waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
>> 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.   With one exception, that's a pretty good description of many of the Baptists I know.  The exception is that they know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15.  Heck - they even know that "it looks like Richard Petty's stock car" doesn't mean "it's a racing stock car".  They may be uncouth, but they've figured out that appearance isn't function.  -andy
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735383339.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:  > I'm NOT trying to censor this or any newsgroup, I'm just trying to > give some hints about OTHER newsgroups. > Doesn't this belong to alt.conspiracy ??  Drop three billiard balls on a ramp, and they all roll in the same direction.  Pour some blood into the sea, and sharks will converge from miles around.  Throw a pebble at one starling, and all 200 will depart.  Natural processes can mimic the outward results of conspiracy when no actual conspiracy is required.  Put a government functionary in an embarrassing situation, and he quickly covers his ass.  This, too, is completely natural.  > About Waco > It looks to me as the BATF and FBI can't handle situations like this.  It looks that way to me, too.  But you have to understand that it's NOT  the first time they have instigated raids like these.  The most recent one ALSO ended up in a long standoff, but it wasn't quite as public as this one, and they didn't kill quite as many people.  Maybe this  screwup will make them think long and hard about raiding any more  residences in this manner.  But probably not.  > The way it went reminds me of 'stun' bomb beeing dropped on a house > in LA from a helicopter. (Whole block went up in flames, 5 died...)  I assume you're talking about Philadelphia.  > It doesn't HAVE to be a conspiracy, MAYBE they just screwed up ???  If you're a fan of conspiracies, the time to make that batch of popcorn is AFTER the screwup, when it's time for the coverup. --
NUT CASE PANICS!!!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIM!!!!
Broadcasting amplified sounds of tortured rabbits?  Burning alive men, women, and children?  We have on our hands here some truly sick puppies.
In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   writes: > 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. >  It didn't happen.  > >>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. >  Obviously.  You are an authority worshiper.  > 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. >   Give me a camera, and time with you, and I can present excerpts that show you   to be a cult leader.  Guarenteed. You should at least view the whole   documentary before you claim it as a source.   > 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. >   Two places, eh?  You saw this?  Or did the wonderful FBI tell you this?   I saw one place.  > >>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? > >  Couldn't answer this one, eh?  This is the most important question of all, it   is the root cause of all the other suspicion.  > >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 >  >  > --  >   Jim  -- jmd@handheld.com
I'm writting letters to my Congresscritters and was wondering if  there is any reason(s) why I should NOT support the following  Bills, other than the previous comments about S.458.  Just checking  before I mail the letter to make sure I don't support something  that I really shouldn't.   -----------------  I strongly SUPPORT the following laws currently being considered in Congress  as they would either have a positive effect towards reducing crime, or re-  enforce our Constitutional right under the 2nd amendment.   * S. 441 (Campbell)	To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a 			mandatory minimum sentence for the unlawful possession 			of a firearm by a convicted felon, a fugitive from 			justice, a person who is addicted to, or an unlawful 			user of, a controlled substance, or a transferor or 			receiver of a stolen firearm, to increase the general 			penalty for violation of Federal firearms laws, 			and to increase the enhanced penalties provided for the  			possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of  			violence or drug trafficking crime, and for other 			purposes.   * S.458  (Smith) 	To restore the second Amendment Rights of all Americans.   * S.488  (Specter)	To provide Federal penalties for drive-by shootings.   * S.504  (Kohl)	To amend section 924 of title 18, United States Code to 			make it a Federal crime to steal a firearm or explosives 			in interstate or foreign commerce.                                   Bill Vojak                                 vojak@icebucket.stortek.com 				NRA, ILA,                                 Colorado Firearms Coalition -----------------------------------------------------------------  Here's a story, bout a man named Brady, who took a .22 bullet  in his head.  Even though he can act perfectly normal, he  prefers to pretend he's brain dead.   Here's a story, bout a woman named Brady, who had nothing to  do but sit around all day.  Then her husband became a media  martyr, now she wants to take all your guns away.   The Brady Bunch, The Brady Bunch, This is how we got stuck  with the Brady Bunch. . . . .
In article <1qt8pt$ge4@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes... >In article <93106.21394634AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >|In article <2001.150.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) >|says: >|> >|> Bill Vojak: Hey! If you can get it together, I'm all for it! I too am one of the poor (a college student) Get a bank account set aside, and set aside a big ass data base and you will get my contribution. I'm setting aside as of now 10$  a month. Not a slew of cash to be sure, but it's the best I can do. Let me know what you guys come up with. I'm sure as hell not going anywhere.
In <23APR199314304189@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu writes:  > In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes... > >From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound, > >the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane > >tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns. >  > 	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't  > 	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?    There was at least one blast consistent with petroleum products that I saw, however propane is interesting stuff.  It doesn't explode on contact with air.  It is *possible* for a tank to rupture without exploding.  Far more likely, however, is that the compound was equipped with NG outlets running to the tank.  Damage from the CEV's could have ruptured the gas lines, allowing the gas to spread, unnoticed in the CS fumes and general excitement (propane typically has a distinctive odor added to it for just this reason -- to smell leaks), until reaching a flame or spark, and then Whooosh!  Fire everywhere, and maybe an explosion.  Use of NG is pretty common in Texas, especially semi-rural areas.  > 	Further, the BD members have as much reason to lie as the  > 	Gov't.    This is true, but so far the FBI/BATF track record on this incident is very bad.  > >I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept > >the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary. >  > 	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know > 	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until > 	the hard evidence is released. What about you?    I think it would have disarmed many people if the FBI followed this same policy.  They have not.  They are making claims without evidence, and what evidence we have so far tends to refute their story.  semper fi,
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. > >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!) > > First of all let's assume that you are right that fewer guns would make it  in to the country, that sounds great (to those that see guns as inherently evil) except then every one  of those guns would be in the hands  of someone who obviously couldn't care less about following the law, after all they  got the gun illegally, so is more likely to commit a crime with that gun. Great then everyone with a gun is likely to use it in a crime, nice system.  Now  as to reducing the number of guns  coming into society by making it  illegal to manufacture, sell, or import them in this coutry,  let me use a parallel for empiric evidence.  The amount of cocaine in this country is far less since its manufacture, sale, and importation was out lawwed.    If that last statement is true then perhaps we should consider your plan.  This  could also apply to drugs in general.
In article <1r19l9$7dv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> oldham@ces.cwru.edu (Daniel Oldham) writes:     [flame-bait, pure and simple]
I've been running a daily summary of the Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial from here in Boise.  These summaries are sent primarily to mailing lists.  However, I was wondering if people would be interested in seeing them here.  Post or email.  Drew
In article 7205@dazixco.ingr.com, crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips) writes: >In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes: >|> Thank you for remembering Matzada.  Matzada was not an insane act. It was >|> a sanctification of G_D's name and the most extreme denial of tyranny >|> possible. To this day the officers of the Tzahal (Isreal Defense Force) >|> take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will >|> not fall again! >|>  > >Not anymore!  Recent archaeological inspection of the site presents pretty >compelling evidence that the "mass suicide" at Masada never occured.  This >evidence was so compelling tha the Tzahal no long hold their secret ceremony >at the fortress. > > >--  >************************************************************** >* Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com * >* Senior Customer Engineer                                   * >* Intergraph Electronics                                     * >* 381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 * >* Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 * >**************************************************************
jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:  >In article <1993Mar31.140529.10843@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager"   ><hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes: >>  >> As an old post of mine came up in a collection of posts about >> the ACLU's position on gun-control, I would like to note that my  >> own position has been evolving.  But, I'm still not sure how to >> answer the question, "does the 2nd allow me to have my own nuclear >> device?"    >The second amendment does not prohibit it, but it can probably be argued that   >there is no way you can operate one without severely impacting on the safety   >and rights of others, and so might not be permitted on that basis.  The existence of the weapon in and of itself (and this is also true for biologics and chemical weapons, but for slightly different reasons) poses a threat to living critters.  Can you say "neutron and other radiation flux due to radioactive decay", boys and girls?
Entropic Destroyer (loki@acca.nmsu.edu) wrote:  : I have seen these numbers quoted before, and I have seen very specific : refutation of them quoted as well.  If someone will be so kind as to : email the relevant information, I will write a letter to the editor of : the Co. Daily (which might get published) and send a copy to USN&WR as : well.  Thanks to all who responded.  The letter has been written (making liberal use of info provided by various net.folks) and handed to the paper.  I'll post if it gets into the paper!  --Dan  --   DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu                   Send me something even YOU can't read... -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.1
I would like to know what restrictions there are on purchasing handguns  (ie waiting periods, background check etc..) in the states of Nevada and  Oregon. Thanks.                                                 -Bill
>To: bbs.billand@tsoft.net >Subject: Re: Handgun Restrictions >Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns >In-Reply-To: <ow522B2w165w@tsoft.net> >Organization: Cray Research, Inc. >Cc:  >Bcc:  > In article <ow522B2w165w@tsoft.net> you write: >I would like to know what restrictions there are on purchasing handguns  >(ie waiting periods, background check etc..) in the states of Nevada and  >Oregon. Thanks. >                                                -Bill > >-- >Bill Anderson (bbs.billand@tsoft.net)   In Oregon your must get a background check (ie fingerprints, full slap), 15 day waiting period. That is unless you have a CCW then all requirments have been meet.
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:  >lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:  >>IOWA:  All firearm related bills are dead.  Senate File 303 >>dealing with off-duty police officers carrying concealed remains >>viable.  >	The *POWER* of the word processor and a stamp at work. >The fact that around here the state rep generally lives no more than >nine miles from any constituent doesn't hurt, either.  >< 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.  > ><     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      > ><                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >   Does anyone know the particulars on the Senate File 303? Does this bill allow or deny off-duty police from carrying concealed?
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.  ram.page, n.: To move about wildly or violently.  A course of frenzied, violent action.  Who assaulted who here, Phill?  Do you remember exactly which side came  out looking for trouble?  > The police may bear responsiblity for failing to stop him but the primary > responsibility is with the murderer.  So if it turns out that the fire WAS caused by a tank knocking over a Coleman lantern, you'll support punishing the "responsible" people, Phill? Or will you find then find a different reason to hang it all on Koresh? --
In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> , franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes: > In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his > troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time > that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to > standards at least as moral as the military's.  No, Lt Calley was later acquitted. His troops killed 400-500 people, including kids, elderly and women... I sure don't want to see the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to those "military standards"... If they did, we're all in big trouble...(The My Lai massacre was covered up by high-ranking officials and ALL who were involved were ACQUITTED).    == Minh ==
> Go to hell. I'm no "government [-] following fanatic." Your sweeping > generalizations evince your own ignorance. What were they supposed  > to do? Just let him be?  once upon a time, that's exactly what they would have done & everyone could have just gone on living a peaceful (if well armed) life. what is it that makes people think they have the right -not- to just leave others be?  jason
In article <2071@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: >What I find so hard to understand is how come some people, apparantly >NOT connected with government or otherwise privileged, will >go to great lengths, redefinitions, re-interpretations, in a full-bore >attempt to THROW AWAY THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTS under the >Constitution!!! >Almost makes me think of lemmings running into the sea during a lemming >year... >I really wonder that Jefferson and Madison would say to these folks?  They'd probably quote Montesque (sp?) who was once asked if Russia was likely to become a democracy any time soon: "No, because Russia is a nation of slaves and the people get what they deserve." Since he said that, Russia has changed a great deal. But so,  unfortunately have other nations.
|> Actually, the real reason that Stern was getting a bigger rating share was that |> he was new in D.C., not because of the quality (if you can call it that) of  |> his show. After the Fine was issued he started to get better ratings because  |> of the curious individuals who wanted to see how bad he actually was. Since |> he came to D.C. he has had a greater turn over of listeners than the "Grease" |> has. In other words, more people get sick of him sooner than they do of the |> "Grease". After all, saying vagina or penis on the air is hilarious at first,  |> the second time it is still a little funny, but when you do it all the time,  |> and at the same time, think you are the greatest man on the planet (and tell |> everyone so) than you are going to get old really quick.  |> Give it up Mark you are WRONG. |>  Excuse me, but if you really new what the show was about, you'd know that he doesn't just say vagina and penis and that is how he get's his ratings. He also addresss real issues as well as being outrageous. I don't hear any of these other idiots doing a funny show and getting into some serious topics at the same time, he get's people to think and entertains them at the same time,  so try listening to his show a little closer before you tell them that they are WRONG, and by the way, if he is such a flash in the pan, why do his ratings sustain so well? Hmm?     --  ----------------------------------------------- Greg W. Lazar             greg@puck.webo.dg.com  J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:     Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.  It would not    be economic to smuggle them in.  All production would have to be    local.  There are not all that many people who have both the skill    AND motivation to assemble worthwhile firearms from scratch.    High-ranking crime figures could obtain imported Uzis and such, but    the average person, and average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun    - and would pay through the nose for it.  Good point you make.  However, a zip gun, by definition, is a crude, homemade gun--certainly not something capable of sustained, accurate fire, but it would be useful as a means of getting a normal gun.  Recall the tiny, single-shot pistols made by the Allies during World War II for use by partisans.  They were essentially well-made zipguns, incapable of effective fire beyond a few feet.  But they were useful as a means of killing German soldiers for their guns.  Also note that the crowd-pleasin' favorite, the Sten gun, was specifically designed to require as little machine work as possible. The point's been made here that one could make a Sten clone with steel tubing, hand tools and a welder.  I still think that while the point is good, I think there's a difference between marijuana and firearms, in that quality marijuana can be grown locally; there's no need to import the stuff.  If guns are banned, I think the demand for "real" guns will be sufficient to make smuggling economically feasible, thus rendering a ban moot.  In any case, the result would be the same--people who aren't criminals won't have firearms, and "bad guys" will continue to have access to them, one way or another.  And I don't see that as a necessary situation.
In <1993Apr21.175443.5338@dct.ac.uk> mcsdc1jpb@dct.ac.uk (John Bell) dribbles in his nappies and manages to splutter:  	You know, John, if you had kept the follow-up to line here on talk politics guns, we might have taken you a bit more seriously.  It would have at least implied that you had some backbone, perhaps a modicum of willingness to present your views and support them.  I guess we all know better now.  >People dumb enough to give their money and possessions to a guy who says he's >jesus deserve all they get  	Really?  That's interesting, as I was always of the opinion that people dumb enough to keep a monarchy around and support them with tax funds when said monarchy is merely a figurehead deserve all that they get.  Dunkirk, for example.  What?  That has nothing to do with it? Then enjoy your helping of foot.  >Anyway, he killed a few feds  	And they killed a few people of their own, including one child at last report.  So what?  Being a federal agent is not license to kill. Then there's CNN indicating that the ATF/FBI actually *DID* start the fires which would mean feds killed just under 100 people.  If you're so hot to assign blame, make sure you don't overlook the obvious.  >He's not the goddam hero here  	Montgomery isn't much of a hero here, either.  Amazing how different things look on the other side of the pond, isn't it?  Not that what you think makes much of a difference in the USA, though, and for good reason.  When you can vote I'll take your rhetoric a bit more seriously.  Right now, you're merely a waste of trans-atlantic bandwidth.  >He's dead an' i'm happy!!!!!  	Proof positive that ignorance really is bliss.