waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:    [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the     "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on     the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.] > >> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off  >> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh  >> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.   >> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of  >> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar  >> to the way Jim Jones has been described. > >Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance? >Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15.  I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form. The comments above and below were meant to address who might be unstable  enough to keep children in a building with tear gas or start a fire.  >> FBI agents have to pass rigorous psychological examinations and background  >> checks.  Plus, those in charge will undoubtedly have to explain their  >> decisions in great detail to congress.  Why would the FBI want to fulfill  >> Koresh's own prophecy? > >And nevertheless, they hit all their marks and read all the scripted lines.   >Well, it sure beats the hell out of me.  Maybe Thoreau had a clue when he >said, "It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so >ingenious."  I agree that the BATF handled the affair badly.    >> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set  >> >:by cult members. >> > >> >Correction:  The *FBI* said that two of the cult members said this; so far, >> >no one else has been able to talk to them. >>  >> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details,  >> will you believe them? > >Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else >who doesn't know them personally.  Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?  At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors. Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no  good if you believe in eternal darkness.  >--  > >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... >
In article <1r6170INNdlu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes: > Just heard on the network radio news a spokesman from the army > saying that the type of CS gas used in Waco had been banned from > military use.  Its use is also banned by a draft international > agreement on the use of chemical weapons in warfare. >  > The reason given was that the use causes extreme nausea, > blindness, disorientation, total irrationality, raging paranoia.   > Children would be all the more susceptible, and show the results > all the earlier.    Interesting development.  Especially since the Feds (and the U.N.) accused Saddam Hussein of using illegal chemicals on his own  citizens as well.  Hmmm...  Republican Guard/Iraqu Army = FBI/BATF?   You decide. -- I hope very much that others who will be tempted to join cults and to become involved with people like David Koresh will be deterred by the horrible scenes they have seen over the last  seven weeks.               -President William Jefferson Clinton, April 20, 1993, at a press conferance held the day after the Branch Davidians  "compound" went up in flames while under attack by the FBI/ATF near Waco, Texas.  Is your church U.S. Government approved?  CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!!!  Ministry, TV Song
In article <1qiebiINN1c1@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes: >In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >[deleted] >>The University cops here (who are >>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most >>state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live >>in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news >>and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here >>than there. > >Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops >right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper >and only option available to the law-abiding citizens? > >A factoid: > >56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from >around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings >there eh?  :-)          Well, if we're going to discuss being a police officer in America today.                 The FBI lists 132 police officers killed (feloniously and accidentally) in 1990.  That's apparently everybody at all levels.  Year        Officers killed       Rate/100,000 police officers 1982             164*                  47.6 1983             152**                 40.2 1984             147                   39.4 1985             148***                37.9 1986             133                   34.9 1987             148                   39.0 1988             155****               41.9 1989             145*****              38.1 1990             132                   32.0   * Includes one officer in Mariana Islands ** Includes one officer each in Guam and Mariana Islands *** Includes one officer in Guam and two in foreign locations **** Includes one officer in American Samoas and two in foreign countries ***** Includes one officer in Guam and one Federal officer killed in Peru          God, I love the information age!  :-)
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /  >Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread  >"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years  >while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others.  Good point, Kirk.  He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts,  and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time  he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start with) act responsibility once given the chance.
In article <C5sou8.LnB@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >More than someone who would not release children from the compound.  I suppose it's too late now, but the repeated use of the word "release" is peculiar.  Let's say you and your family are besieged in your home by some people with tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons.  They give you a break from the amplified sounds of dying rabbits to blare, "You in there!  Release the children, and they'll be perfectly all right."  Stipulate on top of that that you may not have your epistemology entirely in order.  Is it entirely surprising that the Branch Davidians were reluctant to "release" their children into FBI custody?
In article <1993Apr23.002908.24394@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> williams@bagels.enet.dec.com (Bryan H. Williams) writes: > >In article <16BB89C7D.R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu>, R1328@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes... >>In article <1993Apr22.142540.20687@icd.ab.com> >>kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes: <<  <<< <<<Anybody got Arlen Spectre's address?  I want to write to him and thank him <<<for showing the leadership to demand a Congressional investigation <<<into the Waco mess. <<  <<If I had Arlen's address, I would go to his house (Do weasels live <<in houses or in holes?) and personally tell him what a pathetic idiot <<he is.  Arlen is the personification of the word "jerk". [snip...] <<  <I'm no fan of Arlen Spectre's, but he did the right thing, and attacking his <motives in this case is wrong.   Pardon me, here, but I don't trust Spectre's motives here at all.  Spectre was a major part of the Warren Commission, (remember the magic bullet theory?) and is NOT to be trusted if there's even the tiniest chance the guv'mint may have done something wrong.  If he gets a chance I'm afraid he will satisfy the public outcry with another whitewash.  <Unfortunately, if some of us get our wish and the BATF is disbanded or folded <into the FBI,  etc., we may end up with a "more efficient" agency than the <bumbling and competition we have today. Some agents should be fired. Some <should be prosecuted. But keep them as bumbling as possible -- we retain more <of our liberties that way. < Right on the money here.  We should certainly applaud the disbanding of the  BARTF but we must stress the personal responsibility of the goons who set up the assault on American citizens.    We must NOT count on Spectre, though, to get it done.  RJL
>>The two situations are hardly analogous, unless you wish to make the >>>dubious claim that the US legal system would provide equivalent treatment  >>>to BD children that the Romans did for those of conquered rebels.  >Actually, all the analogy calls for the the Branch Davidian _feeling_ >their treatment would be along these lines. After a military >assualt (instead of a peacefull effort to serve a warrant) and >weeks os siege, such a feeling might not be completely irrational.   Actually, if I were one of the survivors and wanted to institute a civil rights violation lawsuit against the Treasury Dept., I would claim that the BATF/FBI itself was to blame for any mass hysteria/insanity...
Flash over is a frequent occurrence with indoor fires.  A fire will start small and in one location and heat the air.  The temperature in the room builds up and then everything inflammable in the room catches fire at once.   This may have occurred in the BD compound, I have heard reports that the windows were covered which would permit a fire to start unnoticed by those outside the compound.  When the fire got big enough, and broke through the walls, it appeared to be started in two places but was really one big fire.   Because of the large quantities of tear gas inserted into the building it is possible that many of the women and children were in a room free of tear gas they would try to seal the door to keep out the tear gas. When they learned that a fire had broken out it was too late for them to escape.  They were trapped by the flames in their safe room.   I find it hard to believe that the FBI was not recording the final assault.  I think that they would have wanted to have tapes to show their agents of the the FBI overcoming the "forces of evil", aka the Branch Davidians.  The tapes would also allow the FBI to prove that they were not using excessive force.
In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes: > >So the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall  >not be infringed" must either qualify or explain the phrase "a well  >regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."    [stuff deleted]  >Since "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be >infringed" does not describe, modify or make less harsh anything and >it has nothing to do with grammar or some sort of position or task. >By process of elimination it must fall into definition #3.  And since >#3 deals with legal power, the same thing the Constitution does, it >must be the correct definition in this case.  Therefore, "the right  >of the people to keep and bear Arms" gives legal power to the "well  >regualated militia" and this legal power "shall not be infringed".    Ah, clarification by obfuscation.  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.  The sentence 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 a free state. In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.   >So in effort not to force my views and not "to destory our Liberties and >Rights,"  I state that nothing I have written, or will write, in >the matter of "Liberties and Rights" is the final word.  For I am only >one person among many and the final word on "Liberties and Rights" cleary >and irrevocably belongs to the many.  The final word on liberties and rights should not belong "to the many".  That is why we have a Constitution.  Otherwise, a tyrrany of the majority can ensue from "popular" opinion, a concept which you should be familiar with from the Federalist papers.
In article <C5s5n0.DyJ@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes: >take their oath at the fortress. Lo Tepol Shaynit Matzadah. Matzadah will >not fall again!       These zealots. Holy fuck.       Israel. Armenia. Turkey. Greece. Croatia. Serbia. Bosnia. Russia. Germany. Iran. The Arab World.       War.
In article <1993Apr5.042450.2071@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:  > In article <SLAGLE.93Mar29232337@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:  >>In article <xw1twyl@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:  >>> No, actually I'm a lot more familiar with the libbers than I >>> care to be.  I'm a bit hesitant to continue this thread because >>> it brings back horrible memories of my first encounter with the >>> libbers in the LaRouche branch.  I made the mistake of buying a  >>Any connection between Lyndon LaRouche and the Libertarian Party >>is a pure product of your own fertile imagination.    > Naw, perhaps he reads Time magazine.  It's a fair stretch of anyone's imagination to expect them to attach any credibility to anything written in Time magazine in the past twenty years, I'd imagine.  The Enquirer at least gets the names attached to the right body parts.  =Mark --
[followups to talk.politics.guns]  rl> Russell Lawrence kr> Karl Rominger  kr> I support the right of any citizen with out a criminal history to own and     use firearms, regardless of race, gender, and RELIGION.  rl> Thanks for admitting that you, yourself, adhere to an illogical dogma.    Well, folks in t.p.guns, want to show how Russell's "illogical dogma" is   wrong?
In article <1993Apr23.194834.24072@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes... >mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:  >>	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't  >>	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion?  >From what I saw of the videotape, there was an explosion which looked >more like one due to propane rather than (official version) >ammunition.  	I would agree that a propane explosion is as likely as an 	ammunition/explosives blast. My question was directed to the 	person who claimed that the propane tank was likely ruptured 	by the tank before, or just as, the fire started. If that were  	true, shouldn't the explosion have happened very soon after  	the fires started?	   >>	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?  >If only we could be certain that the hard evidence will be released.  	The FBI has made such a fuss over the videotapes and other 	evidence that they have to release something sooner or 	later. It's going to happen, and we'll get to see for 	ourselves.  	Often law enforcement agencies will withold evidence from 	public view until the investigation is over.                      _____  _____                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/                 \_ / /__________/                  \/____/\\\\\\  			 \\\\\\
Could someone email me a USNail address for the NRA? I'd like to write them a letter encouraging them to see to it VERY EMPHATICALLY that the 2nd amendment is restored to the form that the founding fathers intended.  People like Howard Metzenbaum seem very intent on diluting the 2nd amendment to the point where it is no effort for the governmentski to do what they did in Waco.  After all, from what I know of the Federalist papers, it is this kind of tyranny the 2nd amendment was supposed to be designed to protect against.  Honestly! M-60 tanks against the civilian population! Attack helicopters!  We need the right to keep and bear anti-tank weapons. Actually, if they intend to mass armour against the (weakly-armed, at that) civilian population, we need the right to field tactical nukes. Government tyranny! Who would have ever thought it would happen here!  I wonder who'se house they'll run tanks through next, because the gov. SUSPECTS child abuse. Maybe yours! Maybe mine! And what is an Illegal Weapon (which they have yet to show us), if the 2nd amendment is designed to do what I believe it is, and the gov. uses tanks against you? Government self-serving? Naaaah. Not here.  Time was when the U.S. used armour/attack helicopters against small countries. Now, we're down to using them against to what amounts to a busload and a half of civilians.  "First they came for the Jews, but I did not stop them, because I was not a Jew: Then they came for the catholics, but I did not stop them because I was not a catholic! Then they came for the lutherans, but there was now no one left to stop them!" Rev. Martin Niemoller. (probably didn't get it verbatim, but you get the idea).  If the NRA reads this, then never mind about the address. God save us!
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735386976.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:  >I don't remember the figures EXACTLY, but there were about 3500 deaths in Texas >in 1991 that was caused by guns.....         How about "firearm related."  >This is more than those beeing killed in car-ACCIDENTS!         Texas is unusual in this regard.  It would be nice to reduce them both, though.         As Texas doesn't appear to have an murder rate that much higher than the national average, I would expect it is a result of a much higher suicide rate.  >*I* should not suffer because of others....         Be nice if you didn't have to suffer at all.  >We all agree on this one, BUT we also live in a sociaty and therefor >we'll have to give up *SOME* of our 'freedom' (Note the '').         Here's where we run into a problem.  I am perfectly willing to have government regulation on something which is likely to cause others harm.  What we're discussing, though, is the extreme regulation of a large group in order to target a small group, and I don't think that's appropriate.   >Do you have an insurance?? >Then you'll have to pay because of what others do...        > >Do you buy anything?? >YOU are paying for those who return goods, steal or even those who gets a bonus... > >Do you live with other people?? >Then you 'can't' do ererything you'd want (burping/farting playing music LOUD)          Does this, then, justify anything?  At some point you have to draw a line (at least to my way of thinking) where the government must have something a little more substantial than a set of percentages with which to punish an individual.          Where do *you* draw the line?  Or is there one?  >One state (don't remember which, Texas??) tried to impose a rule that you could >only buy ONE gun each MONTH. Think you all know what happened.....          Virginia.  It passed.  >I respect the right to defend yourself, but that right should not inflict on >other people.          Does it?  >It seems like you all realize that you have a problem in America, the only >problem is that you won't take the car away from the drunk driver, you  >hope to cure him first.          Cute analogy.           The U.S. doesn't treat drunk driving like a serious crime.  However, we also don't confiscate cars of people who drink.  We also don't confiscate *all* cars because some people drink and drive.  It's the core of the legal system that in order to punish an individual (and I'd call property confiscation a punishment) you must have evidence against that individual. That is, it isn't enough to show that the majority of people convicted of murder are white  in order to convict a particular white guy of murder.  >Hope life comfirms to the standard of Winnie the Poh.          Huh?
In article <9753@blue.cis.pitt.edu> jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman) writes: >In article <C5v9Du.D76@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes: >>Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due >>to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate. >>In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of >>meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up >>such scenes.  >> >>As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a >>magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and >>thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the >>time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the >>evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists.  >> >>P.Vasilion > >This is quite corect, but a bullet hitting a burned body with little energy >will show virtually no deformation, ie a hollow point probably would not >expand, an FMJ would be "pristene".  Also the bullets will not be marked >with the lands ang grooves of a barrel, because they didn't come out of >one.  A good pathologist should be able to notice this right away. > >Let us hope that the  ME's that handle these bodies are more competent >then the ones who did JFK's body. > >JAG > Speaking of ME's. The FBI said the fire victims were found face-up <fire victims, apparently, are usually found face down>  suggesting they died prior to the fire. The ME says, in a word, BULLSHIT, the victims WERE face down. The FBI says they sent a body of a victim that was shot, supposedly by BD guards, the ME says, in a word, BULLSHIT, the body showed NO evidence of gunshot wounds. Can the ATF/FBI tell the difference between CYA and truth?
OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE  TUEDAY, APRIL 6, 1993   H.B. NO. 278- REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY           TO AMMEND  SECTION 2923.11, 2923.17, AND 2923.20 AND TO ENACT  N 2923.181 OF THE REVISED CODE TO EXPAND THE DEFINTION OF DANGEROUS  ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE MILITARY WEAPONS THAT DO NOT USE BOLT ACTION, TO  INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBTION AGAINST POSSESION  OF DANGEROUS ORDINANCE, TO PROHIBIT ANY PERSON FROM ACQUIRING A MILITARY  WEAPON ON OR AFTER THE ACT'SEFFECTIVE DATE, TO REQUIRE THE LICENSURE OF  MILITARY WEAPONS ACQUIRED FOR A PROPER PURPOSE PRIOR TO THE ACT'S  EFFECTIVE DATE, TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM IMPORTING, MANUFACTURING, OR  SELLING A MILITARY WEAPON, AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.   As of Monday, April 12, 1993  H.B. 278 had not been assigned to a  committee.  Introduced as an emergency measure if this passes there is no  chance for a reforendum, and would go into effect immediately as opposed  to the state requirement of 90 days before a law goes into effect.