• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explosive Growth of Militias

taxigirl said:
in the SCOTUS opinion they should be organized. Skinhead racists are allowed to associate just as much as anyone else. Just because we don't approve of their agenda does not mean we should take their rights away. Only people who agree with you should be allowed free speech, the right to bear arms, religious freedoms, the right to vote and the right to associate / assemble? What if you are wrong, what if you can be persuaded? For example: the abortion issue. It seems to be coming to a point where someone is going to have to make a nasty decision and pretty much half the people are going to be upset. I see very good points being made on both sides of the argument and I see people being persuaded into changing parts of their beliefs. Now, I 'm not saying racists are right, but in order for us to be able to claim that we are right, we have to allow everyone to be right.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good but 'Incitement to crime' is not protected speech. And when you get a room full people who think the country would be better off without foreigners or blacks, and someone says: "Well, what are we going to do about it?"

The Government needs to keep tabs on groups that stockpile weapons or run websites where speech is troubling and suggesting further action be taken.

Also, 18 U.S.C. § 842(p) makes it an offence "to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction" either intending or knowing that the learner/viewer intends "that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence."

This is a big country with a lot of problems, but we have not arrived at a time or place where we need to fear our Government. (they're too slow and often not all that bright)...

Information and opinion sharing, levels transparency and responsible news media keep things in check, IMO. But we need to keep tabs on the more deranged and disenfranchised elements. And thanks to idiots like Glen Beck, those groups have grown. So hire more FBI and ATF agents and when laws are broken make arrests and prosecute. That's all this is.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Interesting. So we really shouldn't be pursuing suspected terrorists at all. We should just wait for them to blow something up and then react to the devastation?
Click to expand...

You sure read what other people write rather strangely
 
hazlnut said:
That's all well and good but 'Incitement to crime' is not protected speech. And when you get a room full people who think the country would be better off without foreigners or blacks, and someone says: "Well, what are we going to do about it?"

The Government needs to keep tabs on groups that stockpile weapons or run websites where speech is troubling and suggesting further action be taken.

Also, 18 U.S.C. § 842(p) makes it an offence "to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction" either intending or knowing that the learner/viewer intends "that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence."

This is a big country with a lot of problems, but we have not arrived at a time or place where we need to fear our Government. (they're too slow and often not all that bright)...

Information and opinion sharing, levels transparency and responsible news media keep things in check, IMO. But we need to keep tabs on the more deranged and disenfranchised elements. And thanks to idiots like Glen Beck, those groups have grown. So hire more FBI and ATF agents and when laws are broken make arrests and prosecute. That's all this is.
Click to expand...


So I guess you were a big fan of the patriot act then
 
hazlnut said:
That's all well and good but 'Incitement to crime' is not protected speech. And when you get a room full people who think the country would be better off without foreigners or blacks, and someone says: "Well, what are we going to do about it?"

The Government needs to keep tabs on groups that stockpile weapons or run websites where speech is troubling and suggesting further action be taken.

Also, 18 U.S.C. § 842(p) makes it an offence "to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction" either intending or knowing that the learner/viewer intends "that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence."

This is a big country with a lot of problems, but we have not arrived at a time or place where we need to fear our Government. (they're too slow and often not all that bright)...

Information and opinion sharing, levels transparency and responsible news media keep things in check, IMO. But we need to keep tabs on the more deranged and disenfranchised elements. And thanks to idiots like Glen Beck, those groups have grown. So hire more FBI and ATF agents and when laws are broken make arrests and prosecute. That's all this is.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The reason we do not hear about many of these groups anymore is because the FBI and ATF have become pretty efficient in getting to them before something happens. The problem is are they also going after groups that are not attempting illegal activity (ex. Randy Weaver).
 
taxigirl said:
You are correct. The reason we do not hear about many of these groups anymore is because the FBI and ATF have become pretty efficient in getting to them before something happens. The problem is are they also going after groups that are not attempting illegal activity (ex. Randy Weaver).
Click to expand...

Weaver sold sawed-off shotguns to an ATF agent.
 
TurtleDude said:
So I guess you were a big fan of the patriot act then
Click to expand...

Please explain what in my post would indicate that.

Not fearing one's government is much different than questioning actions/motives, reading about policy change and voicing concerns.

Living in Paranoia vs. staying current on shifts in policy and voting for fair-minded and pragmatic legislators.
 
Thunder said:
Weaver sold sawed-off shotguns to an ATF agent.
Click to expand...

Educate yourself. Weaver was acquitted of all charges except failure to show up in court and a bail violation. His family was awarded over 3 million dollars for the deliberate and incompetent actions of the ATF and FBI. You do not want to argue this one with me.
 
taxigirl said:
Educate yourself. Weaver was acquitted of all charges except failure to show up in court and a bail violation. His family was awarded over 3 million dollars for the deliberate and incompetent actions of the ATF and FBI. You do not want to argue this one with me.
Click to expand...

Hon- he wants to argue with anyone and everyone on every and anything. :lol:
 
Thunder said:
Weaver sold sawed-off shotguns to an ATF agent.
Click to expand...

here is the full story

1) weaver's wife was sick and he advertised a shotgun to sell so he could pay for her treatment

2) a federal agent was attempting to get former Green Beret Weaver to infiltrate a white supremacist group and they figured a green beret who was a white SEPARATIST would be ideal

3) weaver refused to be a rat

4) the agent asked him to cut the barrel off and he would buy it. he told weaver that the legal limit was 16"

that is true for rifles not shotguns-its 18" for shotguns but weaver relied on the agent's representations and he cut the barrel slightly shorter than legal limits

5) the warrant to appear was sent to a wrong address on purpose and when that resulted in weaver not appearing the kill team was sent after him

6) his son sammy and a friend along with a dog were hunting. The dog started barking at a Deputy marshall who shot the dog. the boy shot towards the agent but dropped his weapon and ran towards home when his father screamed for him to run away

7) DM Degan shot the boy in the back killing him. Weaver friend Kevin Harris then killed the marshall. THe court cleared Harris of the shooting ruling it was justifiable. the marshall would have been indicted for second degree murder if he had not been killed

several people died due to a stupid gun law
 
taxigirl said:
Educate yourself. Weaver was acquitted of all charges except failure to show up in court and a bail violation. His family was awarded over 3 million dollars for the deliberate and incompetent actions of the ATF and FBI. You do not want to argue this one with me.
Click to expand...

that Kevin Harris's killing of a federal law enforcement agent was ruled JUSTIFIABLE meant that the dead fed engaged in activity that justified him being shot dead--ie he engaged in activity that caused a reasonable man to believe that the dead agent was engaged in illegal activity likely to cause severe bodily injury or death to an innocent person
 
Thunder said:
was he aqcuited of selling an illegal weapon?
Click to expand...
Weaver was ACQUITTED of ALL charges except failure to appear in a court and a bail violation. These occurred because he was an idiot and did not file a change of address in time and a change of date for the court appearance notice went to the wrong address.

Now, as I was investigating this topic for my Masters Thesis "Ruby Ridge, Waco and Oklahoma City: Lessons in Crisis Mismanagement from the FBI and ATF" I discovered... hmmm hold on a minute I am trying to decide which example to provide as there is a lot of information...
"Richard Rogers the head of the Hostage Rescue Team decided that the Rules of Engagement needed to be revised. The FBI's standard rules of engagement stipulate that agents cannot fire unless someone's life is in danger.

(for some reason my format options are not working)Indent--FBI special agent's may use deadly forces only when necessary, when the special agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force possesses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the special agent of another person. If feasible , a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent shall be given prior to the use of deadly force. (FBI Frequently Asked Questions Online Circa 2001).--Indent end

Rogers rewrote the rules to read, "If any adult is seen with a weapon in the vicinity of where this firefight took place, of the Weaver cabin then this individual could be the subject of deadly force (Walter 32). Potts (previously explained in the paper to be commander on the ground)gave preliminary approval for the rules, but during a meeting at the scene Rogers told his assistant to change the wording from "could" to "can and should be the subject of deadly force". This rewording is what came to be the core of the problems that resulted from the Ruby Ridge incident."


Thunder, I would like you to note that the DOJ was never asked nor notified of the change in Rules of Engagement.

My citation for Walter: Walter, Jess "Every Knee Shall Bow" Newsweek 28, August 1995: 29-33.

Any questions anyone? Most of what you will find on the internet these days is BS, as it is a misinformation campaign.

Please, as I said, you do not want to argue this with me.
 
Larry Potts should have been at least investigated for Murder since he gave those illegal orders

They claim that Harris and Weaver were trying to shoot at an FBI helicopter

it was FIVE MILES away at the time Lon Horiuchi shot Vicky weaver

(an FBI agent I know explained that shot as a mistake-he claimed LH was trying to shoot a running Kevin Harris (still illegal since Harris was not threatening anyone) and didn't know how to lead a running target properly and hit Sarah Weaver)
 
From what I've read there's no question that the Feds screwed this up big time. On the other hand ... no one would have gotten killed if the Weavers had simply come out with their hands up.
 
AdamT said:
From what I've read there's no question that the Feds screwed this up big time. On the other hand ... no one would have gotten killed if the Weavers had simply come out with their hands up.
Click to expand...

The kids and dog were shot at while they were walking down a trail. The other Weavers were not aware that the FBI and ATF had taken up camp on Ruby Ridge. There was no one for them to surrender to. Once your family is shot at and members are killed and you already do not trust the government AND you have not done anything wrong why would you walk down the hill, unable to protect yourself and "surrender". They shot Vicki Weaver as she stood in her doorway with a baby in her arms, a baby. They posed no danger to anyone. Yes, by common standards they were "weird" but not dangerous.

Would you like an explanation of the cover up that ensued, the report eventually issued by the DOJ and a list of sanctions the agents and commanding officers received due to the incident? I have to type it in because my thesis is on a floppy and I just have not bothered to have it transferred and it is a real pain to transcribe everything from the hard copy. I am willing to provide any more answers you may have with citations included.
 
taxigirl said:
The kids and dog were shot at while they were walking down a trail. The other Weavers were not aware that the FBI and ATF had taken up camp on Ruby Ridge. There was no one for them to surrender to. Once your family is shot at and members are killed and you already do not trust the government AND you have not done anything wrong why would you walk down the hill, unable to protect yourself and "surrender". They shot Vicki Weaver as she stood in her doorway with a baby in her arms, a baby. They posed no danger to anyone. Yes, by common standards they were "weird" but not dangerous.

Would you like an explanation of the cover up that ensued, the report eventually issued by the DOJ and a list of sanctions the agents and commanding officers received due to the incident? I have to type it in because my thesis is on a floppy and I just have not bothered to have it transferred and it is a real pain to transcribe everything from the hard copy. I am willing to provide any more answers you may have with citations included.
Click to expand...

Well yes, that is their version of the story. The ATF agents tell a different, and IMO more believable version. They were surveying the property when the Weavers' dogs alerted the boys who came out and fired shots. They returned fire.

Perhaps the Weavers didn't know that federal agents were involved at first, but they had to know by the second day of the siege.
 
AdamT said:
Well yes, that is their version of the story. The ATF agents tell a different, and IMO more believable version. They were surveying the property when the Weavers' dogs alerted the boys who came out and fired shots. They returned fire.
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between "more believable" and what you'd rather believe.

Given the totality of everything that happened, it's perfectly believable that the ATF agents were in CYA mode.
 
AdamT said:
Well yes, that is their version of the story. The ATF agents tell a different, and IMO more believable version. They were surveying the property when the Weavers' dogs alerted the boys who came out and fired shots. They returned fire.

Perhaps the Weavers didn't know that federal agents were involved at first, but they had to know by the second day of the siege.
Click to expand...

As I stated "Once your family is shot at and members are killed and you already do not trust the government AND you have not done anything wrong why would you walk down the hill, unable to protect yourself and "surrender"."

Your suggestion does not take into account that people were already dead and the Rules of Engagement had changed (illegally). Though the Weavers were not aware of the orders this shows they should have been afraid and did the right thing by staying at their cabin. It also shows that the various arms of the DOJ acted in a manner that is contrary to established procedure.
 
taxigirl said:
As I stated "Once your family is shot at and members are killed and you already do not trust the government AND you have not done anything wrong why would you walk down the hill, unable to protect yourself and "surrender"."

Your suggestion does not take into account that people were already dead and the Rules of Engagement had changed (illegally). Though the Weavers were not aware of the orders this shows they should have been afraid and did the right thing by staying at their cabin. It also shows that the various arms of the DOJ acted in a manner that is contrary to established procedure.
Click to expand...

Um, I think Mrs. Weaver would be alive today if they had surrendered, so I have a hard time concluding that they did the right thing. Distrusting the government isn't a justification for engaging in an armed siege.
 
Harshaw said:
I think there's a difference between "more believable" and what you'd rather believe.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I'm pretty sure I know what you want to believe.
 
AdamT said:
I agree. And I'm pretty sure I know what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

Sure. I want to believe the facts.

And the facts say the ATF agents had a lot of reason to CYA. (See, I thought I already explained this, but I guess it didn't work.)
 
Harshaw said:
Sure. I want to believe the facts.

And the facts say the ATF agents had a lot of reason to CYA. (See, I thought I already explained this, but I guess it didn't work.)
Click to expand...

And the Weavers didn't. Wait, didn't each of the kids get $1,000,000? And couldn't they have been charged with the murder of a federal agent?
 
AdamT said:
I agree. And I'm pretty sure I know what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

Here-- read the 542-page report on the incident, with redactions unfortunately, which was later determined to hold evidence of a cover up as determined in the various descriptions, press releases, and reports released in 2001 and later. Go to Welcome to the United States Department of Justice and search "Ruby Ridge 2001". It is amazing what the government will admit to after the smoke has cleared, the FOIA is enforced and different people are in control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom