waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:  >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. >--   >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...   Even though I find this to be funny on the surface, the original poster of the joke has  tried and convicted the members of the BD to be a bunch of "nuts". This may be a dangerous thing to do.  It is my opinion that most educated or well informed people of this country have some distrust of the government. This should exist because as a bureaucracy, any government given enough time will tend to exist for it self and not for the original purpose it was  created for.  This distrust by the people should keep those in power in-line. That and a properly functioning press.  When a sensationalism oriented press portrays a group of people as "nuts" or crazies, a violation of those people's civil rights seem justified.   Since we, as American's, have the  gurantee of rights as enumerated in the constitution, to include the 2nd ammendment, the government must appease the public's opinion or risk  voted out of existance, or if it has become corrupt enough to tamper with domocratic process itself, being thrown out by force.   Our government as it stands, must appease the public.  Therefore the  official press releases portray the BD's as fanatics who are a threat to public safety.  We must not prejudge people based on one sided information. So far the only information that we are being given is comming from the very agency that was embarrased by the BD(Branch Davidians sp?).  It is to their advantage to make the BD's as fanatical and dangerous as possible.  If they were portrayed as law-abiding citizen's, then they(ATF) had no justification what so ever of doing what they did.    So let's keep an open mind.  Jokes like above, even though it may be funny, may mislead the public from the truth of the matter.  Just as an aside,  my understanding of U.S. vs Rock Island and U.S. vs Dalton leads me to believe that the National Firearms Act, which allows the Fed's (in this case ATF) to regulate firearms(machine guns), has been deemed to be unconstitutional since 1986.(By two federal district courts at least). And since, I believe the only reason ATF was involved in this case is because of firearms violations, it would be interesting to  find out whether or not the search warrent was based on the NFA. It would be very embarrassing indeed if a search warrent based on a possibly unconstitutional law has resulted in 4 deaths(Law enforcement).    **************************************************************************** The above opinions are mine and mine only. I'm solely responsible for my opinions and my actions.  If you must flame then flame away, but a well constructed argument will be much more respected.
In article <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.  The only folks claiming this are the ATF/FBI who have an interest in putting the blame on the BD's. Wake up.   >What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I >believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems >with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as >well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.  Right and proper? How? It was FUBAR from day 1.  >1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at >some time before the Feb. 28th raid? > From all independent sources. Yes.   >2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.  It would have hurt nothing to wait and the result could hardly have been worse.  >3) Were FBI actions (blaring loudspeakers, etc.) the "right" course of action?  Sure, it you want to someone you claim is a dangerous paranoid even more paranoid.  >And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in >general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations. > >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.  And what makes you think that "waffle boy" didn't tell her to take the wrap. It was job preservation not "balls".
As quoted from <nate.1504.735838830@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> by nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle):  > >What did those people do wrong in the first place? that is what i can't  > >figure out.  >  >     They assembled a frightening arsenal of weapons by circumventing laws  > which were intended to prevent such a buildup. Then later they used some  > of those weapons to kill representatives of the Federal government. I'm  > sure they were frightened when they saw all those BATF officers closing  > in, but in retrospect I can't see how their subsequent gunfight could be  > expected to improve the situation. >  What laws did they circumvent?  Being "frightening" isn't a crime.  Some people are afraid of young Black males.  That doesn't make the mere status of being a young Black male a crime.  The BATF itself admitted leading off by throwing handgrenades.  There is no evidence that they properly identified themselves as law enforcement  personnel.  Under those circumstances, other persons have been found to be acting within their legal rights to exercise self defense against unidentified armed intruders.  >     At this point I place little or no credibility on any of the charges  > of child abuse or molestation, but I would remind you that the Branch  > Davidians aren't the only ones burying their dead. >  The charges are irrlevant anyway, since the BATF has absolutely no jurisdiction in such matters anyway.  Of course that hasn't stopped them from making other such spurious charges, such as the existence of mythical "meth labs".  Of course they whole "cult" thing indicates the level of contempt that they have for the 1st amendment.  > >sure they were crazy, no dought about it, but what did they do wrong?  >  >     They attempted to stage an armed resistance to federal authorities  > under conditions that placed dozens of unarmed and innocent people in the  > line of fire.  >  That armed resistance, at least initially, may well have been LEGAL.
In article <81930415084418/0005111312NA3EM@mcimail.com> 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt) writes:  >Recently while looking around in Traders Sporting Goods store, a very well >stocked firearms store, I discovered a printed document that was being  >distributed by the good folks who work there.  Traders, BTW, is located in >San Leandro, CA. . . .  >The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer >see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years. > >These ads were run for the law-abiding honest citizens who own firearms for >sporting use or self-protection.  They certainly have the right to do so, under >the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.   Are you sure about this? I'm currently looking at a copy of last  Thursday's SF Chronicle and there is the typical one column Traders ad on page C7 in the Sports section. Not only that, but there is a part in the middle which rather prominently says "WANTED: We pay cash for assault rifles and pistols.". Granted, I haven't seen today's paper yet. But I'd be surprised if there wasn't a Traders ad in it. It's probably worth it to write to the Chronicle (and other papers) anyway, because all their anti-gun editorials are disgusting.  By the way, let me put in a plug for Traders. I have shopped all over the SF Bay Area and I have never seen another store with lower prices. And their selection is amazing.  --------------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Gaucher                         |   My opinions. gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu      |   No one else's.
Steve Hix writes:  >Is there NOWHERE on the net that this guy WILL NOT POST? > >Not to mention, is there ANYWHERE that he makes any >SENSE?!  Of course there is.  Perhaps the Vogons will put in a hyperspace bypass so that he can get there.
In article <1993Apr23.120935.21848@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes: >Well, after 2 days of hearing that 3 of the BD bodies had >been shot in the head (Horrors!  Another Jonestown! Crazed >Cultists!  Child Abusers!  WHACKOS in Waco!), last night the  >medical examiner was on TV and was pretty vehement in denying >that ANY of them had bullet wounds...  he seemed just a tad upset  >at the Feds for having spread that rumor.  (Aw, gee, he shouldn't  >be so hard on them;  they're just practicing the new principle  >of "flexible reality" that their big boss has implemented.) > >Before long, I think all the kneejerk government apologists >are going to start getting pretty pissed off at how easily >they were misled.  Two notes of interest from Texas:  The Tarrant Couonty ME (who is doing the autopsies) is well known for rendering judgements that are contrary to the police view.  He presented evidence a few years ago that a man who police said was pointing a gun at them actually had his hands in the air.  This does not bode well for the boys in black.  The Texas Dept. of Public Saftey and the Texas Rangers have no great love for the ATF.  I have heard them referred to as "those fucking cowboys".  The DPS was totally squeezed out of the BD operation and resented being left as "traffic cops".  ATF now has two strikes against them.  Finally (I guess that makes three notes), rumour from Waco is that four ATF agents were stopped by four Waco police cars and a DPS trooper after one of the flashed "an automatic weapon" at a cop.  Lots of pissed of cops.  And you wonder why there were so few cops really cheering on the ATF.
[Joe, why don't you put your username on your account?]  On Mon, 26 Apr 1993 17:48:19 GMT, joe.kusmierczak@mail.trincoll.edu wrote:  > Then the ATF discovers he doesn't have proper permits for some of his > purchases and failed to pay some taxes on them.   Or claims to have discovered so...  It would hardly be the first time they raided someone based on incorrect evidence.  > Was it a 'no-knock?' I really haven't heard anything on that. But clearly  It was a "no-knock", according to the Associated Press report. Here's something I found in my collection:      Excerpts from an article in the Knoxville News-Sentinel Final     Edition Monday, March 1, 1993 (the byline is associated press):      WACO, Texas - Fierce gun battles erupted Sunday as more than 100     law officers tried to arrest the leader of a heavily armed     religious cult.  At least four federal agents and two cult members     were reported killed.  [...]      The gun battles began when federal agents hidden in livestock     trailers stormed the sect's head-quarters Sunday morning,              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     witnesses said.  The agents had warrants to search for guns and     explosives and to arrest Howell, said Les Stanford of the ATF in     Washington.  [...]      Witnesses said the law officers stormed the compound's main home,     throwing concussion grenades and screaming "Come out," while three     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     National Guard helicopters approached.  For a moment, there was no     response.  Then the shooting began.   I think "storming the sect's head-quaters" and "throwing concussion grenades" qualifies as a no-knock (or perhaps an illegal assault).  > he was not just another guy minding his own business. Hell, give them all > the guns in the world if they don't bother anyone. But he was a scary sort, > don't you think? The sort of person you'd want your daughter to date? I                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Probably not.  But then again, neither are you.  > Then he fired on the ATF. That's not just a little mistake, or some > red-white-and blue American defending his home against Big Brother. That > shit doesn't fly. Anyone with his background that will shoot and kill                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And just what is "his background"?  What prior crimes had he been CONVICTED of?  > Federal Law Enforcement officials is not some good citizen whose crusade   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry, BATF are "Federal TAX Enforcement officials".  They're not police, nor do they have police powers.  -- Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
>        #DELETED BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TWISTED"  >With the WoD and the increased crime in the streets the BATF is needed  >more now then ever. If they blast away a few good fokes then that is  >the price we all have to pay for law and order in this country. Look  >at all the good people that died in wars to protect this great country  >of ours.    ##flame thrower on##   Well I don't want my tax dollars going to that kind of philosophy.   maybe if the good folks you are talking about are people like you   than I might be inclined to accept it. What does the batf do anyway?   Why don't we have a bureau for militant, paranoid, freedom killers   like yourself. People like you are more dangerous than alcohol,   tobacco and firearms.  >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  >women and kids but it would of been better then letting them all burn  >to death 51 days later.   Maybe we should just have nuked the whole city, I mean, what's a   100,000 good souls anyway?   Get real, you sound like a racist.  I guess life isn't so precious   to you, do you realize that there were  24 children KILLED!!!   They will never get to fall in love, they won't see another sunrise,   no prom, no first date, no football, baseball no NOTHING.  Why doesn't   some people think first before they let everyone know how narrow they   are.
In article <1993Apr23.130234.23728@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes: > Saw a REAL interesting report on CNN last night;  it seems the gas that > was used has been banned by international law for military use.  However, > our president was quick to point out that "there are exemptions for law > enforcement".  Hmmm...  too inhumane to use in war against the enemy, > but OK for civilians  Whoa.  Think twice, now, unless you want the same standards applied to hollowpoints... --
I just called Texas' legislative bill tracking service and found out that HB 1776 (Concealed Carry) is scheduled for a floor vote TODAY! Let those phone calls roll in.  Daryl
In article <LARRY.93Apr21174441@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu wrote: > >>>>> On 21 Apr 93 11:28:57 -0800, yodicet@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com said: >  > > Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork > > to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves > > while watching the TV coverage. > >  > > Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well. > >  > > Oh yeah, ATF/FBI now claims, according the the media, that there are > > a few survivors. The number seems to vary minute by minute. > >  > >  > >  > yodicet> > yodicet> > yodicet> >  > Hmm. You don't say.. >    No, it appears he didn't. Well, I think he's on to something here. I mean the post he responded to (not) did pretty much speak for itself.
Apparently needing to clarify his comments from Thursday, Dr. Nizam Plawaby (spelling?), the Medical Examiner for Tarrant County, Texas, who has authority in the Waco deaths, stated that since no autopsies had been performed, there is no evidence for bullet wounds, or  evidence against bullet wounds.  Janet Reno also stated that she had never been told of bullet wounds by anyone in the Justice Department.
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?  Funny, Brent, but so far we have heard two versions of the "facts:"  1) What the government says.  This includes what the government says that    two survivors have said.  2) What Koresh's lawyer (who was actually inside the compound) says,    including what he says that most of the survivors have said.  Strange, but they seem to disagree in most important particulars.  If anyone has actually seen news reports of any of the survivors speaking first-hand, feel free ot pitch in.  I may have missed it. But my money is that their story will sound a hell of a lot like case 2, and not at all like case 1. --
In a previous article, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) says:  >If even half the speculations of conspiracy made about this are >true, then I would expect that you people should be calling for >the ATF, FBI, Texas Rangers, Congress and all branches of the >US government to be immediately and completey disbanded  --  no >exceptions.  > >Jeez, do you people really beleive all this crap? Do you also beleive >in the Zionist Occupation Government and the tooth fairy?  I leave the anti-semitism to anti-gun types like Holly Silva.  I have in fact been calling for the disbanding of the BATF for quite some time. It is an outlaw agency run by incompetants who only have contempt for the laws which they supposedly enforce.  >Admittedly mistakes were made but why attribute them to malice rather >than stupidity? > I attribute the acts of the FBI to stupidity.  I attribute the acts of the BATF to malice.  So did Senator Dennis DeConcini when he held hearings about their misconduct.
aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes: >>Ever notice that people in these cases are always described by clever >>handles such as "eccentric", "religious wackos", "gun nuts", "cultists", >>"survivalists", etc. so the general public will *not* identify with them?         The San Jose Mercury News described him as "a 61-year old retired chemical engineer".
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. > >Rob. >-- >Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com To Rob and all others that have been debating about the wood stove.    The original post claimed that the ATF/FBI was pumping napalm into the  building with the hopes that the wood stove inside would ignite it.  I responed with why would the wood stove be lit in the first place?  It wouldn't be lit  for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.  Everyone now claims  that it was for cooking.  Stop and think about this.  CS gas was being pumped into the building and I presume that everyone was wearing gas masks (either bought or some type of makeshift type) and this had been going on for 6 hours. I don't know if you have ever been around CS, but I have.  Being exposed to CS gas was part of my Army training, so I know that without a mask it VERY  uncomfortable and makes your eyes water, nose run, and makes you sick in  the stomach.  And with the mask it is very difficult to drink water much less  eat.  So my question now is "why were they cooking food?"    I will buy that a lantern could have been knocked over and caused the fire. But that stove was not being used for cooking (unless they were even more crazy than the ATF/FBI claim).
In article <1993Apr20.163730.16128@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes: >In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >>And I suppose the FBI also prevented them from coming out with their  >>hands up while national tv cameras watch. >> >Watch from where?  Two miles away?  Far enough away that whatever >really happenned must be explained through the vengeful filter of >a humiliated agency that said (quote!) "Enough is enough."  Please tell me what you think would have happened had the people  come out with their hands up several weeks ago.  >>scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally  >>believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely  >>scenarios. > >The FBI sent letters to Martin Luther King's wife insinuating >that MLK was having an affair!  Again, please tell us exactly >how much you trust our supposedly benevolent government.  More than someone who would not release children from the compound.  I.e., more than David Koresh/Vernon Howell/"Jesus Christ". I saw lengthy excerpts from an Australian documentary made in  1992 that clearly showed that this was a cult.  I am not pleased with the BATF handling of the affair.  I think they  bungled it badly from the start.  But I don't think they are  responsible for the fire, which started in two different places.  >>The BATF is by no means devoid of fault in the handling of this affair. >>But to suggest that they may have intentionally started the fire is  >>ludicrous. > >I suspect that there were plenty of camerapeople willing to >risk small arms fire to get some good footage.  These people >were told to get the hell out of camera range.  Why? > >Drew  >-- >betz@gozer.idbsu.edu >*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho *** >*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   *** >*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc, >    semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
In article <1r044aINNh9f@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:  >The following was sent to me by a friend of mine (a med student).  It >originally appeared in a medical discussion list. > >--GUN CONTROL - The AMA expressed support for S. 414 and H.R. 1025 (the "Brady >--Handgun Violence Prevention Act").  Citing its strong support for the "Brady >--Bill" in past Congresses, the AMA termed as "particularly alarming" violence >--associated with, and stemming from, the widespread and easy availability and >--use of firearms.  The AMA proceeded to comment:  "While we recognize that a >--waiting period of 5 business days before a handgun purchase will not address >--all of the difficult problems that have made violence so prevalent in our >--society, we believe that it is a beginning and will save lives.  Physicians >--are first-hand witnesses to the horrendous cost in human life being exacted >--by firearm violence. A reasonable waiting period before the purchase of a >--handgun is a protection that the American people deserve."  (Letters to >--Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum and Representative Charles E. Schumer; March 11, >--1993.)         I wonder if the AMA has an exact listing of "lives saved" in  Tennessee, California, and other waiting period states.