Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[The_Fool]

Your eyes, most definitely.

Such naughty thoughts.

Hi, I'm Fool and I have naughty thoughts. It's been 5 seconds since I had my last one and I don't think I can wait much longer for my next one.

 

[Weird Harold]

Are you truly repressed? Does your government crush all opposition? Does speaking out lead to the gulag or death? If you speak out for democracy, are you run over by tanks?

Not as a general rule, but the mere concept of a legal "no knock warrant" wasn't part of American juridprudence within my lifetime. I live in a neighborhood where no-knock warrants are occassionally enacted -- and erroneous no knock warrants have led to tragedy. In that respect, yes I fear my government -- at least I doubt their ability to apply repressive anti-terror/antu-drug tactics without tragic error.

Ask the Branch Davidians, who arguably were practicing their first and second amendment rights, about tanks smashing down your walls and setting fire to your home.

The US is not currently a repressive regime, but there are occasionally elements of our government that either exceed their athority or push for powers they don't really need. We've even had at least one president who tried to establish the precedent that "If the President does it is isn't illegal."

Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," and that idea hasn't gone out of style; if the US citizens aren't oppressed, it is because of groups like the NRA, ACLU, and other "watchdog" organizations that challenge attempts to subvert or ignore the Constitution.

 

[oggbashan]

... We've even had at least one president who tried to establish the precedent that "If the President does it is isn't illegal."

...

I think that Italy's Berlasconi is trying that line - too hard.

He is accused of having sex with under-age prostitutes at his age of 72. I'm not sure that the response of one of the young ladies that "he paid me but didn't have sex" makes it any better.

Even the Vatican is now being critical of him.

Perhaps President Clinton should have been president of Italy. At least he might have actually had sex.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

I can't quite wrap my head around the "Guns protect me from the government" meme.

If the government does go repressive what good will a few handguns, or rifles, or SMGs or assault rifles do you? The government, if it really means business will show up in MICVs, lace your place with 25mm cannon shells and then storm it with grenades and and machine guns. Should you, by some miracle, beat them off they'll respond with an MLRS barrage or maybe have the A10s roll in with cluster munitions.

It will be very difficult, nigh impossible, for individuals or small groups to take on a modern government.

The only real way to defend a democracy is at the ballot box. That's what Jefferson meant when he spoke of eternal vigilance. He expected the citizens to be aware of what was happening and vote for the people best suited to deal with current events and to prepare for the future.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Poor deluded ROB.

GOOGLE American Civil War, GOOGLE American Indian Wars.

You can defend your rights much better with a ballot and a gun than you can with just a ballot.

 

[sr71plt]

Poor deluded ROB.

GOOGLE American Civil War, GOOGLE American Indian Wars.

You can defend your rights much better with a ballot and a gun than you can with just a ballot.

Oh course in both those "wars," the losing side had "right" on their side and a whole lot of good it did them to defend their "rights." The South had the consitutional right to secede and the Indians were the ones being displaced from their rightful places.

 

[Weird Harold]

I can't quite wrap my head around the "Guns protect me from the government" meme.

If the government does go repressive what good will a few handguns, or rifles, or SMGs or assault rifles do you? The government, if it really means business will show up ...

The founders and framers of the Constitution were fresh from a successful revolution begun and sustained with privately owned arms. A revolution which began shooting when the government attempted to disarm them.

Owning guns may be an individual right, but the meme isn't "protects ME" but "Protects US" from the government. The People have to act in concert to oppose a repressive government but individual arms make it possible.

James A. Swan on Big-Game Hunting on National Review Online
Jan 30, 2004 ... In 1955 there were 1,579,704 big-game hunters in the US. Forty-one years later, in 1996, there were 11,288,000 — a 615 percent increase. ...
old.nationalreview.com/swan/swan20040...

11.2 million big game hunters is 11.2 million potential snipers in a revolution against a repressive government.

 

[stephen55]

Harold, even you don't really belive it...

Ask the Branch Davidians, who arguably were practicing their first and second amendment rights, about tanks smashing down your walls and setting fire to your home.

History is generally written by the winners, although, perhaps, everybody lost at the Waco Seige.

Yes, the Branch Davidians were practicing their First and second Amendment rights. They were also practicing a lot more, such as ritualized child abuse, statutory rape, collecting and stockpiling fully automatic firearms (a no no that even the Supreme Court says is a no no).

Vernon Wayne Howell, (later: David Koresh) was your typical cult leader; charismatic, narcissistic, demented and in his own mind, the only human to be totally without sin. That is, he was a deceptive, manipulative sociopath complete with a borderline personality disorder and completely without a conscience.

The FBI maintains that (and has surveillance tapes supporting) the final siege fires were deliberately set by the Davidians inside the compound. The nine surviving Davidians (initially) claim the fires started because of the tank assaults and the use of tear gas.

As for tanks, they were CEV's (Combat Engineering Vehicles), equipped with a boom used to punch holes in the walls of the compound, to allow tear gas to be pumped in, and later (according to the FBI) used to enlarge the holes after the fires started , in an attempt to give the Davidians a way out of the burning compound.

However, later at trial...(all from wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

Surviving Davidians testified that Coleman fuel had been poured, and fire experts in Danfort's report agree "without question" that people inside the complex had started multiple accelerated fires.[61]:15-19, appendixes D and E

61) ^ a b c d e f g h i cesnur.org "Final report to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco Texas," by John C. Danforth, special counsel. Issued November 8, 2000

The final assault came fifty days after a firefight that ensued after the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives tried to execute a search warrant on the compound. Four agents and six members of the Davidians died during the two hour long gun battle. Not surprisingly, each side claimed the other fired first.

The events at Waco were a tragedy of the first order. To suggest that the final assault was the result of the Davidians practicing their First and Second Amendment rights is spurious at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh course in both those "wars," the losing side had "right" on their side and a whole lot of good it did them to defend their "rights." The South had the consitutional right to secede and the Indians were the ones being displaced from their rightful places.

True, successful revolutions are far less common than failed rebellions.

Armed insurrection inthe US is far more useful as an abstract possibility than as a viable option.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]11.2 million big game hunters is 11.2 million potential snipers in a revolution against a repressive government.

And, statistically, 1702 schizophrenics.

There are better means than violence to change a repressive government. We just celebrated that on MLK day.

 

[sr71plt]

There are better means than violence to change a repressive government. We just celebrated that on MLK day.

I seriously doubt Weird Harold has any notion of a repressive government. Certainly not in the United States.

As I've posted before, I fully believe that if an enemy hits the shores of the United States or even if the U.S. government became repressive, all of those NRA gun lovers will stick up a supply store and retreat to the woods and shoot at anything that moves. They are a selfish, short-sighted, paranoic, anarchist, unsocial lot, on the whole.

If they do come out to "defend" the whatever, as some vigilante forces have, they will only do so when the other side is smaller and nearly defenseless and because the thrill of killing woodland animals just doesn't serve their Neandrathal instincts as well as it once did. The Constitution or whatever would have nothing to do with it.

 

[Weird Harold]

History is generally written by the winners, although, perhaps, everybody lost at the Waco Seige....

The events at Waco were a tragedy of the first order. To suggest that the final assault was the result of the Davidians practicing their First and Second Amendment rights is spurious at best and disingenuous at worst.

The whole situation at Waco was a clusterfuck from the beginning -- but one of the lasting images from the news reports is a "tank" driving through the wall of the Branch Davidian compound. Whether it was technically a tank or not, does nothing to change the visual impact of the news footage.

I note you don't address the next statement in my post:

... there are occasionally elements of our government that either exceed their authority or push for powers they don't really need. ...

The Waco clusterfuck was a case of "elements of our government exceeding their authority," and even the "victor's history" admits that much. That the Branch Davidians were a despicable cult doesn't excuse the blunders and excesses of the goverment.

 

[stephen55]

there are occasionally elements of our government that either exceed their athority or push for powers they don't really need.

I'm a two finger, hunt and peck typist so I have trouble commenting on some things, let alone everything.

Elements of government as in individual members of the FBI, CIA, Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (or whatever they call themselves now...firearms, yes...but alcohol and tobacco??), various state and municipal police forces...

Yes, I'm sure individuals in some situations exceed their authority. Whether they do that out of perceived necessity or because of being just bad-assed individuals, it's going to happen. If a cop uses unnecessary violence in making an arrest, there are avenues of redress. Rodney King comes to mind.

As for pushing for powers they don't really need, it comes down to sober second thought on the part of governing agencies to reflect upon current situations, current legislated powers and deciding if the status quo is capable of getting the job done.

Lots of examples come to mind. How can Homeland Security and the FBI monitor suspected terrorist elements without infringing on freedom of privacy? How can airport security keep various weapons, including solid and liquid bombs off commercial airplanes without infringing on the passengers' privacy of their person, though body scans and pat downs.

There was a recent incident in Canada where a woman who had had a mastectomy and was wearing a gel filled breast prosthesis, which showed up on a scanner, was subjected to a pat down. She later complained and the airline (which has nothing to do with gate security) expressed howls of outrage. The company that provides the security fell all over themselves in apologizing and promising to discipline the offending security person.

What if a liquid bomb had gotten through?

 

[Boxlicker101]

History is generally written by the winners, although, perhaps, everybody lost at the Waco Seige.

Yes, the Branch Davidians were practicing their First and second Amendment rights. They were also practicing a lot more, such as ritualized child abuse, statutory rape, collecting and stockpiling fully automatic firearms (a no no that even the Supreme Court says is a no no).

Vernon Wayne Howell, (later: David Koresh) was your typical cult leader; charismatic, narcissistic, demented and in his own mind, the only human to be totally without sin. That is, he was a deceptive, manipulative sociopath complete with a borderline personality disorder and completely without a conscience.

The FBI maintains that (and has surveillance tapes supporting) the final siege fires were deliberately set by the Davidians inside the compound. The nine surviving Davidians (initially) claim the fires started because of the tank assaults and the use of tear gas.

As for tanks, they were CEV's (Combat Engineering Vehicles), equipped with a boom used to punch holes in the walls of the compound, to allow tear gas to be pumped in, and later (according to the FBI) used to enlarge the holes after the fires started , in an attempt to give the Davidians a way out of the burning compound.

However, later at trial...(all from wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

Surviving Davidians testified that Coleman fuel had been poured, and fire experts in Danfort's report agree "without question" that people inside the complex had started multiple accelerated fires.[61]:15-19, appendixes D and E

61) ^ a b c d e f g h i cesnur.org "Final report to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco Texas," by John C. Danforth, special counsel. Issued November 8, 2000

The final assault came fifty days after a firefight that ensued after the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives tried to execute a search warrant on the compound. Four agents and six members of the Davidians died during the two hour long gun battle. Not surprisingly, each side claimed the other fired first.

The events at Waco were a tragedy of the first order. To suggest that the final assault was the result of the Davidians practicing their First and Second Amendment rights is spurious at best and disingenuous at worst.

As you and everybody else says, history is written by the winners. The alleged child abuse, etc., didn't come to light until AFTER the disaster, when the gov. was free to spin it any way they liked and the dead were unable to express disagreement or defend themselves. I'm not defending David Koresh. He was an asshole as all cult leaders are, but he was never convicted of anything, and never even indicted.

How can you possibly know the fires were set by the occupants of the compound? The fires broke out inside, but they could just as well have been started by incendiary rounds landing in flammable materials or hitting cans of gasoline or other fuels. The surviving Dravidians may well have changed their final testimony and lied as a result of a plea bargain. This is a fairly common practice among prosecutors - to go lightly on those who testify the way they are told.

I don't know, and neither do you, that the warrants were valid, since they were never disputed. There was nobody alive to do so. They may have been secured by perjured testimony, for all anybody knows. I did see videos of the warrants being "served." The vids showed gov. agents trying to sneak through windows, like thieves in the night, and being fired on as lawless intruders.

I am quite sure the true facts will never be known.

 

[Weird Harold]

Elements of government as in individual members of the FBI, CIA, Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (or whatever they call themselves now...firearms, yes...but alcohol and tobacco??), various state and municipal police forces...

Currently the "Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firerams, and Explosives" or "BATFE" They are supposedly a tax enforcement agency and originally a branch of the Treasury Department.

Their abuses are seen as abuses by "The Government" because congress does little to reign in federal bureaucracies like BATFE, and often expands the scope of their bureaucratic empires, as the changes from 'ATF' to 'BATFE' show or creates new bureacracies.

...If a cop uses unnecessary violence in making an arrest, there are avenues of redress. Rodney King comes to mind.

The Rodney King beating exposed some serious department wide irregularities and a department wide tendency to use excessive force in the LAPD. Rightly or wrongly, it fueled a perception in the minority communities of southern California that the government tacitly approved of the LAPD's excesses unless they were caught on camera. To some extent, it fueled the perception that ALL police forces were only concerend about getting caught.

The "Rodney King Verdicts" sparked riots in a lot of cities where the minority populations perceived similar corruption and abuse on the part of "the enforcement arm of government."

Whether there was, or is, any actual repression of minorities where such riots happened is irrelevant to the perception that such abuse exists, that the legal avenues of redress are just as corrupt as the police and that government can't be bothered to address the issue, let alone fix it.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
Their abuses are seen as abuses by "The Government" because congress does little to reign in federal bureaucracies like BATFE, and often expands the scope of their bureaucratic empires, as the changes from 'ATF' to 'BATFE' show or creates new bureacracies.
[...]

Whether there was, or is, any actual repression of minorities where such riots happened is irrelevant to the perception that such abuse exists, that the legal avenues of redress are just as corrupt as the police and that government can't be bothered to address the issue, let alone fix it.

I don't see how this relates to "repressive" government - these are relatively isolated instances on a very tiny scale. I realize they are examples of governmental over-reach, but a person would have to be delusional to see these as any indication of systematic government repression.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, but these folks need their isolated incidents so that they can backtrack to justify (to themselves at least) doing exactly what they've already decided to do. 'Cause they're #1.

 

[oggbashan]

The founders and framers of the Constitution were fresh from a successful revolution begun and sustained with privately owned arms. A revolution which began shooting when the government attempted to disarm them.

...

That "successful revolution" was aided by Native Americans and the world's then most powerful nation in military terms - France.

It was not just the privately owned arms that freed the US. Without France, the US could not have achieved independence at that time.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

That "successful revolution" was aided by Native Americans and the world's then most powerful nation in military terms - France.

It was not just the privately owned arms that freed the US. Without France, the US could not have achieved independence at that time.

Og

Not only that, but the country--and some of us--have grown up and organized a more efficient, effective, complex, and sophisticated society since then. Some of us haven't managed the "grow up" part, though.

We don't have a citizen militia anymore--or the need for one. WH and others just keep running away from that reality.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That "successful revolution" was aided by Native Americans and the world's then most powerful nation in military terms - France.

It was not just the privately owned arms that freed the US. Without France, the US could not have achieved independence at that time.

Og

So fas as weapons go, the Native Americans were also armed with their personal weapons, except for those who fought on the side of the Crown, who were supplied by the British.

Nobody would deny the revolution would have failed without France, but they didn't get fully involved until Feb. 1778, almost three years AFTER the onset of the war. The colonists had held British forces at bay for all that time.

Was France really the most powerful militarily at that time? Just a few years earlier, they had suffered a disastrous defeat in The Seven Years War, AKA The French and Indian War.

 

[sr71plt]

Was France really the most powerful militarily at that time?

China

 

[Weird Harold]

Not only that, but the country--and some of us--have grown up and organized a more efficient, effective, complex, and sophisticated society since then. Some of us haven't managed the "grow up" part, though.

We don't have a citizen militia anymore--or the need for one. WH and others just keep running away from that reality.

while you ignore that the law of the land still reflects the founders viewpoint. If we have indeed grown beyond that need, then it should be easy to repeal the second amendment, no?

 

[Weird Harold]

I don't see how this relates to "repressive" government - these are relatively isolated instances on a very tiny scale. I realize they are examples of governmental over-reach, but a person would have to be delusional to see these as any indication of systematic government repression.

I won't say that the perceptions of minorities that the police are repressive and aren't held to account for abuses isn't delusional, but the fact is that the perception exists -- and persists. One might argue that minorities' perceptions of a lack of justice doesn't matter, but I don't think it can be argued fairly.

 

[sr71plt]

while you ignore that the law of the land still reflects the founders viewpoint. If we have indeed grown beyond that need, then it should be easy to repeal the second amendment, no?

The founders were talking about a civilian militia, numbskull, which hasn't existed or been needed for centuries. They most certainly weren't talking about rapid reload weaponry floating around in the citizenry after the country had been internally civilized. And there were a lot of things the founders had in their viewpoints that we've, thankfully, gotten rid of. The founders sanctioned slavery and limited voting even among men.

The country grew up.

One thing the founders managed, which you obviously--conveniently, because you gotta have your toys--can't manage is that they foresaw and built in the capability of the country growing up. Perhaps when you grow up you'll appreciate that.