waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
As quoted from <1993Apr17.025258.7013@microsoft.com> by anthonyf@microsoft.com (Anthony Francisco):  > cmort: > | If anybody wanted proof of the nonsense of the "you can't build guns" claim, > | they need look no farther than the Philippines.  Amateur gunsmiths there > | regularly produce everything from .45 automatics to full auto shotguns.  Now > | if this guy wants to claim that the Philippines is either technologically > | superior to the US or that their transportation is better than ours, all I > | can say is that he's living in a fantasy world. >  > Unfortunately a few of those .45s blow up in your hands.  That's life.  First you marry Imelda Marcos, then you die! :)  > On the other hand, my compatriots built an excellent copy of a Beretta that > I enjoyed using when I lived in the Philippines. Hmmmm.  And that's the HARD stuff to copy!
In <1r3efjINN3jj@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu writes:  > Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: > >I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA...... >  > In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.    Currently, there is a bill before the Texas legislature that would make it legal for some ordinary folks to carry concealed weapons.  I don't have the details, sorry.  semper fi,
In article <KEVIN.93Apr20085431@axon.usa>, kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn) writes: > In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: > > > > Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set  > > by cult members. >  > Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire > was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away, > we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's > claims in this matter.  Moreover, the BATF has admitted having agents in the compound, and as far as I have been able to ascertain, those agents were still in the compound when the first shots were fired.  For all we know, these two people may BE the agents, who would certainly be unlikely to stay around and "cook" with the faithful...  Assuming the two people in question were even in the compound at all.  Maybe I sound paranoid, but I watched Janet Reno last night harping on how much David Koresh was a big, bad child abuser, and I kept wondering  why she -- much less BATF -- wanted us to infer that she had any  jurisdiction over such accusations in the first place.  I'm POSITIVE that the "sealed warrant" is not for child abuse.  What was it for?  Peobably weapons violations.  Janet Reno didn't say WORD ONE last night about weapons violations.  Why?  Because she knows that such a case is no longer believable? --
In article <C5uA7r.DAD@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>, pprun@august.it.uswc.uswest.com writes: >  >  > I have just one thing to say about this: WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPERSON! > The FBI and BATF storm troopers must not be allowed to get away with > this.  Demand a full investigation of the Waco survivor's story of > the lantern being knocked over by the tank.  We can't bring anybody > back from the dead, but we may be able to send a few of them to > political hell.  I heard over NPR yesterday morning that Arlan Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania, has already called for a Congressional investigation. The problem is that Specter was one of the key government attorneys several years ago who did what he could to coverup facts in the assassinations of JFK and others.  That is to say, the Chief Fox wants to check out the hen house.  Writing your representatives is a great idea.  When you do ask that they keep Specter and his cronies far away from  any investigation. >  > Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and  > Senate so that we can all write letters?
/ 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.  For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.  This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.
sylvain@netcom.com (Nicholas Sylvain) writes: >>value gun shops where all the city's many fine community spirited drug >>dealers arm themselves.... > >Such a fine posting, with the exception of these particular lines. I hope >you don't *REALLY* think that your average drug dealer actually purchases >his gun(s) from a legal source.  	As a matter of fact, I know it.  	There were several shootings recently in which the guns had been purchased at the Baltimore Gunsmith, on Broadway - a favorite place to get cheap "popular" pieces. By "popular" I am referring to the kinds of guns our local youth gangs like: pistol grip shotguns, cheap magnums, and Tec-9s.  	I hate to poke a hole in your bubble, but I was referring to a specific gunstore, and specific incidents. Any other questions?
In article <C4vG3F.Kx3@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes: > cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes: >>I believe in gun control.  How about you? > >  I believe in gun control, too . . . assuming by "gun control" >  you mean always being able to hit your target. > > >---peter >    Or, how about the Clint Eastwood line in "Pink Cadillac" -       "I believe in gun control.  If there's a gun around, I wanna be        the one controlling it."
In article <93105.230230U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David >Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading >he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his >chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting >Duke.  I'd hardly call that "giving up his chance to be Vice President of the US"; the chance of the Populist Party ticket winning is essentially nil.  Still, it does imply that he doesn't want to be associated with Duke.
[MODERATOR:  Nice summary, Keith, thanks.]  I talked to the federal Dept. of Justice (DOJ, Ottawa) to try and clarify a bunch of things regarding changes to Canadian gun laws. I am posting here for informational purposes; questions to email, followup to t.p.g.  1. It is still technically feasible (but almost impossible) to get    a concealed carry permit in Canada.  This is contrary to what I    was told by a police officer. 2. It is still legal to use lethal force (such as a firearm) to    protect life, also contrary to what the officer told me.  Guns    must be stored locked up and unloaded, however. 3. Regarding hi-capacity magazines, it is still not clear who will    be exempt or how this will be managed.  This is up to each province.    The general idea is that exempt persons will receive a letter/form    authorizing them to possess the high capacity magazines.      Apparently, the authorization is to specify how many of these    'prohibited weapons' you will be allowed to possess.  Dealers will    be allowed to order high capacity mags for those allowed to possess    them, but will not be allowed to stock them. 4. High capacity magazines converted to comply with the new limits will    not be considered prohibited weapons.  Amendments to the regulations    specify some possible methods to alter the magazines.  Some     manufacturers (Beretta) will be marketing reduced capacity magazines.    (God knows how much they'll charge for these)  This covers most of what we discussed.  I have typed this from memory, do not take it as gospel.  I am not a lawyer and I refuse to play one on TV.   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------- | Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng |  IPSC Ontario, OHA, NFA, SFC, OFAH   | | keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca    |  Frontenac Rifle and Pistol Club     |
In article <1r5rnn$rdt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do  they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it  only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?  BTW, anybody planning on shaving Hillary's head to look for *666*? 8^)  Later Dave, Days  ^^^^^^^^ Goverment logic or just the Clintons?
In article <7178@blue.cis.pitt.edu> gswst@cislabs.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs) writes: > >Hello, > >I'm writing a story on the future of Gun Control.  There are a >few points I would welcome your opinion on.  It's wonderful having a >resource like this newsgroup to take advantage of and I thank you in advance >for your feedback! > >1. What do you believe are the most serious threats to gun-owners in the >future?   	* The Government 	* Liberals 	* BATF, FBI, DEA, etc.  (see #1)  >2. Are you concerned that the 2nd ammendment could be reinterpreted to >apply to the armed forces only, barring civilians from owning arms of >any kind? 	Well... 		contributions == taxes 		abortion == elimination of fetal tissue 		Clinton == president 		faggot == spouse 	It could happen...  >3. If you did have control over what types of arms people would be allowed >to buy, which types would you feel compelled to restrict to military >uses only (ie. bazooka, M16, grenade, atomic bomb, etc.) 	Hydrogen Bomb, perhaps. 	 >4. Would you describe HCI and all other gun control activists as being >determined to make it illegal for a civilian to own or use a firearm? 	Yep.  >5. Have you personally read the Brady Bill in its entirety? 	Yep.  >Thank again, > >Gary
In article <IfpMCx600VB986FZFR@andrew.cmu.edu> nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes: >emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes: >> BTW, the parallel universe approach implys an element of mind in the >> very physical reality of the universe.   >This sounds interesting... but what exactly do you mean?    Well, the best thing to do is to read the book "Parallel Universes" by Dr. Fred Wolf.   In essence, Dr. Wolf says that one interpretation of the sub-atomic particle/wave duality is that what we perceive as a wave is actually an infinate number of parallel universes overlaid, and in each of these universes there is a particle in a different location. When we do something to make a particle "appear," we are actually causing all the parallel universes to collapse into one. Apparently this is one line of thought on the nature of QM, that is going through some of the scientific community.  Dr. Wolf (and many others) claim that somehow the collapse is caused by the mental effort of observing the particle. This implys that mind is more than merely a biological phenomenon. He then extrapolates that if mind is an integral part of the universe, then perhaps consciousness is the element that gives order and form to the universe(s) it/themself(s).  It all gets rather interesting, but what I find facinating is that this would explain the phenomenon of "magick" as practiced in my religion. Dr. Wolf speculates that the ordering functionality of mind could be caused by the selection of a future from an infinite number of possible futures; he says that this might be done by some sort of communication between ones current, and possible future selves.  I have long speculated that if magick is not merely a form of self delusion then perhaps it could be caused by some sort of a selection of one of many possible futures.  I realize that this gets pretty bizarre, but it never hurts to keep  an open mind and at least file it all away as another possibile  explaination of the world in which we find ourselves. After all, the more we learn about the universe in which we live, the more we learn that it is truly a very strange place.  >Nanci
930425   Charles Hope writes:  Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle, and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were.  Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son & lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian, from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome in 205BC to save them from Hannibal.   Response:  Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the 'sibyl'?  Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be.  My understanding is that Islam was founded on the remains of a goddess cult or two.  Many Muslims would not like to hear that. ;>   You:  It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater), could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black, prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women. They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit.  Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I forget by now...there's a book on that.)  Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name.   Response:  I'd love to get details or references on any of the above.  My own exploration of this issue has only extended to a brief examination of the Zuni 'berdache'. _The Zuni Man-Woman_, by Will Roscoe, University of New Mexico Press, 1991 probably has some interesting things to say about them.  I've yet to procure it.  Any details or references on:  Ecstatic cults in Rome, India, Russia/Romania (Christian too?) which exhibit any type of transsexualism or transvestitism, male OR female (though I expect mostly the former will be found ;>).   Thanks for your interesting posts, Charles. :>
In article <1993Apr16.173720.19151@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:  >In article <C5L14I.JJ3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >>Why isn't this falsifiable? I.E. There is no God, the world has existed forever >>and had no starting point. ? > >How does one falsify God's existance?  This, again, is a belief, not a scien- >tific premise.  The original thread referred specifically to "scientific >creationism".  This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be >able to be judged by the scientific method.  This is in contrast to >purely philosophical arguments.  	If given a definite definition of "God", it is sometimes possible to  falsify the existance of that God.  	But, when one refuses to give an immutable definition, one can not.  ---           " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
In article <1e9e02bm40FM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:    Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are    not comparable.
rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes: >  > The results of the passing amendment in > Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over > Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand, > but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto > is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.  I live in Colorado, and have never heard of such a group.  Obviously claims  that their posters are appearing "all over Colorado" are a tad overdone...   > This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are > embracing.  Hardly.  Saying that homosexuality is a sin is a far cry from  "Working for a fag-free America".  Saying that I wouldn't want  a homosexual babysitting for my kids doesnt mean I endorse  "Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash".    > We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression > towards those we feel don't 'measure up',  And now we have homosexual advocates telling us that if we don't teach  our kids that homosexuality is natural and a perfectly acceptable  alternative lifestyle, then they will have it done for us.  No, thanks.   > The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include" > people.   Absolutely.  And the message is always, "go and sin no more".  Not,  Go and do whatever "feels good".   One question, at the start of your post, you wrote:  > I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free > form discrimination...I may have lost face with the greater Christian > community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists > against the oppression of African-Americans.  Many were even killed and > treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such.  I guess I've > decided the challenge is worth it.  This sounds real nice, but struck me as a little odd.  You're  presenting yourself as if you were a straight Xian, who is sticking his neck out and taking on the challenge of speaking out in support  of gays in the church.  But I was under the impression that you yourself are gay.  That's all well and fine, but presenting yourself  as sticking out your neck to help "repressed others" seems a bit  untruthful under the circumstances....
In article <1993Apr23.170101.19708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > No.  I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining > each book within, cross-comparing them, etc.  And I have come to same conclusions > as Robert Weiss. >  > So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain > english.  Decide for yourself.     I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine, or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.  Cheers, Kent
In article <Yfk8p=q00WBM47T0sJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must >    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for >    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants >    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and >    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It >    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing >    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity. >    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect >    to join.  There are just so many. >  > Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus > Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a > hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So > convenient that it is burdensome at times.  Your last remark is a contradiction, but I'll let that pass.  I was addressing the notion of the Great Commission, which you deleted in order to provide us with dull little homilies. Thank you, Bing Crosby.  Now you go right on back to sleep and mommy and daddy will tuck you in later.  Oh, and how convenient his bible must have been to Michael Griffin, how convenient his Christianity.  "Well, I'll just skip the bit about not murdering people and loving the sinner and hating the sin and all that other stuff for now and concentrate on the part where it says that if someone is doing something wrong, you should shoot him in the back several times as he tries to hobble away on his crutches."  I'll leave the "convert or die" program of the missionaries and their military escorts in the Americas for Nadja to explain as she knows much more about it than I.  Must be awfully convenient, by the way, to offer platitudes as you have done, David, rather than addressing the arguments.
In article <GERRY.93Apr21132149@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >No, a no-knock warrant is in clear violation of the 4th amendment. >Okay, what about the fact that they were tipped off - they shouldn't >have opened fire - right?  WRONG!  Think about this: I am a drug >dealer and my competition wants to do away with me. They call me and >tell me that the Feds are on their way with a no-knock warrant. So, >being moronic sheep we wait, with our guns holstered. Now, instead of >the Feds, in comes my competition, and we're history.  The only >acceptable answer to a no-knock warrant is blazing guns!  I may sound >paranoid, but our government is out of control, and killing a few >federal officers make knock some sense back into it.  Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every day to bust drug houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even fight.  Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so commonly, now would it?  Whether or not it was appropriate to use this strategy on the BD is not my point, since I don't think any of us have enough information to make a clear judgement on this issue.  I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day. Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest that the police always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?  Just what should the police do when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects?  How far can they reasonably go to identiy themselves?  What do you suggest they can do which can't be faked by the "competition"?  Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an excuse to murder police.  In the case of the BD's, there was almost definitely at most the paranoid delusion of deadly enimies who would pretend to be cops.
In article <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: #Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved #in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity #has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I  #don't need to state the dreadful r-word.  So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what? After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word. For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm, I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)
Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:  > "This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient > Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise: > The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light. >  Does this organization have an official e-mail address these days? (an address for any of the SF Bay Area Lodges, e.g. Thelema would do.)                                       93...                                        A.Lizard