0
lurch

When they come for you to take your guns will you:

Recommended Posts

I posted and have said many times, I will never surrender my guns or even register all of my guns. I too will soon have a CCL, waiting on the state to send it back. To own a gun, much less carry one, is a great responsibility it isnt something I take lightly, and dont think anyone should.

I would like to know of those of you"Opposed" to gun ownership by everyone, did you grow up in a gun owning environment? Most likely not is my guess. When you learn the respect a weapon deserves, you keep it, and you dont have to learn it the hard way, Just like being a responsible skydiver

Countdown to AggieDave post...5,4,3,2...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really think the day will come when the government does come looking for peoples guns, even though it is a constitutional right. In many states some types of guns that were once legal a few years aren't now. I think the trend will continue.

If you look at individual rights that people once had in this country, compared to what they are now, there has been a tremendous degradation. I suppose this stems from our increase in population that we have now compared to what it was when our country started. Think of the laws we have now that weren't on the books in the old days. Most of these infringe on a person's freedom. I doubt if this trend will change, and it does apply to gun laws.

At any rate I've often thought what I'd do if the government banned the guns that I own. They'd be kind of hard to hide, because of gun sniffing dogs etc. I've thought of burying them in some kind of waterproof container. I'd find a way somehow. There's no way I'd just give them up....Steve1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps, but we find that by not selling guns in supermarkets [eg. Walmart] less people tend to have them and therefore less people think they need them.


From what I've found, if you go to the wrong part of London you can still get shot....just like any big city in the states. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This goes way beyond what everyone is making it out to be. Note how this bill is stated:

Public Health and Safety Act of 1993

Health and safety determines what is "safe" enough and "healthy" enough for the average citizen, in that the aspects of how you live your life should be regulated by the federal government.

So, firearms are deemed to not be "safe" and "healthy" for the average citizen, so they should be removed.

What about skydiving? Is that safe and healthy enough for the average citizen? It may start with firearms, but it wont stop there as the government continues to try to manage every aspect of your personal life.

To those who arent concerned about gun control, I can say you are going to feel real funny when the government determines that skydiving isnt safe and healthy enough for you to be involved with it any longer.

gun control = people control, that is what the REAL issue is here, and it isnt just about guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The government pumped flammable CS powder through a gaping hole in the upwind side of the main building, then tossed a pyro grenade in. 80 people died. It was not a matter of guns, it was a matter of supressing beliefs and sending a message.



CS is not flammable. Also, don't forget the gas spread on members of Koresh's little band which was lit by other members of the band (I've seen the thermal images from the fight that show them lighting the fires). I think it was more a matter of Koresh shooting ATF agents as they tried to serve a warrant. Koresh had an arsenal of military weapons stored in that compound inc grenades and machine guns.

Quote

And, of all people, you--a father and a husband--want to talk shit about the happenings at Ruby Ridge?



Yeah, a husband who taught his kids to carry guns and shoot at Federal Agents trying to serve a Warrant on their father. Weaver was responsible for what happened at Ruby Ridge. Lon Horiuchi (FBI Sniper) was not aiming at Weaver's wife when he shot her. He was aiming at Kevin Harris who had raised a gun to shoot at an FBI helicopter. It was sad what happened and a great tragedy but, it was Weaver's fault ultimately. The government is allowed by the constitution to execute seizures (ie arrests) when the person being seized is suspected of violating a Federal law.

Even Weaver says now that he was wrong in what he did and he wouldn't choose that path again.

Quote

Conspiracy is theory. These are facts.



The facts you are using are distorted.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude....I have to tell you.....I wouldn't defend EITHER one of those incidents as a Fed. In both the Fed Agents involved made serious mistakes. In Waco.....the ATF PURPOSELY picked a fight. Well...they got one. Ruby Ridge.....They just plane made some idiotic decisions. I know what you do for a living.....please don't be sucked in by the propaganda. You're sounding awfully "Us and Them" :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your phone can be tapped, your mail read, your computer bugged etc with less cause than ever before.



Wrong. The requirement for 'probable cause' has not been eliminated. It is just called something else in the FISA courts but it is the same standard. The change has been that the FISA courts can handle a wider range of non-criminal violations (ie suspected terrrorist cells). They used to handle only spy cases involving foreign governments. The reason people don't like FISA courts is because they are classified and the results are not available to the public. This is because they handle information that would be detrimental to the security of the gov't ie investigative techniques and equipment that, if widely known, would render them useless in future investigations.

Quote

a) do everything we can to get gun crime down; gun crime is the thing most voters fear when it comes to gun ownership, and fear will lead to their vote on gun restrictions. If gun crime were to drop by 40% you can bet that many of the gun control proposals would simply disappear for lack of support.

c) Make a big stink when civil rights evaporate. The patriot act, for example, was enacted to ensure "the safety of the american people" and does it by reducing the rights of those same people. Our rights are all tightly interrelated - the right to free speech is closely related to the right to privacy. We should look very closely at any erosion of them.



These two points are diametrically opposed. To decrease crime you have to empower law enforcement. Since the people who so avidly fight for every perceived violation of their civil rights also are against giving any additional power to law enforcement, I don't think this is realistic. You will have to give up some civil liberties to decrease crime. If we don't change anything then everything will remain the same.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You will have to give up some civil liberties to decrease crime. If we don't change anything then everything will remain the same.



not likely.

it isnt as if crime were rampant and has been going down as we become a more oppressive state. A great deal of the increase in numbers of crime is because of the change in the definition of crime. At some point the government decided its job was to protect people from THEMSELVES and suddenly everyone was a potential criminal first and a citizen second.

very sad.
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the ATF PURPOSELY picked a fight



They sent two agents to initially serve the warrant. Koresh shot them. If they were trying to pick a fight, that is not how most people would do it.

Quote

Dude....I have to tell you.....I wouldn't defend EITHER one of those incidents as a Fed.



Yes, there were mistakes made. I haven't been on an arrest yet where mistakes weren't made but, it wasn't some big consipiracy to kill or suppress the innocent masses. The ATF shouldn't have tried to serve a warrant on Koresh with only two agents knowing that they had such an arsenal in the compound. But, it wasn't some big conspiracy to kill everyone there.

The Ruby Ridge stories are getting blown way out of proportion too. There is a lot of fiction and very little fact being used.

Quote

You're sounding awfully "Us and Them"



LOL, it is a reaction to constantly being called a militaristic, swastika wearing, oppressor of the common people on this board. I didn't know that I was out to take everyone's guns away until I read this thread.;)


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it isnt as if crime were rampant and has been going down as we become a more oppressive state. A great deal of the increase in numbers of crime is because of the change in the definition of crime. At some point the government decided its job was to protect people from THEMSELVES and suddenly everyone was a potential criminal first and a citizen second.



We're talking violent crime. There has been very little significant change to the substance of violent crime law in the past 50 years. It might be called something different now but it is still a crime as always.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Wrong. The requirement for 'probable cause' has not been eliminated.

No, but it has been greatly weakened. You can now get a search warrant without ANY evidence of wrongdoing; you just have to claim that you need the search as part of an ongoing terrorist investigation:

------------------------------------

The USA PATRIOT Act contains more than 150 sections and amends over 15 federal statutes, including laws governing criminal procedure, computer fraud, foreign intelligence, wiretapping, and immigration. Particularly troubling to free speech and privacy advocates are four provisions: section 206, which permits the use of "roving wiretaps" and secret court orders to monitor electronic communications to investigate terrorists; sections 214 and 216, which extend telephone monitoring authority to include routing and addressing information for Internet traffic relevant to any criminal investigation; and, finally, section 215, which grants unprecedented authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants for business, medical, educational, library, and bookstore records merely by claiming that the desired records may be related to an ongoing terrorism investigation or intelligence activities -- a very relaxed legal standard which does not require any actual proof or even reasonable suspicion of terrorist activity.

Equally troubling, section 215 includes a "gag order" provision prohibiting any person or institution served with a search warrant from disclosing what has taken place. In conjunction with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the U.S. Justice Department issued revised FBI guidelines in May 2002 that greatly increase the bureau's surveillance and data collection authority to access such information as an individual's Web surfing habits and search terms.

---------------------------------------

>These two points are diametrically opposed. To decrease crime you
> have to empower law enforcement.

Nonsense. Doubling the number of cops, and not changing anything else, will reduce crime. Any claim that you have to take away civil rights to empower law enforcement and thus reduce crime makes as much sense as saying that you can only decrease gun crime by taking away legally owned guns.

>I don't think this is realistic. You will have to give up some civil
> liberties to decrease crime. If we don't change anything then
> everything will remain the same.

Nope. It's possible to decrease crime - even catch terrorists! - by using the same system that's worked for us for 200 years, just putting more effort into it. Our constitution has survived two world wars, the threat of global thermonuclear war, a civil war, several smaller wars, wars that we backed out of - and it's still intact. We've had crime since the beginning, and we've had guns since the beginning. Our constitution does not need any revising - nor does the bill of rights need to be eroded - to face these threats, even if some people percieve these threats as new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes but if we redirect the resources otherwise wasted enforcing trivial laws & actions that are not in fact "criminal" you free up an AMAZING number of law enforcement personnel's time and our money so it can be focused on violent crime, all without any change to anyones civil liberties.

the only reason for the sacrifice of civil liberties we have already made is to make law enforcements job easier so the the current levels of public oppression can be maintained without the government having to redefine its social stance.

robbing peter to pay paul, and everyone loses in the end
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They sent two agents to initially serve the warrant.





If they had arrested him on one of his MANY trips into town the whole thing MAY have been avoided. Once again...I believe they were trying to make a point and it blew up in their face.


Quote

it wasn't some big consipiracy to kill or suppress the innocent masses




I don't think it was either. I do however think that the ATF set out to make a point. I have been on the recieving end of some ATF "Bravado" before. It's not pretty or professional. I hope I have a conversation with ANOTHER ATF agent like I had back in 93.The outcome will be FAR differen't next time. Those guys are pretty much assholes. Every one I have ever met......and I have met quite a few. Don't care for them.



Quote

The Ruby Ridge stories are getting blown way out of proportion too. There is a lot of fiction and very little fact being used.




The facts remain that some agents went off in the woods playing "Rambo." When that was done they had shot a 14 year old kid in the back. Have any idea what would happen if I, on the job, shot a kid in the back. No matter what the circumstances? I GUARAN-FUCKIN-TEE you I'd be serving time. That wasn't professional...PERIOD. An FBI sniper that "missed" ........Sad.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No, but it has been greatly weakened. You can now get a search warrant without ANY evidence of wrongdoing; you just have to claim that you need the search as part of an ongoing terrorist investigation:



Your source for info is wrong. To show probable cause you have to have evidence. You can't say you have to have 'probable cause' but don't need evidence. 'Probable cause' is made up of enough evidence to give a 'reasonable belief' that a crime has been committed. The danger of FISA courts is you don't have civilian oversight in determining 'probable cause'. You only have a judge.

Quote

Doubling the number of cops, and not changing anything else, will reduce crime.



To a certan point, but to actually reduce crime you can't just rely on 'after the fact' prosecutions. That will deter some would be criminals but a lot (especially terrorists who are willing to die for their cause) will still commit crimes. Our entire system was built around punishing the person who commits the crime after the entire crime has been committed. We are now trying to prevent certain types of crime (like terrorism) which requires a completley different bag of tools. Of course we could have a cop standing every 100ft to stop crimes but that is unrealistic.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said there weren't mistakes made by the ATF, US Marshals, and FBI but, give all the details of the story. You and the others seem to think Koresh and the Weavers were sitting on their front porch weaving when the AFT/Marshals raided and killed. It wasn't like that and you know it.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okey dokey, I really don't know where you got your facts, but you are confusing CS with OC. CS is a highly flammable powder or solid. Well, lets let a professional explain things so you can understand a little better.
Quote

The following is a statement by Dr. Eric R. Larsen, PhD. Dr. Larsen was employed for twenty five years by Dow Chemical Company as a senior research scientist. Dow Chemical is a major manufacturer of methylene chloride, a potent anesthetic agent which constitutes 97% of the CS/methylene chloride mixture injected into the Mount Carmel Church Center on April 19, 1993 by the FBI.

CS powder is a highly flammable material which contributed to the accelerating the spread of the fire. In the church records vault area, where 31 people died, DR. Larsen has concluded that the amount of CS/methylene chloride mixture injected by the C. E. V. penetrating it’s entire length into the building in front of the vault was 1.4 times the “Immediately Dangerous Level to Life and Health” (IDLH), providing the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) only injected one cylinder of the mixture. CS powder, while outlawed by treaty for use in international warfare, has been ruled by Judge Walter Smith Jr. to meet the “Federal Discretionary Function Rule” for use against U. S. Citizens. (See below)

According to the United States Army (MSDS) material safety data sheets, the concentration of CS powder injected into the vault, by a single ISPRA M-5 cylinder on the boom of the tank, was 680 milligrams/cubic meter or 340 X the IDLH. The U.S.House of Representative’ report indicate that up to four ISPRA cylinders may have been discharged directly into the vault by the REV. Dr. Larsen would have testified under oath, that even excluding the possibility that the REV in it’s first full length incursion into the building in front of the vault door may have pushed sufficient debris to block the vault’s only exit, that the anesthetic nature of the CS/methylene chloride mixture by only one ISPRA M-5 unit would have rendered the occupants to a comatose state.

It seem more than probable that the fire and many of the deaths - especially of those in the vault - resulted from the failure of the FBI to obtain expert guidance. In particular guidance as to the red flags raised by the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS); sheets pertaining to the chemicals. (CS powder dissolved in methylene chloride). All of the information needed to properly evaluate a plan that put so many innocent children at risk is readily available in the literature and in those MSDSs sheets required by law of all chemical manufacturers. All this is especially regretful, since a single “Ferret” round fired by a 12 gauge shotgun into each window of Mount Carmel once a week would have made the building uninhabitable - especially for the children - and forced the Davidians out without loss of innocent life.

The Federal Tort Claims Act

In 1947, The Federal Tort Claims Act first allowed suits against the federal government. the law provided that it did not allow suits for negligent exercise of a “discretionary function”, even if the discretion was abused. The Supreme Court has construed the “discretionary function exception” to cover any decision which could be based on a “Policy balancing.” This is so even if the discretion negligently kills American citizens. The first major Supreme Court case on the subject in fact involved the Texas City disaster, and the court held the government immune from suit for negligence which destroyed most of the city and killed hundreds. The government here argues that the decision to inject dangerous gasses into a room full of children was a protected government “policy Balancing,” which cannot be “second-guessed” by a jury of citizens.

--Dated 2000

I have handled my fair amount of solid CS in USMC gas chambers and it is activated by a single source--fire.

Again, the standoff and ensuing massacre never needed to happen. Koresh not only shot his guns in a field with BATF agents, he also invited them to search his place.

Quote

Before the Feb. 28 raid, the BATF had come to suspect that David Koresh, the Davidians’ leader, had violated Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires that certain firearms be registered and taxed.

After refusing an invitation from Koresh to discuss his firearm purchases and obtaining a search warrant, 75 BATF agents stormed the Mount Carmel premises armed with pistols, shotguns, and submachine guns and air support by helicopters. Some 115 men, women and children resided in the building.

Not quite two months later, on April 19, 1993, the Federal Bureau of Investigation knocked down the outer walls of the compound and injected tear gas into the premises. A fire, with questionable origins, consumed the compound and killed all but nine occupants.

--Newsmax

On to the next point: Ruby Ridge. I really want to know where they trained SA Lon Horiuchi if in fact he was shooting to kill Kevin Harris, but completely missed and hit Vikki Weaver. I know lots of SAs got training at the USMC Sniper School at Quantico while I was there, but I cannot fathom someone employed by the federal government squeezing a trigger and hitting the wrong person at a distance of 200 yards with a scoped .308 tactical rifle. Sorry. I can shoot the ass off a fly at 200 yards, and I do so hope federal agents employed in a sniper role could do at least that. You may have heard this before, but as a government agent every round that misses your intended target is worth 10 million dollars.

Quote

Even Weaver says now that he was wrong in what he did and he wouldn't choose that path again.

Show me.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

yes but if we redirect the resources otherwise wasted enforcing trivial laws & actions that are not in fact "criminal" you free up an AMAZING number of law enforcement personnel's time and our money so it can be focused on violent crime, all without any change to anyones civil liberties.



Thank you. Seems like most of legal authority in this country is geared towards petty actions, which the cops scrutinize with unusual persistance, but when it comes to major offenses or having to go into a dangerous environment, you can expect them to take hours to get there. Chasing down people for minor offenses is big money in the cities and towns and is used solely to raise more revenue for the city. Also, people who look "safe" who commit minor offenses are a "safer catch" than a hardened, violent criminal who is likely to retaliate to being stopped.

Seems to me the police are there to serve the city government they work for, but do absolutely nothing to serve the public. As a matter of fact, since I was a kid, I have seen the police as public enemy number one, because they always do things to upset people who really arent doing anything wrong and do very little for stopping criminal activity. That is what I have seen, time and time again.

Around here if you call the cops about an incident, you usually have to call them over and over again reporting the same incident for 3 hours before they finally get there. This is what you can expect in an emergency situation, ie if your house is being robbed by someone who is armed. And they want to take away everyone's private firearms???

It has been shown time and time again that gun control has only led to a radical increase in the crime rate, NEVER a decrease. Gun control and confiscation takes away firearms from everyone EXCEPT for the criminals, leaving guns in the hands of criminals in the midst of an unarmed public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Your source for info is wrong.

Here's the original text:

-----------------------------

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
-----------------------------------------

Translation:

Any FBI agent of a certain rank can request a search warrant, and needs produce no proof, or even reason beyond claiming that it's needed to protect against international terrorism. The judge must so order it unless it clearly is a first-amendment violation. No evidence required.

>Our entire system was built around punishing the person who
>commits the crime after the entire crime has been committed.

Uh, you've never seen a cop pull someone over who looks drunk? Or who tells them to drop a weapon, even if they have committed no crime with it, and may be carrying it legally?

On the other hand, have you ever seen cops stand by idly until a thief has completed robbing a bank, because he's not 'guilty' yet?

Cops are a little smarter than that, and currently they have the leeway to be. They can arrest anyone on very little suspicion. Once they're arrested, the requirements become tighter and they must be released quickly if no charges can be brought against them.

In the end, our system is based on punishing people who actually do commit crimes. Thank god.

>We are now trying to prevent certain types of crime (like terrorism)
> which requires a completley different bag of tools.

McCarthy said the same thing about communism. It was an insidious threat, one unlike we had ever faced before. Why, there might be communist sleeper cells right here in the US! Subverting our own government, bringing an end to the US as we know it! A little bending of the constitution was neccessary - even prudent in his mind - and he was making some progress towards that end before he was stopped (fortunately) by congress.

The constitution worked back then, it will work now. No need to change it - unless we fear the very freedoms it guarantees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How would they come to take your guns if you didn't have any? Your suggestion doesn't make sense. Kinda like looking for the "I don't use them, I am a man" answer in the "What brand of tampon do you prefer?" poll.


The girls tell me tampax ins'nt no 1 any more . but it's still up there.:D




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ATF could have easily arrested Koresh in town where he went regularly. The ATF knew the Davidians were tipped off and came in anyway.

The FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge that blew Mrs Weaver away is trained to fire a 6" group at 1,000 yards, was his problem his target was much to close for accuracy?

Thank God that President Bush is in office now and hopefully another term. The aforemention crimes happened on clinton's watch. Had Gore gotten elected (which he didn't in spite of the hanging chads and all that bullshit), we would be much further down the road to not only gun control, but CONTROL in general.

Billvon, I salute you here (mostly) you and I have more in common than i thought.

As for the sheeple that have nothing to fear from the government, yes, you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge that blew Mrs Weaver away is trained to fire a 6" group at 1,000 yards, was his problem his target was much to close for accuracy?

There is a big difference between pulling the trigger on a target and doing the same thing on another human being. This is not uncommon. A lot of soldiers have trouble being effective marksmen in combat until they get used to the buisness of killing. Many never do get used to it. Some won't even fire their weapon. Many are so nervous they miss. I've never been in combat, but I would imagine it is similiar to buck fever when hunting, but a whole lot worse. There have been studies on this, that make interesting reading.....Steve1





As for the sheeple that have nothing to fear from the government, yes, you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are saying is very true, but Lon is an experienced FBI sniper. That scenario doesn't apply especially since he was squeezing triggers at Waco too.

Weaver's son and wife were murdered over a pair of sawed-off shotguns.

Quote

One of federal police agencies' favorite activities is spying on radical political organizations. They don't care for being hindered by such things as the Bill of Rights; the FBI has been censured by Congress several times for illegal investigations.

In the late 1980s, the FBI and BATF wanted to infiltrate white supremacist groups. In 1989, the BATF sent informant Kenneth Fadeley to pose as a gun dealer to spy on groups such as the Aryan Nations in Idaho.

The BATF targeted white separatist Randy Weaver to be one of their moles. Fadeley claims that Weaver approached him with the offer to sell sawed-off shotguns in October 1989. Weaver claims he was entrapped, and in fact he was acquitted of weapons charges when tried in court.

As reported by James Bovard in the January 10, 1995 Wall Street Journal, the BATF set up a sting in order to blackmail Weaver into doing their bidding: "an undercover agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approached Mr. Weaver and pressured the mountain man to sell him sawed-off shotguns. Mr. Weaver at first refused, but the agent was persistent and Mr. Weaver eventually sold him two shotguns -- thereby violating federal firearms law."



Just incase you don't know what happened up there, this is a good read:
Quote


FBI Siege of Ruby Ridge
When federal agents set up Randy Weaver on minor weapons violations, Weaver refused to show up in court for the charge, instead holing up with his wife and four children in his mountain cabin on Ruby Ridge, forty miles south of the Canadian border.

A Justice Department attorney got an arrest warrant for Weaver, despite knowing that a court official notified Weaver of an incorrect court date. (Weaver wasn't going to show up anyway.)

For the charge of refusing to appear in court for a minor weapons violation, the government conducted a military siege of Ruby Ridge worthy of a small war. As reported by James Bovard in the January 10, 1995 Wall Street Journal, after Weaver's February 1991 missed court appearance, Federal agents then launched an elaborate 18-month surveillance of Mr. Weaver's cabin and land.

David Niven, a defense lawyer involved in the subsequent court case, noted later: "The U.S. marshals called in military aerial reconnaissance and had photos studied by the Defense Mapping Agency. ... They had psychological profiles performed and installed $130,000 worth of solar-powered long-range spy cameras. They intercepted the Weavers' mail. They even knew the menstrual cycle of Weaver's teenage daughter, and planned an arrest scenario around it."

On August 21, 1992, the siege began in earnest. Six U.S. marshals, armed and camouflaged, went onto Weaver's property to conduct undercover surveillance. When Weaver's dogs started barking, they shot one of them.

Weaver's 25-year-old friend Kevin Harris and 14-year-old son Sammy and saw the dog die. Sammy Weaver fired his gun towards the agents as his dad yelled for him to come back to the cabin. "I'm coming, Dad," were Sammy Weaver's last words before he was shot in the back and killed by a U.S. marshal.

Kevin Harris, witnessing the agents' killing of the dog and child, fired at the agents in self-defense, killing one of them.

After the initial shootout, the Weavers and Harris retreated into their cabin, and a small army surrounded the area. Says Bovard: "the commander of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team was called in, and ordered federal agents to shoot any armed adult outside the Weaver cabin, regardless of whether that person was doing anything to threaten or menace federal agents. (Thanks to the surveillance, federal officials knew that the Weavers always carried guns when outside their cabin.)"
Against a handful of rural Idahoans with shotguns, the U.S. arrayed four hundred federal agents with automatic weapons, sniper rifles and night vision scopes.

On August 22, 1992, Randy Weaver went to see his son's body in the shack where it lay. He was shot and wounded from behind by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. As Weaver struggled back to his house, Horiuchi assassinated his wife Vicki as she stood in the doorway, holding their 10-month-old baby.

Although the feds later claimed Vicki Weaver's killing was an accident, the New York Times reported in 1993 that an internal FBI report justified the killing by saying she put herself in danger. Horiuchi testified in court that he was an accurate shot at 200 yards.

Everything about the federal government's actions in this case is sickening, but possibly the worst was their taunting of the Weaver family after Vicki Weaver's murder: "Good morning, Mrs. Weaver. We had pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?" That was one of the FBI's tactics revealed in court records, reported by Jerry Seper in the Washington Times in September 1993.

After the initial shootout, the only shots fired were by federal agents. Eleven days after the shootout Randy Weaver surrendered.



mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a fine example of your tax dollars at work in defense of personal freedom.

and people wonder why they shouldnt trust the government. What part of any of that operation was necessary? millions on useless surveillance? cooperate or we spy on & kill your family?

nice police state we've got going here, and to think we call this “land of the free”
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0