@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De >Arras) wrote: >>    >> You seem to make two points.  No one ultimately oversees the federal agencies   >> you mention, and since Koresh "apparently" has a different view point from your   > >I've yet to meet a group of Baptists who were stockpiling Cambell's soup >and M-16's/AR-15's and banging/marrying thirteen yuear olds. You're a sorry  Hmm... all reports from Texas authorities indicate that none of the children which the group released showed any signs of child abuse.. given that the same results were found the last time the group was investigated for such allegations, I can pretty much state that I strongly suspect the government of disinformation /deception on this issue.  And about stockpiling weapons/food, many recognized religous groups practice maintaining a one years supply of food, and some even maintain a supply of weapons and ammunition, why are those two facts grounds  for an armed assault?  And from the dollar value of the weapons purchased,  if they bought decent firearms it comes out to about one handgun, rifle, and shotgun for each adult, with a few extras...  Going by that rule, the BATF best get ready for the fight of their life when they assault Alabama...
In article <23APR199302461670@zeus.tamu.edu> djh4484@zeus.tamu.edu (HARTY, DANIEL JOSEPH) writes: > "  A well regulated militia, being necessarry to the security of a free state, >   the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." > >  What is regulated? Regulated means "controlled"! How about security?  While it may mean that in 1993, the relevant meaning comes from 1789. Moreover, "controlled" doesn't tell you WHO's doing the controllling.  Fletcher's Political Works, pub'd in 1749, defines a "well-regulated militia", that being the relevant phrase, as being an armed people NOT under the control of govt.  The wigged gents who argued about the constituion used it in that way.  Feel free to provide a 1790s-era reference showing a usage other than "individual right, not to be interfered with by govt".  Note that the first clause has a meaning - it is a restriction on govt military power.  See Scarry's University of Penn law review article for an extended discussion.  The existence of a well-regulated militia is a necessary part of that restriction, but it is not sufficient.  -andy
In article <1993Apr21.053035.29591@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes: > In article <1r1j1l$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >> In article <1993Apr20.143255.12711@mcs.kent.edu>, mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes: >>  >> Oh, then, I guess that shooting THOSE kind of babies is all right. >>  >> You sick bastard. >> --  >>  >> cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company, >> OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet... >>  >  > Why thanks for your reply to my post.  By the way, I never, never ever said  > that it was right to shoot "THOSE kind" of babies.  However it was the Branch > Davidian people in there that insisted on staying there with their "savior"  > (yeah right budy boy) because he had brain-washed them into believing that  > what ever he says is the truth, even if means that they are to give up their > lives for <<<<HIS>>>> cause.  Therefore it is Davids fault and not the ATF's > who gave them 50 to 51 days to get out, this was 50 days to many for me and  For goodness sake if they had fired a cruise missile at the compound more people would have come out alive. It was obvious to anyone with the remotest contact with reality that such an outcome was likely (not just possible) however the fire started. As, Mr Lawnmower, you seem to have already entered your own little virtual reality I guess you can't be expected to understand things in the real universe.