Bill Clinton's advice on gun control [W:41]

[Bob Blaylock]

And Timothy McVeigh legitimately killed 168 as retribution too I suppose. Those Federal agents were killed in Waco executing a search warrant. That is NOT self-defense that is murder and you are a co-conspirator.

I do not, would not, and cannot defend what McVeigh did. While I can appreciate his desire to seek some form of justice or retribution for what was the biggest mass murder up to that point in U.S. history, what he did was to commit an even bigger mass murder, against innocent victims who had nothing to do with the one he thought he was avenging.

And there is no basis for you to describe me as a “co-conspirator” to McVeigh's crime. I never met him, I never had anything to do with him, and I never participated in any way in his crime.

And serving a search warrant in a legitimate manner does not involving shooting unprovoked into an occupied building.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can always tell a wacko when they mention Waco or Ruby Ridge. They give gunowners a bad name, keep it up.

What does it say about someone who defends the horrific crimes that agents of the government committed in these instances?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They can't kill Americans solely for disobedience. However, once they start shooting at the Law Enforcement Officers on their front lawn, that changes a whole lot of things.

It was the “law enforcement officers” who started shooting first, without any provocation. Blindly into a building that they knew contained women and children and others who were not party to the alleged crimes for which they were allegedly serving a warrant. Once that happens, the targets of that shooting are entirely justified in shooting back in self-defense.

 

[Tigger]

It was the “law enforcement officers” who started shooting first, without any provocation. Blindly into a building that they knew contained women and children and others who were not party to the alleged crimes for which they were allegedly serving a warrant. Once that happens, the targets of that shooting are entirely justified in shooting back in self-defense.

I've heard more than one conflicting report on who fired the first shot. As I've said, there were errors made on both sides of the ledger throughout the entire 50+ day event. So far as I'm concerned the idea of hiding behind the skirts of women and children is pretty cowardly. I've never been a fan of human shields and personally would have no issue shooting either to get to someone who needed to be shot.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I've heard more than one conflicting report on who fired the first shot. As I've said, there were errors made on both sides of the ledger throughout the entire 50+ day event. So far as I'm concerned the idea of hiding behind the skirts of women and children is pretty cowardly. I've never been a fan of human shields and personally would have no issue shooting either to get to someone who needed to be shot.

I'm not aware of any evidence that Mr. Koresh was guilty of “hiding behind the skirts of women and children”. As it happened, he and his followers, including women and children, all lived in that compound. Mr. Koresh routinely went outside the compound, affording law enforcement plenty of opportunities to apprehend him without endangering others. In fact, Mr. Koresh had, on several occasions, voluntarily gone in for questioning.

There simply was no reason, ever, for the attack on the compound. There certainly was never any cause for agents to begin blindly firing shots into a building that they knew contained women, children, and other innocents.

 

[Tigger]

I'm not aware of any evidence that Mr. Koresh was guilty of “hiding behind the skirts of women and children”. As it happened, he and his followers, including women and children, all lived in that compound. Mr. Koresh routinely went outside the compound, affording law enforcement plenty of opportunities to apprehend him without endangering others. In fact, Mr. Koresh had, on several occasions, voluntarily gone in for questioning.

There simply was no reason, ever, for the attack on the compound. There certainly was never any cause for agents to begin blindly firing shots into a building that they knew contained women, children, and other innocents.

I think you're missing something here.... The FBI wanted to get INSIDE the compound. They believed (rightly or wrongly) that there was significant evidence INSIDE the compound which was relevant to their investigation. They were also under the belief (again rightly or wrongly) that Koresh had left instructions with his followers that if he was detained or arrested that they were to destroy certain things so the FBI could not find them. To that end, the FBI decided they needed to be inside the compound. They went about it in a horrible way, and totally screwed the pooch in trying to do so.

HOWEVER, Koresh should have sent the children, and whatever women were not both willing and capable of being involved in the defense of the compound out the moment the FBI started negotiating with him. To place those innocent women and children in harms way IS his fault.

 

[joko104]

It was the “law enforcement officers” who started shooting first, without any provocation. Blindly into a building that they knew contained women and children and others who were not party to the alleged crimes for which they were allegedly serving a warrant. Once that happens, the targets of that shooting are entirely justified in shooting back in self-defense.

That is what the jury ruled too.

 

[joko104]

I've heard more than one conflicting report on who fired the first shot. As I've said, there were errors made on both sides of the ledger throughout the entire 50+ day event. So far as I'm concerned the idea of hiding behind the skirts of women and children is pretty cowardly. I've never been a fan of human shields and personally would have no issue shooting either to get to someone who needed to be shot.

Fortunately, a news helicopter had a thermal sensing camera that picked up the rifle shots heat. The BATF militantly insisted they had not fired first, but the video proved that a lie. The BATF had open fired and hit people first.

I understand why they did not send out the children - and mothers would stay with their children. Would you send out your children to the government knowing the government would then take them away, ban you from seeing them again, and have psychologists drill into your children that you are an evil person and that all your beliefs and values are wrong?

Since the government had no reason to start shooting people in the first place, would you even believe any could safely leave the building? This started by federal agents killing 6 people there - and in the end killed another 72 by using a gas administered by military tanks they knew prior would convert to cyanide if it contacted fire. The women and children were NOT burned to death. They were knowingly gassed to death by cyanide gas as a retaliation for the 4 federal officers killed.

Why? The sole reason ever given was they BELIEVED one person their had an illegal firearm - a petty offense - and they could have arrested him any time they wanted as he often drove into the city. For that, they killed 76 men, women and children. This all by a DEMOCRATIC administration.

So never question just how extreme liberals and Democrats will become for "gun control." They killed 76 children, women and men because they believed 1 person there had converted an AR to full auto. For that, everyone had to die. Shot to death those they could and then cyanide gassed all the rest they could. Those few who survived were put on trial for murder for the crime of not agreeing to be killed by the federal officers. Jury even in conservative Waco ruled not-guilty.

They do not care about saving children's lives in schools or about lives at all. They have an anti-gun religion and they will use assassination, poison gas, prisons, anything against anyone who will not comply with their anti-gun religion if given the opportunity or power to do so.

 

[joko104]

It has often been asked by anti-gun people if you would fight to not give up your guns?

BUT the actual question that has real meaning is this to anti-gun people:

"Do you believe the government should assassinate people who do not surrender guns they have that the government bans?"

Since the government has done so in the past, that is a more realistic and relevant question.

 

[Tigger]

Fortunately, a news helicopter had a thermal sensing camera that picked up the rifle shots heat. The BATF militantly insisted they had not fired first, but the video proved that a lie. The BATF had open fired and hit people first.

Does that same video show whether or not those agents had seen a threat (like maybe someone in a window with a weapon? That's a threat and within the ROE to engage in most circumstances.

I understand why they did not send out the children - and mothers would stay with their children. Would you send out your children to the government knowing the government would then take them away, ban you from seeing them again, and have psychologists drill into your children that you are an evil person and that all your beliefs and values are wrong?

I've actually recently had a discussion about this with my soon-to-be fiance, due to my belief that the Communistwealth of Massachusetts will be coming for some if not all of my firearms in the near future. I will not be leaving the condo alive, but there is no reason that she has to die as well. Given the option, I would definitely send her out rather than see her die when they come bursting through that door to deal with me.

Since the government had no reason to start shooting people in the first place, would you even believe any could safely leave the building?

I have no dog in this fight either way. Mistakes were made on both sides of the ledger here. I do believe that once the standoff had begun that Koresh could have negotiated to send the women and children out safely. To suggest that Federal Agents would shoot unarmed women and children who were surrendering themselves to authorities is way beyond what I am willing to believe.

Why? The sole reason ever given was they BELIEVED one person their had an illegal firearm - a petty offense - and they could have arrested him any time they wanted as he often drove into the city. For that, they killed 76 men, women and children. This all by a DEMOCRATIC administration.

As I have stated previously, it has been my understanding that there was also an ongoing tax evasion investigation. The agents felt it was necessary to get inside the compound to search for evidence of either/both charges. They did have a search/arrest warrant if my memory serves. So long as they did, then they were within their rights.

I've commented earlier that the Feds DID have other options to take Koresh in, but did not do so (as I understand it) because they believed that the moment they arrested him, the evidence inside the house would be destroyed.

BTW, Democrat vs Republican has no value in this discussion. So far as I'm concerned NEITHER party is a friend to the lawful gun owners in this country.

So never question just how extreme liberals and Democrats will become for "gun control." They killed 76 children, women and men because they believed 1 person there had converted an AR to full auto. For that, everyone had to die. Shot to death those they could and then cyanide gassed all the rest they could. Those few who survived were put on trial for murder for the crime of not agreeing to be killed by the federal officers. Jury even in conservative Waco ruled not-guilty.

I have never questioned either party's willingness to use whatever force is necessary to back their plans. They killed 6 people in the initial assault. After that Koresh holds at least partial responsibility for the deaths of the other 70 by not allowing them to give themselves up, come out of the compound, and not deal with what they had to know would be an eventual second, and much deadlier assualt on the compound.

They do not care about saving children's lives in schools or about lives at all. They have an anti-gun religion and they will use assassination, poison gas, prisons, anything against anyone who will not comply with their anti-gun religion if given the opportunity or power to do so.

Probably. You have to realize that so long as the cause is legitimate, I have absolutely no problem with using those measures either. I will disagree with the Government's idea that the cause they were doing it for was legitimate; but apparently the Judge who signed the warrant believed it was.

 

[joko104]

Does that same video show whether or not those agents had seen a threat (like maybe someone in a window with a weapon? That's a threat and within the ROE to engage in most circumstances.



I've actually recently had a discussion about this with my soon-to-be fiance, due to my belief that the Communistwealth of Massachusetts will be coming for some if not all of my firearms in the near future. I will not be leaving the condo alive, but there is no reason that she has to die as well. Given the option, I would definitely send her out rather than see her die when they come bursting through that door to deal with me.



I have no dog in this fight either way. Mistakes were made on both sides of the ledger here. I do believe that once the standoff had begun that Koresh could have negotiated to send the women and children out safely. To suggest that Federal Agents would shoot unarmed women and children who were surrendering themselves to authorities is way beyond what I am willing to believe.



As I have stated previously, it has been my understanding that there was also an ongoing tax evasion investigation. The agents felt it was necessary to get inside the compound to search for evidence of either/both charges. They did have a search/arrest warrant if my memory serves. So long as they did, then they were within their rights.

I've commented earlier that the Feds DID have other options to take Koresh in, but did not do so (as I understand it) because they believed that the moment they arrested him, the evidence inside the house would be destroyed.

BTW, Democrat vs Republican has no value in this discussion. So far as I'm concerned NEITHER party is a friend to the lawful gun owners in this country.



I have never questioned either party's willingness to use whatever force is necessary to back their plans. They killed 6 people in the initial assault. After that Koresh holds at least partial responsibility for the deaths of the other 70 by not allowing them to give themselves up, come out of the compound, and not deal with what they had to know would be an eventual second, and much deadlier assualt on the compound.



Probably. You have to realize that so long as the cause is legitimate, I have absolutely no problem with using those measures either. I will disagree with the Government's idea that the cause they were doing it for was legitimate; but apparently the Judge who signed the warrant believed it was.

Koresh was not holding the women and children at gun point, so claiming he did not allow them to leave is not accurate.

This was not an incident in a bubble. While the government had become fully tolerant of leftwing radicals openly against government, the intolerance against what they see as rightwingers militantly opposed to growing government power grew. One of the primary tactics used is to have CPS take the children away who are then put into foster care, the parents only allowed to see the children at a CPS center with CPS monitoring every word, and having psychologists indoctrinate the children against against the parents and their beliefs.

It is CRITICALLY important to understand the women and children were NOT killed in the gun fight. It was a 100% certainty than any child that came out would immediately be seized, separated from the mother, and taken away. I am certain they did not realize the government's plan was to kill them all - so why would they come out? The women and children were not wanted at any time for any crime. So calls for them to come out was literally demanding they voluntarily surrender their children and surrender all parental rights instantly. No good parent would ever do that.

The women and children were safely tucked away where they would not be hurt in the gun fight - and the government never gave any ultimately of "come out or we're sending in military tanks with poison gas to kill all of you."

IF the government had announced: "We are going send in tanks with poison and highly flammable gas and kill everyone in the building in 1 hour, so send out the children, women and anyone who doesn't want to die" that would be one thing. But it didn't.

Koresh was NOT holding anyone against their will. The women and children were NOT in danger in the gunfight - started by the government. The government did NOT give a surrender-or-everyone-dies ultimatum - which even Santa Anna did at the Alamo.

 

[Tigger]

Koresh was not holding the women and children at gun point, so claiming he did not allow them to leave is not accurate.

This was not an incident in a bubble. While the government had become fully tolerant of leftwing radicals openly against government, the intolerance against what they see as rightwingers militantly opposed to growing government power grew. One of the primary tactics used is to have CPS take the children away who are then put into foster care, the parents only allowed to see the children at a CPS center with CPS monitoring every word, and having psychologists indoctrinate the children against against the parents and their beliefs.

It is CRITICALLY important to understand the women and children were NOT killed in the gun fight. It was a 100% certainty than any child that came out would immediately be seized, separated from the mother, and taken away. I am certain they did not realize the government's plan was to kill them all - so why would they come out? The women and children were not wanted at any time for any crime. So calls for them to come out was literally demanding they voluntarily surrender their children and surrender all parental rights instantly. No good parent would ever do that.

The women and children were safely tucked away where they would not be hurt in the gun fight - and the government never gave any ultimately of "come out or we're sending in military tanks with poison gas to kill all of you."

IF the government had announced: "We are going send in tanks with poison and highly flammable gas and kill everyone in the building in 1 hour, so send out the children, women and anyone who doesn't want to die" that would be one thing. But it didn't.

Koresh was NOT holding anyone against their will. The women and children were NOT in danger in the gunfight - started by the government. The government did NOT give a surrender-or-everyone-dies ultimatum - which even Santa Anna did at the Alamo.

I'm sorry but once you realize that the Federal Agents aren't going away even the most blindered individual has to realize that there are only two ways the siege ends.... with you surrendering or with them kicking in the door. Koresh would have had to be an imbecile not to realize that. If he had any care for the women and children he should have immediately negotiated for their safe release from the compound, and in fact demanded that they leave; for their own safety if nothing else.

joko, I have no love for the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno, or any other Democrat but I believe you're being horribly one-sided on this one and I just can't go as far down that road as you apparently are willing to go with the consipiracy theory on this one.

 

[joko104]

It is unfortunately but it is actions such as resistance at WACO, the old farmer who wired a shotgun to a banker's head over farm foreclosures, the OK City bombing that are about the only checks on ever expanding government violent power against people the government doesn't like.

The government gives little concern to the lose of lives of citizens, but great concern to lose of life of their own. It is only when government people are also at risk that there is any limitation to the power they will exercise. They've already given themselves power to do anything they want to. The only question are they 100% certain they can get away with it without some outside-of-laws-they-right repercussions?

After WACO, numerous religious "cults" openly declared "we got guns too and we're ready for you, come and try to take them" to the BATF. The seizures of children, armed harassment raids, IRS harassment etc stopped.

Same on bank foreclosures on farms, which was rampant, and the farmers then turned over to big agri-business. Those only stopped after a regular, ordinary age 60+ old farmer wired a shotgun to the back of a government-banker foreclosure agent saying they weren't taking the farm that had been in his family for 4 generations. The government greatly influences agriculture prices. They had given loans when prices were high, and then the government crashed agriculture products prices ultimately for such farms to go to big agri-business. It too that sacrificial old farmer to bring it to a stop.

The government didn't give a damn about thousands and thousands of farmers losing their farmers due to the government playing games with farm prices. They only cared when it was one of their lives that went on the line.

The reality is that when freedom, civil rights, human rights and democracy began spreading around the world it didn't come from the good graces of governments. It came at the end of the barrel of guns. Nothing has more advanced civil rights, human rights and democracy than the ability of ordinary people to fight - and some die - for those rights than the invention of the gun.

As the old saying, "God may have created man, but Samuel Colt made all men equal." Only a firearm makes a 17 year old criminal and a 72 year old in a wheelchair equal. Only a firearm makes a would-be rapist and his target woman equal. It has been firearms that have created and protected human, civil and democratic rights.

 

[blaxshep]

I'm sorry but once you realize that the Federal Agents aren't going away even the most blindered individual has to realize that there are only two ways the siege ends.... with you surrendering or with them kicking in the door. Koresh would have had to be an imbecile not to realize that. If he had any care for the women and children he should have immediately negotiated for their safe release from the compound, and in fact demanded that they leave; for their own safety if nothing else.

joko, I have no love for the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno, or any other Democrat but I believe you're being horribly one-sided on this one and I just can't go as far down that road as you apparently are willing to go with the consipiracy theory on this one.

The blood is 100% on the government's hands. These people, men and women, chose to defend thier constitutional rights with their lives and the government chose to take them.

 

[joko104]

I'm sorry but once you realize that the Federal Agents aren't going away even the most blindered individual has to realize that there are only two ways the siege ends.... with you surrendering or with them kicking in the door. Koresh would have had to be an imbecile not to realize that. If he had any care for the women and children he should have immediately negotiated for their safe release from the compound, and in fact demanded that they leave; for their own safety if nothing else.

joko, I have no love for the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno, or any other Democrat but I believe you're being horribly one-sided on this one and I just can't go as far down that road as you apparently are willing to go with the consipiracy theory on this one.

To have a conspiracy "theory" it has to be unknown and only speculated on bits and pieces what happened. In fact, everything is known and it came known the government lied.

I disagree. I do not believe anyone there, including Koresh, believed the government would kill everyone. To the finest detail, what happened is 100% known and documented. And despite that is exactly what happened and the government took known actions that would make it happen, people still don't want to believe it - so they don't.

They did not know the government was going to kill them all. What they knew was the government would take away their children from the parents - who had broken no laws whatsoever. Unknown to them, they did have only two choices. 1.) give their children to the government to never see them again and those children instilled with atheist values diametrically opposite their own or 2.) their children would be killed. They did not realize that 2nd alternative was even possibly going to happen.

The government should have at least given that ultimatum of anyone who doesn't come out is going to be killed before doing so.

 

[blaxshep]

Governments are the number one killers of mankind, this should have come as no surprise.

 

[Tigger]

The blood is 100% on the government's hands. These people, men and women, chose to defend thier constitutional rights with their lives and the government chose to take them.

I tend to disagree. The Davidians have to accept at least some of the responsibility for the lives of the CHILDREN and the non-militant WOMEN who were in the compound. They should have done everything possible to get them out of the compound long before the end of the 50+ day standoff.

In terms of the militants, both male and female..... When you choose to take up arms in that fashion, you have to know how it's likely to turn out. I say that as someone who has vowed that the government will take my guns from my cold, dead hands. IF/WHEN that comes to be, it will be as much my responsibility as that of the officer(s) who do the deed.

 

[blaxshep]

I tend to disagree. The Davidians have to accept at least some of the responsibility for the lives of the CHILDREN and the non-militant WOMEN who were in the compound. They should have done everything possible to get them out of the compound long before the end of the 50+ day standoff.

In terms of the militants, both male and female..... When you choose to take up arms in that fashion, you have to know how it's likely to turn out. I say that as someone who has vowed that the government will take my guns from my cold, dead hands. IF/WHEN that comes to be, it will be as much my responsibility as that of the officer(s) who do the deed.

According to the constitution they were 100% in the right and as such had no responsibility to do anything in this matter. The governmnet had no constitutional authority to police thier guns no matter how many they had, they killed them all in cold blood as an act of power. What should have happened is we the people should have come out from behind our TVs and help them defend thier rights and protect their children from their own government.

 

[Tigger]

According to the constitution they were 100% in the right and as such had no responsibility to do anything in this matter. The governmnet had no constitutional authority to police thier guns no matter how many they had, they killed them all in cold blood as an act of power. What should have happened is we the people should have come out from behind our TVs and help them defend thier rights and protect their children from their own government.

You know, I'm generally considered one of the crazies here at DP. One of the FAR-RIGHT LOONS. Yet you and joko are at least two steps further to the Right than I am on this one. If you truly believe that there should be NO limitations at all on gun ownership, then I have to say that I cannot stand with you on that ideal. It just isn't either feasible or intelligent.

Besides, from what little I've heard and read about Koresh and his followers..... we're probably better off with most of them being dead; considering some of the sick and disgusting things that it sounds like were going on inside that compound.

 

[ecofarm]

One of the FAR-RIGHT LOONS.

Not so much. Sure, you're off the chart on social issues but you're more an absolutist totalitarian with values according to convenience. I don't think it's fair to the far right loons that you put yourself in that club.

 

[blaxshep]

You know, I'm generally considered one of the crazies here at DP. One of the FAR-RIGHT LOONS. Yet you and joko are at least two steps further to the Right than I am on this one. If you truly believe that there should be NO limitations at all on gun ownership, then I have to say that I cannot stand with you on that ideal. It just isn't either feasible or intelligent.

Besides, from what little I've heard and read about Koresh and his followers..... we're probably better off with most of them being dead; considering some of the sick and disgusting things that it sounds like were going on inside that compound.

While I can't argue with the last sentance let me clairfy the first, I am not saying there should be no limitations at all on guns, but until we amend the 2nd amendment we have to follow it and shall not be infringed means just that. In other words if you don't want people to own a nuclear weapon, I don't either, then we need to pass an amendment that makes them exempt. As for the number of guns a person can own I see no reason why there should be any limit. I know people that own very large collections.

 

[Tigger]

While I can't argue with the last sentance let me clairfy the first, I am not saying there should be no limitations at all on guns, but until we amend the 2nd amendment we have to follow it and shall not be infringed means just that. In other words if you don't want people to own a nuclear weapon, I don't either, then we need to pass an amendment that makes them exempt. As for the number of guns a person can own I see no reason why there should be any limit. I know people that own very large collections.

I think we have different viewpoints on what Infringement means, and what the responsibilities of law-abiding gun owners are, blax.

To me Infringement is banning or excessive restriction of the right for Responsible, Law-Abiding Individuals. That does not include: criminals, the mentally ill, or any individual who has proven that they are not a responsible adult. It does not mean requiring a license and other things designed to ensure that firearms are not in the hands of people they should not be in.

In my mind it is the responsibilitiy of every gun owner to be able to safely secure all firearms and ammunition they own and possess. This means placing them in a location where they are not available to others without significant effort (more than just breaking through the front door of the house).

 

[Grant]

s..... we're probably better off with most of them being dead; considering some of the sick and disgusting things that it sounds like were going on inside that compound.

"It sounds like" disgusting things we're going on so lets kill them all?

You have drifted dangerously close to the left, Tigger, and they're crazier that a wet sack of wildcats.

Hurry home where you belong.

 

[blaxshep]

To me Infringement is banning or excessive restriction of the right for Responsible, Law-Abiding Individuals. That does not include: criminals, the mentally ill, or any individual who has proven that they are not a responsible adult.

That is not an issue with me either because even if the 2nd amendment is absolute in its coverage any right can be taken away with due process.

 

[joko104]

You know, I'm generally considered one of the crazies here at DP. One of the FAR-RIGHT LOONS. Yet you and joko are at least two steps further to the Right than I am on this one. If you truly believe that there should be NO limitations at all on gun ownership, then I have to say that I cannot stand with you on that ideal. It just isn't either feasible or intelligent.

Besides, from what little I've heard and read about Koresh and his followers..... we're probably better off with most of them being dead; considering some of the sick and disgusting things that it sounds like were going on inside that compound.

I've never stated I oppose any gun regulations or restrictions, but rather the opposite.

Your second paragraph is the first track and emotional pitch the government made - "OMG, I mean they were polygamists and Koresh had children by more than one woman!!!"

So kill him! Kill those women and children too!! And that is exactly what the government did.

Finally, I am confident that every conservative on the forum would not describe you as "far right." I think most would go out of their way to disavow you. Nor would the government like your attitudes, would they?