Sheriffs Nationwide begin rejecting Federal Gun control laws

[Prenj]

[McGruff]

You know what you have to do to prove that? Make a proper argument. This should contain an explanation of relevant details about the affair. Also its background so we can put things in some kind of context. You should show how specific facts support your point of view and you should acknowledge those which don't. Don't forget to include references to reputable sources.

[Prenj]

[McGruff]

Because you're making yourself look like an idiot who can't argue their point of view using evidence and reason, instead resorting to simple abuse in an attempt to browbeat your opponent (do you think it's working?). You haven't introduced a single new fact about Weaver, the BATF, the marshals, etc into this discussion. Not one - and yet you boast about "winning" the debate.

How about trying to understand not "win"?

[Muso]

You lost this debate the moment you attacked the victims of government tyranny, mcgruff. Every argument you make in support of tyranny just makes you look sillier and sillier.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna

[McGruff]

Another one who hasn't introduced a single fact about Weaver, the BATF, the marshals, etc into this discussion and yet thinks they've somehow made their opponent lose.

[Muso]

[McGruff]

"The facts are known"

I bet you win a lot of debates like that. In your own head.

[Muso]

What I wrote :

"The facts were introduced when Old School first mentioned Ruby Ridge. For those of us not living in an Orwellian Distortion Bubble, we've known about this disgrace for years. It seems to be a new discovery for you... so what does that say about your information filters?"

How you responded :

[McGruff]

Wikipedia..? I suppose that's a start. Not enough on its own, but at least it's something.

It tells the same basic tale though: a paranoid extremist on a firearms charge holed up in his cabin and refusing to appear in court. There are a lot of allegations flying around from both sides which are hard to judge but the central, crucial fact is the firearms charge. That's solid. Weaver sold two and is on tape offering to set up a regular supply at whatever length was required (although you won't find that last fact on Wikipedia).

The legal position is that a sting operation of this kind isn't necessarily entrapment. It depends. If there is reason to believe the person was ready and willing to do what he did without persuasion, it's not entrapment. In the end the decision by the jury was to drop the charges, presumably because they thought he had been entrapped. Or they might just have decided he's suffered enough.

The wider picture (again you won't find this in the Ruby Ridge Wikipedia article..) is that the BATF were under pressure to make some progress with some serious shit being carried out by the Aryan Nations: bombings, contract killing, counterfeiting, it's a long list. If you knew anything about his extremist views, Weaver was most certainly a legitimate "person of interest".

He's still got rights of course but, after being caught selling illegal firearms, he does not have the right to ignore an order to appear in court. The tragedy is, he probably didn't even need to. We can't know for certain what the outcome of the trial would have been if he had agreed to come in a year earlier but the fact that he was finally acquitted suggests that he would have been successful. Instead, he had a head full of gun-toting, libertarian, insurrectionist nonsense - and three people died.

Cack-handed marshals were the immediate cause of all of the deaths but Weaver can't be absolved of blame for setting up the armed stand-off in the first place. The marshals had a job to do. It wasn't always done well but they still had to do it.

So: government tyranny and oppression? Zero. Mistakes by officials? Sure. Were these mistakes eventually recognised by a system concerned with citizens rights? Yes. A shining example of a libertarian hero successfully defending individual liberty with the power of the gun? Hell no.

[Old School]

[Muso]

[McGruff]

[Old School]

[McGruff]

Control we have contact. Over. Jeezchrise he's trying to hug me! Taketheshot taketheshot TAKE THE F*NG SHOT!

[pjp]

[dmitchell]

Epic thread, guys. Can't believe I almost missed this one.

The fact is, while Americans may not need guns to protect themselves from tyranny today, no one knows what the future has in store. We could be dooming future generations.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.

[Bigun]

Another example

This one's a little more close to home, this area is only about 1 hour drive from where I live, in fact we (me, the wife, and kid) are about to go there to visit in-laws.
_________________
BK - "Then, after months of loud-mouthed shit-talking and own-fart smelling, you lost the big bet, fair snd square, and are being a baby about it."

[Bigun]

I'm a proud man, my boss is among the Sheriff's opposing expanded gun control laws.
_________________
BK - "Then, after months of loud-mouthed shit-talking and own-fart smelling, you lost the big bet, fair snd square, and are being a baby about it."

[juniper]

[pjp]

[dmitchell]

[eponymous_dick]

Collectivist!

You guys are wasting bits; mcgruff does not live in a fact-based reality.
_________________
"I before E, except after C, or when sounded like A, as in 'neighbor' and 'weigh'... unless you have sufficient cause to seize a scientist's heist of weird foreign species."

[Muso]

[Bigun]