Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Sheriffs Nationwide begin rejecting Federal Gun control laws
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Despite your determined assertions, the fact is that one branch of government did investigate another

Wrong.

First of all, we have three branches of government: the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive branch. Both the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are part of the Executive Branch.

Secondly, not only are the part of the same branch of government, they are both Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.

Thirdly, not only are both Federal Law Enforcement Agencies which are part of the same branch of government, they are part of the same Department (Department of Justice) and the same political appointee sets policy for them and bears responsibility for the performance.

Fourth, whether Freemen were murdered by the Government or not, that in no way exonerates the Government for its responsibility for this massacre. Additionally, if changes were made, they weren't effective before the Waco massacre the next year.

Fifth, I openly acknowledged the nature of that investigation (something you did not do). You are the one who was cherry picking. You presented a selected bit of text, intended to create the impression that the murdered victim was a gun runner. What you neglected to provide, in the way of context, is that this statement was part of a Department of Justice internal investigation that was widely characterized as a cover-up. What I provided, on the other hand, was the head paragraph of the entire document, which clearly summarizes its purpose. That's not cherry picking.

There were, however, other investigations and inquiries, including at least one by the Legislative Branch. Why don't you read those?

In short, you're so full of shit I can hear your ass puckering all the way across the Atlantic. You really should apply for a job in the Ministry of Propaganda of the most left-wing party over there that will take you. You're a bottom-feeder, born to it.

Feel free to babble and troll on, though. I think everybody else is already ignoring you. I'm no longer following this thread.
_________________
juniper wrote:
I use ubuntu, which is why I am posting here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want to get pedantic, OK "branch" was the wrong word to use. The point still stands though.

BoneKracker wrote:
You presented a selected bit of text, intended to create the impression that the murdered victim was a gun runner.


I didn't create an "impression" of anything. Weaver was recorded offering to supply a steady stream of sawn-off shotguns.

Also, Weaver wasn't murdered. Not even a little bit. His wife and son were killed, and a marshal.

He was more than a bit unbalanced. He believed armageddon was imminent and the government was in league with Satan. There were signs on the road up to his cabin saying "White Power is Supreme" and "Bow Down to Yahweh".

If that's the best example you've got of a libertarian hero defending their freedom with guns, well, that says a lot.

Do you have any who weren't actually involved in firearms offences?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff, just quit while you're way behind. The only thing you are accomplishing at this point is the further degradation of the value of any opinion you might offer in the future.

mcgruff wrote:
Also, Weaver wasn't murdered. Not even a little bit. His wife and son were killed, and a marshal.


Weaver is a family name. Two Weavers were indeed murdered by federal thugs.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the contrary: I'm exposing the usual one-sided, fact-poor, facile arguments - and straightforward abuse - with which the pro-gun crowd attempt to defend their lethal obsession.

We were talking about Randy Weaver, not his wife or son, as was perfectly clear. Were the latter two ever recorded offering to supply sawn-off shotguns? That's news to me.

Calling their deaths "murder" is a bit rich. The marshals had a clear duty to bring Weaver in. He'd been caught on tape planning to set up a mom & pop sawn-off shotgun shop. At the same time, they definitely did some questionable things.

In the first armed clash, throwing rocks at the cabin to see what would happen seems stupid beyond belief. They did need to scout out the area but the night-time reconnaissance mission should have been carried out without guns precisely to avoid the risk of this kind of incident. If that was believed to be too risky, they should have abandoned it.

The shot which killed Weaver's wife shouldn't have been taken. It wasn't allowed even by the revised rules of engagement which (I think) allowed snipers to fire on any adult holding a gun unless they were surrendering.

Mistakes were made. The marshalls also went to great lengths to try to avoid casualties. Over a year went by before the final confrontation, including six months of attempted negotiations during which Weaver's wife made threatening rants: "we will not obey you; war is upon our land" and "the tyrant's blood shall flow".

I know you want to pin all the blame on the gubmint but no-one has the "liberty" to ignore a serious firearms charge (!) or to threaten armed force to avoid the indictment. Using his family as a kind of human shield simply led to the death of his wife and son; he could instead have defended himself peacefully in court - and probably won judging by the eventual outcome of the court case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
Government thugs slaughtered his wife and son because of trumped up charges and an authoritarian attitude.


mcgruff wrote:
In the end, Weaver was a poker player who couldn't cover his bet.


I'm completely stunned by your warped support for total authoritarianism.


Do you think that guns helped the weavers? I think if they hadn't had them, the wife and son would be alive today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
I know you want to pin all the blame on the gubmint but no-one has the "liberty" to ignore a serious firearms charge (!) or to threaten armed force to avoid the indictment.


Yes they do. Yugoslavia was officialy under Nazi Germany by 1942. Nazi Germany set up new "laws". By those laws nobody had rights to bear arms or resist the police force and appointed officials of the new collaborator government. Some obeyed, some didn't. Those who didn't took up whatever arms they had (usually hunting rifles) and went to the woods.

Even when germans were killing 100 civilians for every german soldier killed by partisans, the sentiment among the populace (among those 100) was that the partisans were in right. After 4 years of guerilla warfare and almost a dozen offensives by wermacht and pro-nazi armies with explicit goal of capturing/killing Tito and higher echelon of resistance movement, partisans still prevailed, and almost completely liberated Yugoslavia from Nazi Germany by 1945. The only part where they had help from Red Army was the liberation of Belgrade and northern Serbia, mainly because the material was more of the factor due to the open terrain and the fact that german position were heavily fortified. It took longer, and in meantime Red Army steamed along and helped things out with their tanks and artillery (and in process pillaged and raped civilians, as they do).

The fact that people liberated themselves was crucial in recognizing legitimacy and power of Yugoslavian state and its armed forces, and it was that recognition that enabled Tito to exit Warsaw Pact in 1948, after the drift between him and Stalin on ideological basis (Tito opposed the soviet style idea of communism, and had firm view that respective nations should chose themselves how to progress and form their society, and not be dictated by Moscow). The fact that Moscow overrun eastern europe was due to the fact that none of eastern european countries had any major resistance movement that progressed beyond raiding parties hiding in the woods.

So the "right" and "law" is not absolute thing, it is always relative. The moment you stop questioning legitimacy of government and its power, and blindly accept whatever soup they serve is when you give up your rights. Nothing has changed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK but in what way can a sane person claim that a native, democratic government which upholds the rule of law resembles an occupying, fascist army which rules by force?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
OK but in what way can a sane person claim that a native, democratic government which upholds the rule of law resembles an occupying, fascist army which rules by force?


Ever heard of Deutsche Demokratische Republik? It was native and, apparently, democratic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Real nice guy you're defending...

Quote:
On October 24, 1989, Weaver met with Fadeley, who was wearing a miniature tape recorder and an electronic transmitter. At that time, Weaver gave Fadeley two shotguns, one with a 13 inch barrel, the other with a 12-3/4 inch barrel. Weaver told Fadeley that he had cut the shotgun barrels himself, "[s]itting under a shade tree with a vise and a hacksaw," and added that, "when I get my workshop set up I can do a better job."[FN42] Fadeley paid Weaver $300.00 for the weapons. When Weaver requested an additional $150.00 for the weapons, Fadeley told him that he would give him the additional money at the next purchase.[FN43] Fadeley then proceeded to tell Weaver that "[t]here is money to be had, and it looks like [you] did a real nice job". He then asked Weaver, "You figured four or five a week?" to which Weaver replied, "yeah, or more." Weaver repeated that there would be no paper trail on the weapons.[FN44]

Fadeley met Weaver again on November 30, 1989 with the intent of arranging a trip to Montana to meet Holworth. At this time, Weaver announced that he had five additional sawed-off shotguns available for purchase. When Fadeley told him that he had not brought enough money to pay for them, Weaver responded, "just figure on more cash next time." Thereafter, Weaver asked Fadeley if he had "a cover, legit business." In addition, Weaver told Fadeley that he was not able to go to Montana that day, but said that "the next time that I tell you I'll go with ya . . . I'll make sure I'll go with you." Fadeley paid Weaver $100 toward the balance of the previous purchase of two sawed-off shotguns.[FN45] Following this meeting, Byerly instructed Fadeley to have no additional contact with Weaver.[FN46]

I realize you are totally ignorant about guns and gun terminology. Sawed off does not equate with illegal. As long as the barrel is a certain length, it is completely legal. Weaver was accused of selling one shotgun that was 1/4 inch too short. Which was later disproved. Weaver was set up from the very beginning because he refused to become a government informer. Set up on purpose by a malicious out of control paramilitary law enforcement agency. And you wonder why he just didn't go into court. He correctly feared for his own safety. As later events would prove.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cut the crap. Weaver was planning to provide a regular supply of sawn-off shotguns. It's on tape.

In what way exactly did he fear for his "safety" in court? Do you mean he feared some kind of bodily harm?

When his case did come to court, how did these later events support his fears? He was acquitted. Is that what you think he was afraid of? The evil, paramilitary scum!


Last edited by McGruff on Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Cut the crap.


Physician, heal thyself.

Old School wrote:
He correctly feared for his own safety. As later events would prove.


Indeed. I do not expect our resident propaganda loudspeaker to ever understand this, as all the propaganda loudspeaker is capable of doing is spouting off government propaganda.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Cut the crap. Weaver was planning to provide a regular supply of sawn-off shotguns. It's on tape.

So? There is nothing illegal in shortening a shotgun barrel. You are advertising your ignorance. You really need to learn to quit digging even deeper holes for yourself.

mcgruff wrote:
In what way exactly did he fear for his "safety" in court? Do you mean he feared some kind of bodily harm?

More likely he feared for his safety while traveling to court. And you act as if that were ludicrous, yet the events proved him right.

Good Little Drone.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
There is nothing illegal in shortening a shotgun barrel.


There most certainly was, below a certain length.

mcgruff wrote:
More likely he feared for his safety while traveling to court. And you act as if that were ludicrous, yet the events proved him right.


The marshals spent six months trying to persuade Weaver to surrender before they were ordered to stop. He had ample opportunity to come in peacefully and safely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16104
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, FFS.

No evidence of a threatening letter surfaced; however, the 1985 letter was cited by the prosecutor in 1992 as Overt Act 7 of the Weaver family conspiracy against the federal government.

"When Weaver refused to become "a snitch," the ATF filed the gun charges in June 1990, also claiming Weaver was a bank robber with criminal convictions (those claims were false: at that time Weaver had no criminal record and the subsequent Senate investigation found: "Weaver was not a suspect in any bank robberies."

A federal grand jury later indicted him in December 1990 for making and possessing, but not for selling, illegal weapons in October 1989.

Nearly the entire thing was fabricated, and certainly blown out of proportion. The government's actions are indefensible.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
The government's actions are indefensible.


True, unless one is a propaganda loudspeaker for authoritarianism.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the source for your quote?

I notice you're not denying that he did sell two illegal shotguns. He also had five more ready for Fadeley one month later, and had offered to provide a regular supply "just tell me what you want and what size and I'll supply what you want".

Offering to drop a charge in return for acting as an informant is perfectly OK, and so is continuing with the indictment if the subject refuses to co-operate - provided there is real evidence of an offence. To my mind it's a 50-50 thing whether to just let him go with a warning or pursue the matter further.

For starters, a jury might decide this was entrapment (and eventually did, apparently).

You also have to weigh up the threat posed to the public by letting Weaver go. Bear in mind that BATF were trying to break into the Aryan Nations at the time. The group posed a serious threat of domestic terrorism: counterfeiting, armed robbery, killings, bombings... (I guess that explains some of the "paramilitary" aspect of the BATF operation, huh?). We know now Weaver wasn't involved but they didn't know that then. He ticked a lot of boxes: known links to the Aryan Nations, similar, extremist views, prepared to sell illegal weapons in that circle, and explosives experience from his time in the army.

Anyway, although I think it was 50-50 whether to charge Weaver, once the decision was taken to go ahead he had no choice but to fight his case in court. The law has to take its course. If not, anyone accused of a crime can just pick up a gun and tell the courts to fuck off. Does the defence of liberty not include support for the rule of law?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FFS, you are trying to justify government agents murdering Sammy & Vicky Weaver because there was the possibility that the guy who lost, in court, to Randy Weaver was motivated by nothing more than civic justice in his complaints against Randy?

Sorry, but at this point I'll need to throw up before I read anything else you post.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry, but at this point I'll need to throw up before I read anything else you post.


If you get sick every time you are wrong, by now you must be positively anorexic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Quote:
Sorry, but at this point I'll need to throw up before I read anything else you post.


If you get sick every time you are wrong, by now you must be positively anorexic.


You have just caused me to puke in my own mouth... your ability to excuse the most egregious civil rights violations by government thugs teaches me two things :

1. You do not understand the concept of rights nor that of citizen.

2. You are nothing more than an apologist for fascism.

Your opinions = /dev/null. You are Stalin, Mao, & Kim rolled into one.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Quote:
Sorry, but at this point I'll need to throw up before I read anything else you post.


If you get sick every time you are wrong, by now you must be positively anorexic.


I remember kids like you in marxism class.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You went to class...?!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
Your opinions = /dev/null. You are Stalin, Mao, & Kim rolled into one.


And now you're doing a Bonekracker: unable or unwilling to engage with the issue in any meaningful way when your simplistic dogmas are challenged, you hector your opponents with crude soundbites and then run away, beaten, throwing insults around like confetti.

Facts: get some.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
You went to class...?!


The funniest part about anything is that you are so delusional you think you are winning an argument. And it is funny, because, I don't even have to be angry at you. It's like watching discovery channel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes I am winning the argument. You want to know why? Because I know more about the actions and motivations of the players, and because I know something about the domestic terrorism background to the affair. All I'm getting from you are simplistic, insurrectionist dogmas about defending liberty against ebil gubmint. When this is challenged, you get frustrated and angry and scream like little girls without trying to defend your point of view in any meaningful way. Several have flounced off, sulking and beaten.

You guys fail for the same reasons you always fail on OTW. You have no sense of perspective. You don't know how to put things in context. You're minds are locked into superficial, right-wing dogmas and you will not allow your understanding to be led by facts, evidence and reason.

Oh, and your fathers smell of elderberries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum