waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr21.045548.17418@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes: > >Y'know, when the right to bear arms was "invented",   It wasn't "invented", but was supposed by the writers of the Constitution to be a universal, pre-existing right. Howsomever...  >all we had to worry about was the shotgun and pistol.   Hmmm.  You need to spend some time in a library, son.  When the Bill of Rights was written, in addition to the (muzzleloading) shotgun and pistol you mention we had:   - rifles in calibers ranging from around .30 to .69 caliber and up.  - cannon with various different projectiles to choose from (and owned    by civilians).  - breech-loading rifles  In addition, semiautomatic and full-automatic firearms had been patented and/or demonstrated by several people in various places during the preceding century or so.  >Now, we have to worry about drive-bys >with Uzis sparaying the entire neighborhood with bullets.  Sounds good.  Any refererences to this actually happening, or is it just exaggeration for effect following one or more incidents of someone firing a handful of shots from something that may or may not be an Uzi, semi- or full-auto?  >Just because someting was good once, does not mean it will be forever.  Until the root conditions that justified it go away (criminal behavior, either private or government, which should be defended against), there's no reason it should go away.  --
In article <nate.1485.735408842@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes: ><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. > So far, there is NO credible evidence that the BD's set the fires themselves. We only have the ATF/FBI's sayso. Law enforcements type would *never* lie to cover their ass, right?  >>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.  No, not love, just share a surprising similarity of beliefs and method.  >>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...  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.   >Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler >Psychology Department               Indiana University >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
In article <C5tKI1.C8s@rice.edu> fontenot@ravl.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques   Fontenot) writes: > 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.  I watched it live, and have re-watched it several times, and from the press   vantage point, there was only one starting point visible, where the tank   punched in on the windward side, and the winds whipped that fire across the   whole, dry, wooden, structure in minutes.  Faned by the 30 mph gusts, and the   Hueys.   If there were other fires started, they were not visible, nor were   they needed to cause the flame progression I observed. >  > 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. >  All witnesses get thier paychecks from the FBI.  > >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. >  Yep.  They media has endorsed the FBI version without question.  Sad.  > Dwayne Jacques Fontenot Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
In article <C5sIAJ.Ks7@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:  > So, why didn't the BD's leave when the gas was first introduced much  > earlier in the morning?  Didn't they care about the children? >  > Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?  Because most of the children were with their parent(s). Do you understand that concept? Here's a bunch of people who believe in their minds that the forces of Satanic evil are outside and you expect them to hand over their own children? Were you born that stupid or does it take a lot of effort?
In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes: > >For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers. >Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier: > >			handgun homicides/population >			---------------------------- >	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000 >	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000 > >.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more >liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER. >Your choice.  Please, PAY ATTENTION. I, and others, were referring to TOTAL HOMICIDE DEATHS, NOT JUST HANDGUN HOMICIDES.  In terms of how likely are you to be killed, (regardless of how it's done, 'cause DEAD is DEAD), the UK has a higher homicide rate. Period.  You are more likely to be killed in the UK than in Switzerland.  If you were to be murdered with a handgun, then yes, Switzerland has a higher rate.  But, to belabor the point, you are MORE LIKELY to be murdered in the UK. In that sense, the weapon is irrelevant.  The UK is more violent, period.  Al [standard disclaimer]
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu  writes: >Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter >how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.   Nope.  Here in Northern California, a newspaper recently did a survey, asking if people favored stricter gun controls.  A full 40% said no. Here, in one of the most Liberal (it wasn't always a swear word :( areas of the country, nearly half the people don't want additional controls, let alone revocation of RKBA...  >This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your >RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.  Misguided dolt though he may be (though, I still maintain, less dangerous than Bush), Clinton does not publicly support revoking the second amendment.  >Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect >them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time. >Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an >immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.   Well, I'll help MY neighbors...  >Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions >are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will >be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...  Violent solutions are passe'?  I take it you propose disarming the police, then?  Please don't mention RKBA in the same breath as the KKK.  RKBA is about being able to defend yourself and others, not about killing the innocent. Actually, your mention of the KKK is rather funny, considering that the first gun control law in the US were created specifically to disarm black people...
In article <lairdb.735523285@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: >In <C5sGG3.Bnv@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes: >>As William O. Douglas noted, "If a powerful sponsor is lacking, >>individual liberty withers -- in spite of glowing opinions and >>resounding constitutional phrases." > >An excellent quote. ... >I looked under 'C' and 'K' for Kalifornia; has the NRA given up on us?  One might well ask if CA gun owners have given up on the NRA/CRPA.  The national NRA doesn't march in and get things passed.  They provide a convenient label for local activities/activists.  -andy
In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:   >...   >In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.   >No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,   >than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.    >   >The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.  You know, in many ways this might be just the kick we need to straighten things out in this country.  Also, people would have a need to replace guns with something else, perhaps deadly sprays that would make Mace and OC seem like water.  They would be lighter and easier to conceal.  Guns are really "old" in design and as long as we have tons of them, no one is motivated to design something better.  I'm sure we could come up with some real nasty stuff if we tried and getting rid of these guns would get us moving on this track asap.  This is what we really want, right?  Stuff that's smaller, lighter and far more deadly.
In article <C5Lrpq.50o@idacom.hp.com> guy@idacom.hp.com (Guy M. Trotter) writes: > >Hi, > >In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a >small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is >that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the >National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances >of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions. > >I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer >to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with >nature on it's own terms. > >Guy  Hello,  	I understand this philosophy.  The bears are a national treasure, the area is their sanctuary and people who enter it do so at their own risk.  It is better that that rare human be killed by a bear than that bears be provoked or shot by unbear-savvy visitors.  The bears aren't having a population explosion, humans are so it is better that a human be killed than endanger the bears. I don't agree with this philosopy, but I understand it.  	The psychos are a bit different.  They are not a national treasure but I suppose the decision has been made that to "allow" provision for defense against them would also "allow" provision for defense against bears.  Again, I suppose it has been decided that it is better for the rare human to be killed by a psycho than to take a chance on threatening the bears.  	Personally, I wouldn't go into an area where I would be "managed" so as to reduce my safety ..... but ... come to think of it I guess I live in a managed wilderness myself :-)
In article <1993Apr21.040839.20574@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >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. >  Not to mention that the G-men believed the children didn't have gas masks.  But that was not, with respect to the children, the point of the gassing. The feds *knew* that the children's health would be in danger and proceeded under the assumption that the "motherly instinct" of the Davidian women would remove them from harm's way. I busted a gut on that one.  Someone else on the net observed that the administration's appeal to a woman's "motherly instinct" would never wash with feminists and liberals if a republican were in the White House. I say that such an justification could *only* come from a feminist mindset.   BTW - I'd read in the paper yesterday that the type of gas used was CS2. The paper didn't provide any specifics about it.
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   > Baptist upbringing, then he is not worthy of protection from religious   > persecution.  As to being the Messiah, is not Christ within us all? >  > Must be comforting to belong to a government approved religion. >  > Baptists are a cult, two, BTW, under most of the definitions in the dictionary   > of "cult". >   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 son of a bitch if you can't draw a distinction between these two things. People like you cheapen our constitution by using it to defend sociopaths who aren't deserved of it. Get a life and chill on the paranoia.
In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com>, franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes: |> On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the |> family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's |> Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before |> the raid.  The briefing documents for the raid had a notation on them about a similar local property which had sold for $800,000 prior to the raid, if recent TV coverage can be believed.  |> This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property; |> any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.  The Ventura County DA came to the same conclusion in the report he released, which lambasted the Sheriff's Office.  Too bad the old man was nearly blind, and didn't take a few goose-stepping Drug Warriors (TM) with him.
In article <1qfrhbINNo80@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) says: >[...] >this measure as it will prevent the evil Bambi-killers from hunting, >and another will fight it for the interference with Nature that it is.  Such a measure would also have another benefit. It would relieve the various states of the thorny problem of what to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars hunters pour into the economy annually. I'm sure that, to attain sure a lofty, humane, liberal and ecologically (not to mention politically) correct goal, the environmental and animal rights groups/individuals supporting such a measure would be more than willing to add their names to a list of supporters seeking increased taxation to replace these lost revenues. I am equally confident that these same entities, given their noteworthy record in the area of social responsibility and respect for private property, would feel morally and ethically bound to raise the necessary funds to acquire the hundreds of thousands of acres of land now held in private hands solely for use as private hunting preserves by the landowner(s). To do less than this would place these same groups/individuals in the ethically untenable (to say nothing of environmentally and politically incorrect) position of sanctioning the logging and subsequent development and urbanization of these former private hunting lands, which would no longer be useable by, or of any benefit to, the landowner(s) in such a capacity.
In article <C5wCyB.n1F@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: ...... >  > No Koresh is responsible. >  > If a murderer goes on the rampage it is the murderer who is responsible. > The police may bear responsiblity for failing to stop him but the primary > responsibility is with the murderer. >   When did Koresh go on a rampage?  What I saw was an unnecessary, unprovoked massive attack on Feb. 28th.  Probably even an illegal action by ATF, certainly way out of proportion to anything reasonable.  And yet, according to a pole taken yesterday, 95% of the people poled believe the government forces acted appropriately.  They don`t believe Reno or the President have any guilt in ordering/allowing the attack.  I suppose they also believed things like: "I would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget." "We don`t need to lead with a tax increase...." "It starts with a middle-class tax cut..." "I`ll have the bills ready the day after I am inaugurated and we`ll have a 100 day period....It will be the most productive in modern history." "I will ask congress for a line item veto.." "I will lift the social security earnings test.."  I personally prefer to disbelieve the government until they prove themselves right, rather than the other way around.  That way I have a better than 50% chance of being right about my first guess!  Read the constitution sometime, it is supposed to protect the citizens and their rights.  I am sick of the abuse of government power.
In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes: >: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all >: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation >: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death >: by stabbing?)  >What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?... >The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  No. The issue is reducing crime, not guns. If gun control doesn't lower crime overall, then is doesn't address the issue.  >...Even a simpleton knows that >he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...  Does that matter if assaults with a baseball bat become much more common? Muggers using a gun rely primarily on the threat of the gun, and rarely shoot their victim. A mugger using a knife is much more likely to start by stabbing his victim  in an effort incapacitate him. So, while a knif may not be as deadly as a gun, criminals are more likely to actually _use_ the knife (as opposed to threatening the victim with it.) It isn't at all clear that replacing the criminal's gun with a knife would reduce murders. Stabbings might just become more common. That's why it is important to look at the overall (not the with-gun) homicide rate. It avoids the issue of substitution, different criminal techinques of using different weapons, etc... and measures what we want to prevent: Murders.  >As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife >than a gun, thanks.    "Face"? Possibly. However, facing knife-welding attackers isn't too common: Stabbing without warning and by supprise is the usual tactic. Very few criminals shoot from cover: It attracts to much attention and they don't have a chance to go through your pockets. Overall, I'd much rather be threatened with a gun than actually stabbed with a knife.  >...Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't >another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have >much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife >assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).  Actually, the exact same statement is true of guns: Training in unarmed self-defence will let you disarm an untrained gunman  without much problem.  You also ignore the criminal's reaction: The National Crime Survey clearly shows that criminals (unarmed, armed with a knife, gun or whatever) are unwilling to risk their lives in a confrontation. If faced with a serious threat, almost all prefer to leave and find an easier target. Therefore, using (or threatening to use, as is much more commonly the case) a weapon _is_ the best defence against an attacker, regardless of how he is armed. Knives, however, are much less effective than guns: Criminals don't consider knifes as a "serious threat" nearly as often as they do guns.
In <donbC5sL24.Ewu@netcom.com> donb@netcom.com writes:  > Anyway, here's how I see the Waco affair; I'd be interested in other peoples' > interpretations... >  > 1. Koresh and his people were basically minding their own business. > 2. Some weapons violations may have been committed and I wouldn't have >    disapproved of prosecuting him for those violations.  However, I think >    the BATF was criminal for starting negotiations with a military style >    assault and for firing into a house where there were children and other >    noncombatants. > 3. I don't see they couldn't just leave a token guard on the place and wait >    the BDs out; I don't approve of the tear gas approach and, if it caused >    the fire to be started, I think the FBI agent responsible should spend >    10-20 years in jail.    I think the legal term would be "negligent homicide"  > 4. However, if Koresh's response to the tear gas was to kill everyone there, >    I hold him largely responsible for their deaths.     Well, it's nice to see someone with a brain, a general lack of paranoia, and a willingness to put his thoughts in public.  I tend to agree with all you have said.    "Never assume foul motives when stupidity will do." -- Jim's Corrolary to  						          Occam's Razor  semper fi,
Your "lite" posting for the day, from rec.humor.funny:  In article <S539.2adf@looking.on.ca>, bellas@tti.com (Pete Bellas) writes: >  > There is a new Ice Cream Flavor inspired by the incident at Waco. >  > It's called Mount Caramel, it's full of nuts but you can't get it out > of the carton. --
In article <C5uCHu.FFn@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:  >According to WNCI 97.9 FM radio this morning, Dayton, Ohio is operating a >gun "buy back".  They are giving $50 for every functional gun turned in. >They ran out of money in one day, and are now passing out $50 vouchers of >some sort.  They are looking for more funds to keep operating.  Another >media-event brought to you by HCI. > >Is there something similar pro-gun people can do ?  For example, pay $100 >to anyone who lawfully protects their life with a firearm ?  Sounds a bit >tacky, but hey, whatever works.        Ack, what a public relations nightmare just begging happen.        "Gun Lobby pays vigilanties."        "NRA to shell out dough to gunfighters."
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> /  3:34 pm  Apr 18, 1993 /  >>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 :-)  Sounds like a VOGON quote to me..... Perhaps YOU should READ more widely  instead of watching that idiot box....