Dwarven1, Doobie, LenS and other Jews should have told me!!

No, I'd say it's one of the things that condemn them! [thinking]

I'm quickly coming to the realization the Feinstein-Schumer-Lautenberg crowd don't give a hoot about it. They're more considered about creating a pseudo-Bogeyman (e.g. guns) to scare the sheep into buying their snake oil (gun-control).

What's especially disconcerting is that Senator Lautenberg, a Polish Jew, served in the United States Army in World War II. He's seen the unconscionable devastation of the Holocaust first hand! And he's one of the biggest victim-disarmament proponents on Capitol Hill!

I need to take a break!
 
So, when you hear that knock on the door, fetch your rifle and your ammunition and begin killing. Do not stop until you have no more ammunition, till your knife is broken between the ribs of your oppressor and there are no stones within reach. Stand knee deep in the blood of anyone who would separate you from your family- pay no attention to the costume jewelry of the state, it's badges, boots, or any other validation trinkets. For when the knock comes your neighborhood, your life and your family are but dust- an illusion already fading in the morning light. Say your goodbyes, then turn your back on your love, embrace death and become it's emissary.

Never die alone. Clog the gate to hell with the souls of your oppressors.



+1 and Amen.
 
My favored argument for the preservation of 2nd amendment rights is quite close to that, and it works equally well on nearly all ends of the political spectrum. Why would you trust the government to be the only entity who has weapons? I sure don't, and my views are quite liberal (of the little l, classical type).

I want to protect all our rights, including our 2nd amendment rights. Also, firearms are the great equalizer. What other device truly puts a 100lb woman on level with a muscled 200lb attacker? None that I know of.

But...
So called "Conservatives," like Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and the base of the GOP desire to restrict my rights in ways that are just as egregious as taking away my guns, if not more so.

These people would like to make it a crime for me to use contraception, to get an abortion if I'm raped, to own a dildo, or to sleep with someone they don't approve of. Furthermore these people would insist on substituting religion for science in Biology class. (What's next? The Sun circles the Earth? The Earth is only 6000 yrs old?) They would block access to correct information about sexual and reproductive health and insist on teaching abstinence only sex ed in schools, which has been proven many times to increase teen pregnancy rates and the spread of STIs, not to mention government mandated lies about how condoms "don't prevent" pregnancy or AIDS.

And those are not conservative views. They are radical theocratic views. They are no different than the Taliban and any other jihadists... the Taliban in a Jesus-suit.

caillean,

This resonates with me because in my observation the words Liberal and Conservative are widely misused in the lexicon of US English in 2008, and have been for some time.

Without getting too deep into word etymology and all that, let's just say that, again in my observation, people here care about civil rights. You may have some that are anti-abortion, but then I would doubt any would refute the right of a pregnant woman to abort a child after rape, incest, or in the case of a health threat.

In the end, I think most people here are liberal in the truest sense of the word. We should all strive to protect individual liberties.
 
What if those at your door were members of your local PD or U.S. servicemen ? Could you shoot someone who had the same beliefs as you but was ordered by someone above them to go house to house ? Most Americans know or have family members that are either LEO's or members of our armed services. I'm willing to bet many gun owners would have an extremely hard time even aiming a firearm at what they considered to be one of their own. How do people reading this thread feel about these questions?

"I sold all my firearms and ammo a few weeks ago. I no longer have any." If that isn't good enough then I have to protect my beliefs over the lives of those who come to destroy those beliefs otherwise I'll be a sheep who stands by watching the world go down the drain and I don't want to say, "if only I kept my guns I'd have been able to stop this holocaust."

They will have had a chance to back off when I tell them I sold them. If they failed to heed my words, then in my beliefs I have absolved myself of my next actions.

In the mean time I'm going to fight by dumping money into JPFO, GOA, and other gun organizations in hopes they can stop the insanity before it starts.
 
While I do not disagree with some of the points made in this thread, or by Mike, I think it is no less important for us not to ignore history, too.

The OP mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco. I don't have much direct knowledge of Waco, but in the case of Ruby Ridge, the federal agents had been issued an arrest warrant for Randy Weaver. They had no discretion not to attempt to execute it. It was Weaver who elected to resist lawful authority by deadly force, an engagement that often leads to unhappy and unnecessary consequences. All of the blame for what happened there rests on Weaver's shoulders; this exercise proves nothing about any possible failings of the "gubmint."

RKG, the way I read the story of Ruby Ridge shows FBI Sniper teams were put in place without notification. They did not identify themselves as FBI or any police agency. They began the shooting by killing Weaver's dog, which enraged his son, who fired on the unidentified sniper hiding in the woods. I am of the belief that the FBI NEVER identified itself as a law enforcement agency, but did shoot Mrs Weaver, standing unarmed in the doorway holding a baby.

If you can show me a reference that proves otherwise I will listen. I know you're a smart guy and might have information I have not seen.

The fact that Deval Patrick was the Federal Attorney who permitted the "Warrentless" (In the sense they never attempted to SERVE a warrant) attack on the Weavers 20 Acre property only serves to strengthen my belief in the story as I told it.

It has been told many times that Randy Weaver made routine trips into town where he could have been arrested if that was the main attempt, without a murderous assault on his home, and killing innocent people. All over a shotgun being shortened a ittle less than 18 iches.
 
Last edited:
While I do not disagree with some of the points made in this thread, or by Mike, I think it is no less important for us not to ignore history, too.

The OP mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco. I don't have much direct knowledge of Waco, but in the case of Ruby Ridge, the federal agents had been issued an arrest warrant for Randy Weaver. They had no discretion not to attempt to execute it. It was Weaver who elected to resist lawful authority by deadly force, an engagement that often leads to unhappy and unnecessary consequences. All of the blame for what happened there rests on Weaver's shoulders; this exercise proves nothing about any possible failings of the "gubmint."

Getting redress from the government is not cheap and takes a long time so if there was a confiscation of firearms en masse or unconstitutionally* (say in a localized gun grab or retroactive loss of rights scenario), the likelihood of getting that which was confiscated back is small and anyone faces a long, costly and uphill battle.

Viewing this dispassionately, and ignoring some of the moral dilemmas for a second, what is the logical thing to do? Allow the confiscation, spend the next decade or two fighting the man for a right you never should have lost and paying probably on the order of tens of thousands of dollars each year to do so, with little hope of success or do everything in your power to prevent it including armed defense, knowing full well you are going to lose your life in the process.

Either end is unacceptable and the former has the complication of the slippery slope that implies, "where does it end?". Given their lot in life, the former may be so costly for some folks in this world who could never come up with the cash to fight something like this as to be a game ender. A third and final alternative could be to just let it happen, then go and illegally obtain firearms thereby validating the very government action that was erstwhile unconstitutional.

It is real simple to suggest always follow the law, because that is generally a moral imperative and in this country generally a safe way to go (on balance, I suspect our legal system is pretty fair) but when you remove the moral imperative and are dealing with someone who doesn't believe the system is fair what rational basis do they have for acquiescing. How can they think the system is fair when they only hear about the injustices and the fair meting out of justice is always hidden because prudence dictates keep your mouth shut when and after dealing with the criminal cases?

There have been many examples of this just recently where members here have declined to detail their dealings with the authorities re: firearms licensing, and threads get started asking about firsthand accounts of use of firearms in defense only to get closed because no one feels it prudent to speak up. This very silence causes the press to focus on the bad and fail to even see the good since every good press story has a protagonist and an antagonist (this is very, very deliberate. News Shooter can probably back me up on that). Hide the protagonist and you kill the story.

Keep that in mind next time you are required to tell a client to not discuss the case that just went in their favor. You are absolutely doing best by that client, but the negative social effects are huge.

* Weaver/Ruby Ridge is a bad example here because of Miller, no matter how bad a decision that was, but redeems itself with some of the behavior of the feds after his indictment including the botched date.
 
* Weaver/Ruby Ridge is a bad example here because of Miller, no matter how bad a decision that was, but redeems itself with some of the behavior of the feds after his indictment including the botched date.


The fact that the FBI paid the Weaver family over $3 million dollars as a judgement in a wrongful death suit, I still think there is more to the story than the MSM presents.

I'm looking forward to RKG's response, as he has a unique and insightful perspective on these kinds of issues.
 
Last edited:
I'll pile on and add that Jews in Germany were already heavily discriminated against as early as pre-World War I. Under the German Empire (what the nazis referred to as the First Reich) they couldn't have military commissions, vote, etc. Hitler came to power to try and restore that level of discrimination since the Versailles provided some new abilities (it would be inaccurate to call them rights) for Jews under the democratic government established under Versailles. He blamed versailles for everything, and the jews return to some level of prominence during the '20s was seen as a cause of all of Germany's economic problems. Versailles was in no way intended to directly help the Jews since they were roundly disliked in the rest of europe too, but the idea of versailles was to put the entire population back on even footing with each other and so the Jews benefitted from that.

Quite right.

If people had taken the trouble to read the rabid outpourings of Hitler's insane mind when he wrote Mien Kampf in 1925, they would have only too clearly seen what he had in store for Germany, Europe and the Jews.

Let's look at the current situation we have and then look at some of the things the evil dictator Hitler had to say in Mien Kampf. Firstly on the gun control issues we are going to face and heard through the presidential debates and campaigns - gun owners have nothing to fear, they tell us. Hitler: "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."

On the powers of a leader with great rhetoric. Hitler: "The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." He later went on to prove that point himself.

Creating an issue for the masses to focus their attention on while really trying to pull off another rape of their rights. Hitler: "The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."...which he did by focusing he country's hatred and loathing on the Jews people, blaming them for all the ills of the country.

Leadership that attempts to hide behind religion ( tip of the hat to caillean's post on theocratic leadership). Hitler: "The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew...I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


Let's not forget the gun laws Hitler imposed on Germany and his later rationale for doing so...

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

  • Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
  • All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
  • Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
  • Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
  • The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
  • Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

History tends to repeat itself if people , or nations, do not remember the sins of the past. It's all too easy to focus on our own lives, comforts, families, loved ones, and ignore the gathering storm. We rationalise the threat to enable ourselves to function psychologically on a day to day basis..."it will not happen to me / us" is a salve to the hobgoblins of the mind...[thinking]
 
It has been told many times that Randy Weaver made routine trips into town where he could have been arrested if that was the main attempt, without a murderous assault on his home, and killing innocent people. All over a shotgun being shortened a ittle less than 18 iches.

IIRC, that might have been the straw man. The Feds changed the date of Weaver's arraignment without notifying him. When he predictably didn't appear, an arrest warrant was issued.

And, I thought Patrick's ties to Ruby Ridge was because he didn't want to prosecute the FBI agent that killed Vicki Weaver.
 
The fact that the FBI paid the Weaver family over $3 million dollars as a judgement in a wrongful death suit, I still think there is more to the story than the MSM presents.

I'm looking forward to RKG's response, as he has a unique and insightful perspective on these kinds of issues.

That $3 million (which I believe was paid out to the kids) was probably for what happened to his wife, and for the BS with the court date which all led to what happened to his wife. I doubt there was a single dime paid out for his loss of firearms. Again, I think with all of the crap that surrounded Ruby Ridge, it fails to be a clear cut example of unconstitutional confiscation. The other aspects to it muddy the waters and make it difficult to suss out clear principles from the events. In other words, was Weaver standing up to them because they were taking his guns, or did he do it because he hated and distrusted the government or was it because he was afraid for his life, etc? I think the only rationale answer to that question is all of the above and then some.
 
The book "Mitzvah" that I referenced in my OP said that the Weavers accepted a $3 Million dollar settlement, but that the general consensus of local lawyers was that if they had in fact proceeded to court with this in Idaho, they might have won $200 million in judgement.
 
The OP mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco. I don't have much direct knowledge of Waco, but in the case of Ruby Ridge, the federal agents had been issued an arrest warrant for Randy Weaver. They had no discretion not to attempt to execute it. It was Weaver who elected to resist lawful authority by deadly force, an engagement that often leads to unhappy and unnecessary consequences. All of the blame for what happened there rests on Weaver's shoulders; this exercise proves nothing about any possible failings of the "gubmint."

Even if we say that "he started the altercation" (which IMHO is bogus, but I'm not going to get into a protracted argument about it); the event still serves as a reminder of the lengths the feds will go through to enforce laws which are nothing more than malum prohibitum crap. Innocent people died because some government functionaries were upset that someone modified a couple of shotguns, that's what it boils down to, at a pretty basic level. They weren't even able to keep weaver w/o bail, which even further reinforces the BS behind the charges- if he was really dangerous, why would the court even grant him bail? It's probably because the court decided that, wait a second- he really wasn't that dangerous because all he was accused of was a technical violation and nothing more.

I think "all the blame" is a bit misleading, at best. I'm not saying the guy was a saint, but there's no really getting around how badly the government botched RR, on more than one level. The whole thing started with
entrapment and went downhill from there...

-Mike
 
Last edited:
RKG, the way I read the story of Ruby Ridge shows FBI Sniper teams were put in place without notification. They did not identify themselves as FBI or any police agency. They began the shooting by killing Weaver's dog, which enraged his son, who fired on the unidentified sniper hiding in the woods. I am of the belief that the FBI NEVER identified itself as a law enforcement agency, but did shoot Mrs Weaver, standing unarmed in the doorway holding a baby.

If you can show me a reference that proves otherwise I will listen. I know you're a smart guy and might have information I have not seen.

The fact that Deval Patrick was the Federal Attorney who permitted the "Warrentless" (In the sense they never attempted to SERVE a warrant) attack on the Weavers 20 Acre property only serves to strengthen my belief in the story as I told it.

It has been told many times that Randy Weaver made routine trips into town where he could have been arrested if that was the main attempt, without a murderous assault on his home, and killing innocent people. All over a shotgun being shortened a ittle less than 18 iches.


I cannot get into a detailed debate (probably shouldn't have gone this far). Nor have I any idea of what you've read, or how much the author of what you read was privy to.

This was not a so-called "no knock" warrant. The subject was aware of the warrant, the Marshals' presence, and his obligation to walk part way down the hill, unarmed, and surrender. He elected not to comply. Apparently he elected not to comply as a political statement, the effective equivalent of "Come and get me." In fact, Weaver was in default for failure to appear at his trial for an offense for which he had previously been arrested, indicted and arraigned, and the USMS made several attempts to negotiate a peaceful surrender with both Weaver and Weaver's counsel of record in that case. Weaver refused all communication with either the Service or even his own attorney. Under the circumstances, he has no complaint that "come and get me" is exactly what the Service did, as he had given it no alternative.

It is certainly true that events did not work out as anyone would have planned. However, a Deputy USM was threatened by the dog, after the subject had demonstrated his unwillingness to comply, and the Deputy was well within his rights in doing exactly what any one of us would have done in the circumstances.

FBI resources were not called to the scene until the USMS had taken fire and suffered one fatal casualty.

It is also true that the shot fired by the tactical marksman (from FBI, not USMS), and the order green lighting that shot (if any), were pretty severely beyond proper procedure. However, there has never been any basis for suggesting that anything beyond poor training and judgment were involved; charges against the marksman were dismissed; and, once again, none of this would have happened had Weaver simply surrendered.

Last and final observation: I knew Billie Degan. He was a good man.

Edit: I suppose nothing is impossible, but I'm not aware that Patrick had anything to do with this attempt at a fugitive arrest.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, that might have been the straw man. The Feds changed the date of Weaver's arraignment without notifying him. When he predictably didn't appear, an arrest warrant was issued.

And, I thought Patrick's ties to Ruby Ridge was because he didn't want to prosecute the FBI agent that killed Vicki Weaver.

Add to that (purely as a general matter): no professional in his right mind, informed of the existence of an outstanding default warrant for a subject known to be armed and having refused peaceful surrender opportunities initiated through his counsel of record, would have opted to attempt a forceable arrest in a public space occupied by innocents, versus in a secluded space occupied only by the subject and those living with him.

Again, I know nothing about any involvement of AUSA Patrick.
 
Last edited:
. . . to enforce laws which are nothing more than malum prohibitum crap. . . .

Innocent people died because some government functionaries were upset that someone modified a couple of shotguns, . . .

-Mike

Facts:

The capias warrant in question was not for violation of the National Firearms Act. It was for failure to appear at trial.

If "some government functionaries" refers to the USMS attempting to serve the warrant, federal law gave them no choice in the matter.
 
If "some government functionaries" refers to the USMS attempting to serve the warrant, federal law gave them no choice in the matter.

?! federal Law gave them no choice in whether or not to shoot through a door irresponsibly killing an innocent mother and child?

Further, I fail to see how William Degan's loss was any more "unfortunate" then that of the family dog (the only innocent around for miles) or Mrs Weaver and her child. She'll certainly never have another child yet the FBI will undoubtedly poop out another "special needs agent" periodically.
 
Last edited:
Facts:

The capias warrant in question was not for violation of the National Firearms Act. It was for failure to appear at trial..

Ok, but that doesn't really change how we got to that point, does it?

There likely wouldn't have been a trial if the ATF and the local AUSA couldn't trump up bogus charges against weaver based off the "evidence" garnered from entrapment.

If "some government functionaries" refers to the USMS attempting to serve the warrant, federal law gave them no choice in the matter.

Putting any (perceived and real) raid screwups by USMS or FBI aside for the moment, what I meant is the people who tried to prosecute him to begin with. They used their mole to get him to commit an illegal act (entrapment) strictly so they could try to set weaver up and then take him down, and use him as a poster boy or "guy hung in the town square" / example to other separatist/militia types. All this self serving BS agenda did was get a bunch of people killed over a bogus law- ironically one that would have not been broken without the insistence of an agent working at the behest of the government. All because some morons think it's a good idea to give someone a felony rap over 3/8ths of an inch of steel on a friggan shotgun. [thinking]


-Mike
 
Ok, but that doesn't really change how we got to that point, does it?

There likely wouldn't have been a trial if the ATF and the local AUSA couldn't trump up bogus charges against weaver based off the "evidence" garnered from entrapment.



Putting any (perceived and real) raid screwups by USMS or FBI aside for the moment, what I meant is the people who tried to prosecute him to begin with. They used their mole to get him to commit an illegal act (entrapment) strictly so they could try to set weaver up and then take him down, and use him as a poster boy or "guy hung in the town square" / example to other separatist/militia types. All this self serving BS agenda did was get a bunch of people killed over a bogus law- ironically one that would have not been broken without the insistence of an agent working at the behest of the government. All because some morons think it's a good idea to give someone a felony rap over 3/8ths of an inch of steel on a friggan shotgun. [thinking]


-Mike

I'm not sure we're all that far apart.

I've heard all sorts of accounts, some quite different from one another, about the back story on the Weaver indictment. I've never taken the time (or had the interest) to sort them out. As far as I'm concerned, that's what trials are for, and if Weaver didn't commit an offense, then he would have been acquitted. (In point of fact, I believe he was convicted, but I don't really care.)

Regardless, once a default warrant was issued by a United States District Judge and put in the hands of the United States Marshal, and Weaver was informed of it, he had an ironclad obligation to surrender. If he refused, as he did here long before anyone rounded up a posse, then he bears the risk that someone would be hurt in the process.

If we can agree on that, then order another round and see if you can get some peanuts, too?
 
Billie Degan
Kill a boy, win a medal
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0696d.asp

Kill a Boy, Get a Medal
by James Bovard, June 1996
On March 1, 1996, the U.S. Marshals Service gave its highest award for valor to five U.S. marshals involved in the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, shoot-out, including the marshal who shot a 14-year-old boy in the back and killed him, and another marshal who started a firefight by shooting the boy's dog without provocation. The valor award announcement symbolizes federal law enforcement's contempt for court verdicts, the Congress, and the American people.
The marshals received the award, according to U.S. Marshals Service Director Eduardo Gonzalez, for "their exceptional courage, their sound judgment in the face of attack, and their high degree of professional competence during this incident." Gonzalez declared: "When gunfire broke out on Ruby Ridge on that summer day, every member of the team came under fire at some point." Gonzalez labeled the men "heroes."
The Ruby Ridge story began with the entrapment of Randy Weaver, a white separatist, by an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms informant, after which Weaver was indicted, and the U.S. Marshal's Service was assigned the job of arresting him. Once an indictment was handed down, the U.S. Marshals Service made capturing Weaver a high priority — even naming the mission to apprehend him "Operation Northern Exposure." A confidential Justice Department report later observed: "It appears at initial glance that the resources the marshals committed to the case were disproportionate to the relatively insignificant underlying charge."
The marshals spend the next year and a half spying on Weaver, sneaking around his land dozens of times, and erecting spy cameras to record all his family's movements. David Nevin, a lawyer involved in the subsequent court case, noted later:
"The 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."
The confidential report concluded that the August 1992 timing of the federal government's showdown with Weaver was largely a measure of political convenience for Henry Hudson, the acting director of the U.S. Marshals Service. The report noted:
"The plan to apprehend Weaver was delayed for three months pending the confirmation of Henry Hudson as the Marshals Service Director. The [U.S. marshals] reconnaissance team expressed frustration over the delay because some believed the delay caused a gap in their surveillance intelligence."
On August 21, 1992, six U.S. marshals sneaked onto Weaver's property, outfitted in full camouflage and ski masks and carrying submachine guns and other high-powered weapons. Three agents circled close to the cabin and threw rocks at the cabin in order to get the attention of Weaver's dogs. Alan Bock, in his excellent book, Ambush at Ruby Ridge (Dickens Press, 1995), stated that marshal Larry Cooper admitted at the trial "that [he] was carrying a silenced weapon because [he] had orders to lure the dogs and shoot them so the marshals could sneak up on the Weaver cabin without worrying about the dogs."
After the dogs began barking, Weaver's fourteen-year-old son, Sammy, and Kevin Harris, a twenty-five-year-old family friend who was living in the cabin, ran to see what the dogs were barking at.
At this point, the marshals took off running through the woods, followed by one dog. The marshals later told the FBI that they had been ambushed by the Weavers. However, according to a Justice Department confidential report, the marshals chose to stop running and take a stand behind stumps and trees. The report stated that Cooper "told the others that it was 'bullshit' for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed. . . . William Degan . . . took a position behind a stump approximately three to four feet off the right of the trail." The marshals had the advantage of surprise, camouflage, and vastly more firepower than the boy and Kevin Harris possessed.
The firefight began when marshal Arthur Roderick shot and killed the family dog, as a Senate subcommittee investigation concluded last December. Roderick and Cooper claimed that the first shot of the encounter had been fired by Kevin Harris and had killed marshal Bill Degan. But Captain Dave Neal of the Idaho State Police team that rescued the marshals twelve hours later stated that Roderick indicated that he had fired the first shot to kill the dog.
After his dog had been killed, Sammy fired his gun in the direction where the shots had come from. Sammy was running back to the cabin when, according to the federal government's ballistics expert at Weaver's 1993 trial, a shot from marshal Larry Cooper hit him in the back and killed him. Kevin Harris stated that he responded to Sammy's shooting by firing one shot into the woods to try to protect Sammy and to defend himself. Harris's shot apparently killed marshal Bill Degan; an Idaho jury later ruled that Harris acted in self-defense. Though Cooper and Roderick testified that Degan had not fired a shot, evidence later proved that he had fired seven shots.
Marshals Roderick and Cooper later stated that they had stayed huddled alongside Degan's body for the next twelve hours, afraid that they might be shot if they tried to carry Degan off the mountain — even though the Weavers had long since retrieved their son's body and gone back to their ramshackle cabin. Other marshals panicked and wrongly claimed that the Weavers had U.S. marshals "pinned down" for hours under heavy gunfire. In reality, the marshals fired far more shots at Sammy Weaver and Harris than Sammy and Harris fired at them. And the marshals had no arrest warrant for either Sammy or Kevin Harris — and thus had no right to open fire upon them.
Several places in the confidential report deal with the possibility of a government cover-up. After the firefight between the U.S. marshals and the Weavers and Kevin Harris, the surviving marshals were taken to a condominium to rest and recuperate. The report observed:
"We note that the marshals were kept together for several hours before giving their statements. We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover-up the true circumstances of the shootings at the Y."
FBI Hostage Rescue Team snipers arrived on the scene. The Senate subcommittee report noted: "FBI agents who were briefed in Washington and in Idaho during the early stages of the crisis at Ruby Ridge received a great deal of inaccurate or exaggerated information concerning . . . the firefight." The marshals' gross mischaracterization helped pave the way to the FBI "shoot to kill" orders that led to the killing of Vicki Weaver.
Roderick and Cooper testified last September 15 before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearings chaired by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania, on the Ruby Ridge case. Cooper and Roderick stunned the committee by announcing that Randy Weaver had actually accidentally shot his own son. Though Sammy was shot as he was running in the direction of his father, and though Weaver was far away from the scene of his son's death and was located in front of him and at a higher elevation, and though his son was shot in the back by a bullet with an upward trajectory, Cooper insisted the father still somehow shot the son.
The only plausible theory that would explain how that could have happened would have been if Randy Weaver had been using "Roger Rabbit" cartoon bullets — bullets that could twist around trees, take U-turns, and defy all the laws of physics. Defense attorney Chuck Peterson observed:
"The evidence places Randy Weaver hundreds of feet up the hill and out of sight of the scene when Sammy was shot in the back. The bullet's trajectory can be placed from below the place where Sammy fell, as the lead projectile traveled upward from its entry point low in his back."
The jury foreman at the federal trial in 1993 characterized the new Cooper-Roderick theory as "[expletive deleted]" and told The Washington Post that "the government's story has changed every time you turn around."
The Senate subcommittee report concluded: "The Subcommittee . . . has seen no evidence which would support the Marshals' claim. . . ." The subcommittee has two independent experts analyzing the evidence on who shot the boy, and preliminary results have reportedly found nothing to support the latest Cooper-Roderick theory.
Cooper and Roderick insisted that they did not know that Sammy Weaver had been killed at the firefight and professed shock when the FBI reported finding the boy's body a few days later. Yet, an FBI agent who interviewed Marshals Service Director Henry Hudson in 1993 reported that Hudson said he knew of Sammy's shooting the same day it happened; Hudson last September denied to the Senate subcommittee making that statement, saying he was "perplexed" at the FBI official report. Jeffrey Howard, then-associate deputy attorney general, told Specter's subcommittee that he was informed on the morning of August 22, the following day, that Sammy Weaver had apparently been killed.
The marshals' dubious conduct is further indicated by the Marshals Service's refusal to do routine internal investigations after the fatal shootings. The Senate subcommittee noted:
"We were disappointed to learn that, based on his desire to avoid creating discoverable documents that might be used by the defense in the Weaver/Harris trial . . . former [Marshals Service] Director Henry Hudson decided to conduct no formal internal review of USMS activities connected with the Weaver case and the Ruby Ridge incident."
Last August 15, the Justice Department announced that it was paying the surviving Weaver family members $3.1 million to settle their wrongful-death lawsuit against the federal government. A Justice Department press release announced:
"The settlement reflects the loss to the Weaver children of their mother and brother. By entering into a settlement, the United States hopes to take a substantial step toward healing the wounds the incident inflicted."
Justice Department officials later insisted that the government admitted no wrongdoing in paying off the Weavers — yet, if that is the case, then the officials who approved the payoff should be indicted for squandering taxpayers' money. One Justice Department official explained the settlement to The Washington Post : "We recognized that an Idaho jury probably would give Weaver $200 million." Actually, it was probably sound judgment on the Marshals Service's part to delay giving valor awards to the marshals involved in killing Sammy Weaver until after the Weaver's lawsuit was settled; otherwise, the settlement might have cost taxpayers millions more.
Are marshals Cooper and Roderick getting the valor awards for "bravery" at Ruby Ridge — or for their courageous story-telling before the Senate Judiciary Committee? David Nevin, the Idaho lawyer who successfully defended Kevin Harris, notes that perjury by federal lawmen is a serious problem: "They know that if they show up with their broad shoulders and their neatly clipped hair they can say whatever they damn well please."
Does the Marshals Service believe that Americans are obliged to give the benefit of the doubt to people in Ninja outfits and face masks who jump out of the woods and begin firing submachine guns at them? Federal law enforcement agencies have yet to learn that they cannot brazenly shoot innocent Americans and then pretend that the agents involved should be treated like national heroes.
 
For those continuing to comment on the Weaver Case, the authoritative text is Every Knee Shall Bow: The Truth and Tragedy of Ruby Ridge and the Randy Weaver Family by Jess Walter.

I've read a lot of misinformation here. Read the book.

The feds cased Randy Weaver for a year and a half before the family dog sprang their trap prematurely. They conducted aerial surveillance. They installed solar powered surveillance cameras, and were aware of Sara Weaver's menstrual cycle. They did not fail for lack of preparation.

I want you to consider carefully the case of young Sammy Weaver. The first round fired at him clipped him in the left arm, near the elbow, nearly severing the arm. The boy fell, then got up again and ran toward home. The second round hit him in the back, killing him. He was 13 years old.

His last words were, "I'm comin', Dad!".

Think about that, every Father's Day.

As for the tragic death of William Degan, an Idaho jury ruled that Weaver family friend Kevin Harris had acted in self defense. Testimony was provided by fellow US Marshals that Degan had never fired a shot. Subsequent evidence showed that Degan had fired seven rounds. Two Marshals testified, implausibly, to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that Randy Weaver had actually shot his own son, Sam. Many other lies and manipulations of evidence were revealed in the subsequent trial of Randy Weaver and in Senate hearings.

The feds story was as full of holes as Sam Weaver, Vicki Weaver, and Kevin Harris. Or so a jury concluded. The jury foreman stated, "the government's story has changed every time you turn around."

Keep in mind that that Weaver's defense attorney never called a single witness. He rested his case as soon as the prosecution ended theirs.

Those of you who ... just don't like Weaver and his repugnant racialist views, consider what folks will think when these federal thugs come for you. Just another gun nut. Good riddance.

If there is one lesson to be learned from the Ruby Ridge incident, it is that armed citizens can indeed defend themselves against a vastly superior force. Of course, they may become martyrs as a consequence.
 
I've heard all sorts of accounts, some quite different from one another, about the back story on the Weaver indictment. I've never taken the time (or had the interest) to sort them out. As far as I'm concerned, that's what trials are for, and if Weaver didn't commit an offense, then he would have been acquitted. (In point of fact, I believe he was convicted, but I don't really care.)

Weaver was acquitted of all counts except failure to appear. And it's obvious that you don't care.
 
What always shocked me in Holocaust pictures is how a large crowd of people is walking without any resistance to be starved to death and burned alive. Why did not they resist? OK, they were led by armed guards. But isn't a death from gunshot easier than turtures?
And, yes, back then I decided than I will rather be killed in fight than led to a slaughterhouse.

There was resistance and there was fear. I am sure that many victims had Hope that they would survive and be re-united with their loved ones. A woman being forced on a death march with her children would be hard pressed to choose a bullet for herself and her children. I'm thinking that these victims believed that good would triumph over bad. It did. And if all the Holocost victims chose the "easy death by gunshot", who would have survived to attest to this horrible history?
Best regards.
 
I just received a copy of Mitzvah in my latest batch of mailings from JPFO. I'm not sure why I received it as I didn't just order it, but maybe they like giving me stuff since they've received over $700 from me in the past 2 months and will be getting another $200 at Hanukkah time (see my sig).
 
doobie, let me know what you think of the book. It was pretty vanilla at first, and I didn't see where it was going, but after a couple of chapters I got interested in the story enough that I couldn't put the book down. The ending was a total surprise to me. I certainly didn't see it coming from the early chapters.
 
doobie, let me know what you think of the book. It was pretty vanilla at first, and I didn't see where it was going, but after a couple of chapters I got interested in the story enough that I couldn't put the book down. The ending was a total surprise to me. I certainly didn't see it coming from the early chapters.

Will do, but it'll probably be a few weeks. I'm in the middle of 5 books (not to mention audiobooks) I'm reading and have a lot of late nights coming up that I won't be able to read during...
 
I can't understand how so many Jews today can be happy with and support efforts to disarm them.

I believe that the orthodoxy (and please correct me if I'm wrong) promotes pacifism, which is why most jews don't care whether guns are taken away or even would prefer to see them outlawed completely. Guns don't have a place in the orthodox jewish household.

Being Jewish myself, I have a hard time understanding this as well. If history has taught us anything, its that disarming is often a precursor to genocide. I for one, value life of me and my family over anything else. So I do what I can to ensure I will have the ability to protect them. I think that sentiment is echoed greatly on this board.
 
Confiscation isn't likely to pan out like that for the simple reason that it's probably the most costly way to confiscate all privately owned firearms.

Also the hardest, and least likely to succeed method.

There is no way in hell the government could keep it a secret.

Confiscation by the Dear Leader will include: 1. Revoking FFL licenses for superficial errors, 2. Levying a prohibitive tax on all ammunition and reloading equipment/material, 3. Litigating against firearm and ammunition manufacturers for their use, 4. Banning large swaths of firearms under the guise of "Assault Weapons Ban Acts" or "Law Enforcement Protection Acts" or other "sensible" gun-control acts, 5. Usurping state licensing laws by enacting a capricious federal licensing scheme, etc.

By far, these would be the methods used. Lower the number of FFL's, Tax the ammo out of affordability, Run the manufacturers out of business, Ban certain types of firearms, followed by further (and deeper) bans as time goes on and Override state laws.

It's worked so far, and certainly will continue to work.

What, none of you knew this was already happening?

It's been going on for over 74 years now.
 
While I do not disagree with some of the points made in this thread, or by Mike, I think it is no less important for us not to ignore history, too.

The OP mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco. I don't have much direct knowledge of Waco, but in the case of Ruby Ridge, the federal agents had been issued an arrest warrant for Randy Weaver. They had no discretion not to attempt to execute it. It was Weaver who elected to resist lawful authority by deadly force, an engagement that often leads to unhappy and unnecessary consequences. All of the blame for what happened there rests on Weaver's shoulders; this exercise proves nothing about any possible failings of the "gubmint."


Read deeper on Ruby Ridge, and I'll wager you'll rethink that statement.

The ATF wanted Weaver to spy on his neighbors, he refused, so they set him up under a very questionable sting operation, the charged him with possession of an illegal firearm that is said to have been legal when it was in his possession, and later made illegal, AFTER seizure. They followed up with intentionally giving him the wrong court dates, then issued a warrant for his arrest. During the siege of his home, before Weaver fired a shot, his wife was (IMNSHO) intentionally executed for possession of what I call a "Semi-Automatic Assault Baby". Leave it that she was clearly unarmed, with a baby in her hands, not on the warrant, and was shot by a sniper with a scoped rifle at less than 100 yards. The FBI then proceeded to taunt Weaver even more.

Let's leave Ruby Ridge at INTENTIONAL malfeasance of the ATF and FBI or a clear case of GROSS incompetence. Neither is good.
 
By far, these would be the methods used. Lower the number of FFL's, Tax the ammo out of affordability, Run the manufacturers out of business, Ban certain types of firearms, followed by further (and deeper) bans as time goes on and Override state laws.
.

The big question on this is...would the manufacturers roll over and play good doggie or stand up and say, if we can't sell/manufacture to citizens, then we won't sell/manufacture to police or military. aka close willingly or be forced out at the end of a gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom