waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr16.171115.16812@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes: -> Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the -> security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an -> adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of -> the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It -> asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for -> maintaining a milita.  -> a free state.  Yes, I agree the first half of the amendment does modify the noun  militia.  But the difinition of modify that applies to how "well regulated"  modifies "militia" is: 	to qualify or limit the meaning of.  For example, "wet" 	modifes "day" in the phrase "a wet day."  The amendment is similiar to the statement: 	A wet day, being annoying, the right of the people to keep 	and wear boots, shall not be infringed. So how does a dry day pertain the right to use boots?  Similiar, what does the "unorganized militia" have to due with the right to own guns?  -> The sentence [in the Second Amendment] doesn't restrict the right, or -> state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other -> than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a -> right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First, -> Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment. -> The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the -> amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right -> to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of -> In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and -> bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.  No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed is defined as: 	To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath,  	an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate. 	To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach. This definition implies the following of some form of existing  agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance.  Boundaries  or limits of behavior are set by society as a whole.  The word  "unconditional" implies no agreements or all previous agreements  are off, which is the opposite.  The words used in the first amendment are much stronger, i.e., "congress shall make no law," are much stronger.  They clearly  	         ^^^^^^^^^^^ imply "unconditional."  If the writers of the amendment, wanted  unconditional whay didn't they says, "congress shall make no  laws pertaining the the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? The second amendment implies a sort contract between the people the people and the state.  The bigger part of the contract is the people have the right to overthrew the government and its laws at any time.  To guarantee this right, the laws cannot stopped the people from forming a "well regutaled militia."  The duties of a "well regulated militia" to the government are descussed in  Federalist No. 29.  And the limits of of the governmental control of the militia are descussed in Article I Section 8, Article II  Section 2, and the Second Amendment of the constitution.
In article <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes: >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,   This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.  >and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of >modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.    I would hope so.  Let's define a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon whose majority of energy comes from fission and/or fusion of atomic nuclei.  Let's define a biological weapon as live organisms or viruses  in such state, quantity, and with such a vector that they could cause  death or serious disease [further defined] to a significant number of people if released in a city, similarly populated area, resevoir, or cropland.     Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for research purposes on such chemicals.  I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for  definitions.  >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,   Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.  >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?  It is not defined as a weapon of mass destruction.  Many things are banned for other reasons.  >< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu > ><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
In article <C603oD.AvC@chinet.chi.il.us>, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes: > pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: > >>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the > >>burning building? > > > >Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about > >by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good) > >perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the > >fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and > >rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses) > >overcame and enveloped them? >  > >In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble? >  > Wait a minute.  The story being pushed here is that the fire started > in ONE PLACE.  This is not consistent with the story that they were > TRAPPED by the fire (particularly in a building that all of a sudden > had many more exits). >  > Choose one, please. >   What if.......  What if the FBI thought that tear gas would force the Davidians out; at least the mothers and the children, so they (the FBI) did not bother to think about the effect of tear gas on young children......  What if the FBI knew they killed several of the children by using tear gas......(let`s assume the FBI knew via their listening devices)  What if the FBI saw fire accidently break out at one end of the building, e.g. by an upset oil lamp.......  What if the FBI thought they could finally force the rest of the Davidians out AND also destroy the evidence that they (the FBI) had killed the children by starting a fire at the other end......  What if the FBI miscalculated and not many of the rest of the Davidians made it out.......?????
In article <1rh9soINNimh@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:   >In article 26844@convex.com, langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes: >>feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: >>>Everyone discussing why the BATF did this or didn't do that is missing >>>the point. BATF wanted to destroy Koresh.  Everything they did was >>>consistent with that objective. >> >>    And having done that, they've declared victory by flying their flag >>    over the ruins. Regardless of who started the firefight or fire, >>    I see the flag as nothing but arrogant. >> > >        Not only arrogant, but in plain bad taste.  As though they had >        defeated a difficult foe, and done so with honor. > >        I understand Reno does not own the BATF... doesn't Bentsen, a >        Texas boy at that, I believe?  Why is not Bentsen from Treasury >        as much out front as Reno is?  Is he hiding behind her apron strings?            The BATF got sat on pretty early on.  After the initial shooting was over, it pretty much become the FBI's show.  (Even that BATF guy stopped showing up next to the speaker at the daily press conferences).
chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:  > Brent Irvine (irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: >  > : failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it i > : plain view. >  >   Brent, I'm still waiting to see if there are any evidence of how the fire > got started, so I'm not going to tell you who did it...  As far as you keep > talking about the Davidians pouring kerosene all over, stop and *think* > for a second if it is possible the stove or lamp was knocked over and > started a fire, and the Davidians were pouring water on it (wrong solution > but I doubt I can do much better in their states of mind...) to try to > put it out?    >  >   By the way, just how far where you standing from the Davidians when you > saw them setting the place on fire?   Oh, in case you are new in town, > microwave ovens doesn't work very well when there's no electricty. :-0 >  >   Get some *facts* before you post next time! >  > --F. Chiu  First the FBI said they saw two members of the cult start the fire-and the  FBI never lies.  Second, the first started in opposite ends of the compound  at the same time and thirdly, the fire spread too quickly for it not to be  help without an accelerate.
In article <1qanj0$22d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes: >How many are aware that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a verbatim translation >of a Nazi gun control law passed shortly before the Holocaust? > >For those of you who think I'm being paranoid in asking these questions, >pray that you are right.  Unchecked democracies usually end in >dictatorship.  Remember, Germany was a democracy when Hitler rose to power.  >Can we be absolutely certain nothing like that could happen today?   I can't speak for the organizations you cited but everywhere you look in our society and government, one can see the relentless movement toward one world government.  The fact that the media demeans such charished  values as patriotism, nationalism and protectionism are some of the clues.  The fact that we are sapping the economic strength of americans to prop up a former and possibly future enemy is just another.  The fact the words like community of nations, global village and international business are in vogue are others.  International corporations are  destroying our identy and economy and the propaganda they are playing through the media and government is over powering our ability to resist. Our porous border both people and trade are an indiciation that we have already lost a great deal of sovergnty.  The bottome line is that the single most evil aspect of One World Government is that you have nowhere to run to and history has proven that would be a disaster.
You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make  sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.  Say U.S.C. 922 :  (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.   Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person"  might also be an artificial entity that is created by government  and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I  don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on  an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law  does not make it LAW. Everyone knows that laws are constitional until it goes to court. So, has it ever gone to court, not just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"  Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?
dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes: :  : Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT. :
In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: } 	The vast majority get through life without ever having to } 	own, use or display a firearm. } ... }  }       Given society } 	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of } 	as many guns as possible.  Considering that the uses include self defense, hunting, target shooting and collecting, I don't buy the notion that the vast majority of people don't "own, use or display a firearm".  But let's say your contention is true.  What's the point of "get[ting] rid of as many guns as possible", if they weren't being used anyway?
In article <C5D05G.6xw@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes: }In article <1993Apr10.155819.18237@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes: }>Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from }>bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be }>for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick. } }Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.  Japan did this.  It required near-total isolation from the rest of the world for 2 centuries.  }Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will }die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as }long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few }shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One }assumes they are moving!)  Hunting weapons are great for extortionist sharpshooters.  "Send me money or else I'll pick you off from 2 miles away."  Tim Starr - Renaissance Now!  Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: :Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms :'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that :there are actually *few* cases where this is so.   You "think" wrong.  Ask the FBI.  They've got the proof.  Look it up.  :The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary :opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who :would argue with you about a parking space, those who would :take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.  You lie like a snake.  The "vast majority" of the 200 MILLION firearms in this country are never used in anger.  Your feelings notwithstanding.  :Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.  :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.   We will overcome the kind of blind, pig-headed, utterly stupid idiocy that you and others spout in a vain attempt to further your own agendas.  We will make the truth be known, despite your best efforts to the contrary.  :The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.  The Second Amendment won't be dead unless it is repealed.  That won't happen.  EVER.  Accept this.  Find another way to try and control other's lives, because we see you for what you are, and we are not fooled.  Mike Ruff
1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or  	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY  	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..  	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup  	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil  	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to 	let's say 1000 people ???? 	    	This is not a .signature. 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
In article <1993Apr20.195636.17742@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes: > -- > 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  If you really want to trigger the scanners then move the keywords above the -- signature start bit... You'll only trip them once in a sig (plus every so often it will flag one for human intervention just to be sure)  I might not be being serious.
In a previous article, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) says:  > >Dear, dear.  They could have COME OUT.        So could the defenders in the Alamo.  You're clearly missing the      point here.  Typically, I might add.       If it were me, I doubt that *I* would have come out.       BATF show up, start shooting at me, etc.  Then they paint me      a child-molesting murdering fanatic, call up TANKS, hundreds      of automatic-armed goons.  Restrict press access to two miles      away.
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?  It is not a matter of dis-belief but a matter of which of their constantly (and radically) changing stories we are to believe.  Steve B.
In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes: >>  >> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods. > >	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.  I agree.  Sad, but true.  > >> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA. > >	The vast majority get through life without ever having to >	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other >	means of self-protection which can be just as effective >	as firearms.   Please name one.  > >> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or >> scientific scrutiny. > >	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public >	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that >	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold >	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion. >  .... Upon which our Bill of Rights is based.  Some delusion.  >> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny. > >	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue >	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics. >	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive >	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every >	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change, >	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the >	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang' >	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that* >	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not >	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society >	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of >	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough >	active voters believe in that course.  >  If this were not true in practice, then certain unethical politicians would not be passing gun control laws.  Politicians are generally whores to public opinion.  This does NOT mean the the public is either well informed or correct. As for the stats,  anyone can support anything with the right stats.  The  "right" stats, from what I've seen, are sometimes even used to support conflicting sides of the same issue.   >> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters? > >	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when >	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will >	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will >	be very interested anymore. >  Used to own firearms? While armed insurrection, as the FF's of the Const.  may have envisioned seems to me a somewhat fanatical approach to avoiding this, Political protest is still an option at this point.  I agree that it's  argueably not enough and/or too late.  If all else fails, there's always PVC pipe and cosmoline.  --  Chris Miller chris@MorningStar.Com
OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE   THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993   H.B. NO. 287- REPRESENTATIVES SEESE, DAVIS, BATCHELDER, AMSTUTZ, T.  JOHNSON, VAN VYVEN, WACHTMANN, WHITE, DI DONATO, BOGGS, LOGAN           TO AMEND SECTION 1531.01 OF THE REVISED CODE TO ADD MOURNING DOVE  TO THE GAME BIRD LIST AND PERMIT THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE IN  THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO REGULATE THE HUNTING OF MOURNING  DOVES, AND TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION.   This would allow the hunting of mourning doves in Ohio and give the  sportsman something they have been pushing for.
In article <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes: |>Xref: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com misc.legal:62088 talk.politics.guns:56997 alt.activism:43746 |>Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utcsri!relay.cs.toronto.edu!neat.cs.toronto.edu!cs.toronto.edu!quoctp |>Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.guns,alt.activism |>From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) |>Subject: Re: WACO: Clinton press conference, part 1 |>Message-ID: <93Apr22.234553edt.47633@neat.cs.toronto.edu> |>Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto |>References: <1993Apr21.021301.25113@r-node.hub.org> |>Date: 23 Apr 93 03:46:24 GMT |>Lines: 3 |> |>Did anyone notice that Clinton was smiling and making jokes just before |>this press conference? Considering the number of people killed, this  |>seems very inappropriate to me. |>  Or, did anyone notice that when Clinton referred to the Davidians as 'religious fanatics' that a round of spontaneous applause burst forth from the reporters ?   To me this was not only in poor taste, but it showed the media's bias and hostility to anyone not of the politically correct stripe.  No wonder they have been cheerleading for the kgBATF and the FBI during this whole affair.  			Rod ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."     -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes: >In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >> >>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv  >>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their  >>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas. > >This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the >fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you >want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night >in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes >out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke >and then fire?  I've already corrected my mistake earlier in this thread.  I saw a brief  news report which led to the above inaccuracy.  I have since seen detailed  summaries that show the tanks returned in the late morning.  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?  > >Do tell. > >  -joe