Where are we headed?

[Glock 31]

The site was www.crimelibrary.com. Did a yahoo search on Randy Weaver and it was the first link available.

I read the whole article, here is the section on the shotgun deal.

It was during one of these meetings in 1989 that Randy met a tall, heavy-set biker named Guss Magisono. Randy explained to Guss that he had been having a difficult time making ends meet for the past few months, so Guss offered Randy money in exchange for illegal sawed-off shotguns. Randy was reluctant about the deal and only relented after Guss continued to badger him about how much he could earn, promising him that the guns would be sold to inner-city gang members ─ the plan supposedly being that the black gang members would kill themselves off. Following the Aryan Nation meeting, Randy agreed to meet Guss a few weeks later with two sawed-off shotguns in exchange for $300.00.

What Randy did not know was that Guss Magisono was actually an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) named Kenneth Fadeley. The ATF had previously arrested Fadeley for gunrunning and had offered him clemency in exchange for becoming an undercover informant for the Bureau. What happened next is still in dispute. On October 24, 1989, Randy met with Fadeley at a park in Sandpoint, Idaho, where he supposedly sold him two sawed-off shotguns. What is not known was the exact condition of the guns at the time the exchange was made. Following the sale, Fadeley reported that the guns were sawed-off, however Randy later argued that he had suspected Fadeley of being an undercover agent and that both guns were of legal barrel length at the time of the sale. Randy accused Fadeley of sawing the barrels off later.

It does indeed say, "What happened next is still in dispute." So I appreciate the fact check Anti. I also believe the "clerical typo" that caused Mr. Weaver to be late for a court appearance was especially shady. I can understand his beliefs of a conspiracy against him.

Still, if the article is acurate as it appears to be, "Randy was reluctant about the deal and only relented after Guss continued to badger him about how much he could earn, promising him that the guns would be sold to inner-city gang members ─ the plan supposedly being that the black gang members would kill themselves off." is kind of a damning reason to get involved with anyone. I'm all for getting away from civilization if you believe it is headed towards evil. But racial intolerance is evil in itself. I can't say that Mr. Weaver's ideals and intentions were entirely pure.

 

[gc70]

Mr. Weaver had every right to live in seclusion, and, to an extent, even a right to attend those (racist) gatherings.

The first amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble.". Your statment suggests that you would endorse constaints on "gatherings" if people at those gatherings hold the "wrong" type of beliefs. Racism is frowned on in many circles - as is gun ownership.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Randy was reluctant about the deal and only relented after Guss continued to badger him about how much he could earn, promising him that the guns would be sold to inner-city gang members ─ the plan supposedly being that the black gang members would kill themselves off." is kind of a damning reason to get involved with anyone.

Ummm, it's called "entrapment". It used to be illegal for the government to suggest and encourage a citizen to commit a crime for money....and to become a party to that crime. It used to be believed that people did not need to be "tested" as to their level of loyalty to our Laws.

Further, what Anti was pointing out is that "reading" is not enough. Comprehension is also required. You continue to miss the fact that Weaver was found innocent of these charges. Therefore, what you quote has been dismissed as factual. You also missed the fact that he bought nothing from anyone. He was enticed into taking a hacksaw to a piece of metal and wood, ostensibly rendering his action taxable based on a 1/4" measurement.
Rich

 

[Republicrat]

On the other hand, when examples are used, they should be historically accurate to the best possible degree. The only problem I saw in Steelheart's first post was this.

Quote:
"The Government" decided to make an example out of them, bringing to bear against them every weapon in its military arsenal short of nuclear warheads.

I don't recall tanks or F/A-18 bombers being utilized in the standoff. Just alot of FBI and DEA agents and lot's of teargas. Which, incidentally, it was thought the teargas cannisters set off the blaze unintentionaly.

Not correct, for the longest time the feds claimed that the fire was set from the inside. Of course this really made people hate the victims.

It has now been admitted that incendiary rounds were used.

Expended military illumination flares fired by U.S. government personnel have been discovered in the tons of evidence recovered from the Branch Davidian compound, the head of the Texas Department of Public Safety said Tuesday night.

Texas Rangers searching a Waco storage facility Friday for missing pyrotechnic tear-gas grenades discovered one of the military devices, a star parachute flare. Evidence logs indicate that more of the flares were recovered in the weeks after the compound burned following an FBI siege and tear-gas assault April 19, 1993, said James B. Francis Jr. of Dallas.

"These flares are potentially a very important issue, inasmuch as the government had enormous spotlights trained on the compound throughout the standoff," Mr. Francis told The Dallas Morning News.

"They didn't need these flares to light the compound. One or more was fired. For what purpose or reason would these rounds be used?" he said. "I can't tell you whether they were [shot by] the military or FBI, but certainly, they were fired by government officials."

FBI spokesman John Collingwood said he could not flatly rule out FBI use of illumination rounds at Waco. "Several times during the standoff they had people sneaking in or out of the compound at night. Whether they ever used them then, I don't know," he said. "But I can say categorically, we did not use illumination rounds on the 19th."

The discovery of the incendiary illumination rounds raises new questions for federal officials already scrambling to explain why it took six years for the FBI to admit that its agents used pyrotechnic tear-gas rounds against the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993.

The government made that admission only after a former senior FBI official told The News that the use of the flammable rounds in Waco was "common knowledge" within the bureau's hostage rescue team.

The other major issue that remains unresolved is who started the fire at the end of the FBI siege. Both the book and the movie note that the blaze did not start until five or six hours after an FBI bug in Mount Carmel recorded a conversation about spreading fuel, usually taken to be evidence that the Davidians deliberately set the fire. During this time, the FBI was knocking into the building with tanks, which closed off escape routes and created vents that made the fire spread more quickly. The tanks pumped in an aerosol consisting of CS powder, a chemical warfare agent that causes tearing, temporary blindness, nausea, and vomiting, and methylene chloride, a toxic and volatile carrier that forms flammable mixtures when exposed to the air. The FBI also shot the powder into the building in cannisters. It later insisted that it did not fire any incendiary rounds, but two were recovered from the site. Whoever actually ignited the fire, the FBI clearly made it more deadly.

What the FBI admitted about its tactics may be just as horrifying as what it denied. Waco: The Rules of Engagement shows a bureau spokesman explaining that the idea behind filling Mount Carmel with CS was to torture the children (who had no gas masks) until their parents surrendered. "We thought that their instincts, their motherly instincts, would take place and that they would want their children out of that environment," he said. "It appears that they don't care that much about their children, which is unfortunate." According to experts cited in the book and quoted in the movie, the CS powder probably incapacitated Davidians who otherwise might have fled and may even have killed some of them. The powder can be fatal in high doses, and it turns into cyanide when burned.

This was clearly a military operation targeted at civilians, many of them women and children.

And these people still walk free.

 

[Glock 31]

I wasn't arguing that Mr. Weaver was guilty of anything the FBI charged him with. I was saying that he would not have brought attention to himself if he hadn't let racism cloud his judgement and influence his life. Just because he was innocent of all his alleged crimes doesn't change the likelyhood that the government probably would have left him alone had he not put himself in the spotlight.

promising him that the guns would be sold to inner-city gang members ─ the plan supposedly being that the black gang members would kill themselves off.

Entrapment or not, innocent or not, this is a pretty sorry excuse to agree to anything for money. It doesn't make him look like anyone I would want to represent the 2nd amendment.

He could have found other people who shared his dislike for the government without associating with racist groups that the government was known to watch. Unless he was actually trying to draw attention to himself, he would have been better off just staying in the mountains.

And I don't see how you can compare racism with gun ownership. Owning guns, while unpopular with some, is still a guaranteed right. Racism is not. I do not endorse restraints on gatherings, any gatherings. Your right, "to an extent" shouldn't have been put in there. I think my moral feelings got in the way there for a second when I posted it.

Again, I supported Mr. Weaver in his choice to remove him and his family from society. They had every right to do so, and I understand how they could come to believe in the reasons why they secluded themselves. The fact that he started collecting weapons was another good example of how we should be free to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. But for me, personally, when he started to let racism become a part of his beliefs, he lost my support and belief in him as a good role model for the exercising of American rights. Every citizen should have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of race. That's what makes this country great.

 

[gc70]

And I don't see how you can compare racism with gun ownership. Owning guns, while unpopular with some, is still a guaranteed right. Racism is not.

Racism is simply the reflection of a set of beliefs. People are free to believe anything as long as they do not transform those beliefs into illegal acts.

Racists and gun owners both have strongly-held beliefs which are looked down upon by some segments of society. We believe that gun ownership is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. Racists probably believe that saying what they think and associating with others who think the same are explicitly protected by the First Amendment.

Should we ignore the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech just because we don't like what some people are saying? Should we condone government harassment because we don't like the beliefs of people who associate with each other? If so, we are hypocrites who want to pick and choose the parts of the Bill of Rights that we like and who they should apply to.

Where are we headed? Down a dark road if we don't support the Constitution and the entire Bill of Rights, along with their equal application to all people.

 

[44 AMP]

Lots of good posts in this one. Some general ideas dominate. Where we are headed is bad. There is a lot of discussion on how we got here, and why. Not much about where we are going, except that it will include more restriction on personal freedoms. I can't say with certainty, my crystal ball is dirty, and the magic 8 ball just keeps saying outlook cloudy ask again later.

Perhaps the major problem with this country is apathy. It could be, but I just can't seem to care.

I think one of our big problems is impatience. Would someone hurry up and tell us how to fix things?!

During the era of the Founders, communication took time. And there was time. Time to reflect, to weigh options. Today there is no time. Everything has to be right now. Problems that have always been with us, or have been decades in the making have to be solved, right now!

Too many people have to "do something". Without being able to even take the time to see if is the right thing, or ought to be done.

This is the curse of science/technology. We live longer, but we have no time.

The youth of today is ...(insert adjectives here). This has always been the case. Perhaps today the degree is different, but if so, then that is all.

Nobody today much cares about anything outside their personal lives, until their own sacred cow gets gored. As gun owners and Liberty lovers, we see our cow getting gored all the time. Sadly alot of the rest of the people don't see it. Usually not because they can't, but because they won't. Not until it rears up and bites them, personally.

Many thing are better today than in the past. Many things are worse. We got here because we learned from history. Sadly, too many people learned the WRONG lessons.

So, we are generally in agreement that we are in a bad place, and are heading to a worse one. Not a unique view in history, but this is now, and it is our time. There are only two courses of action, do nothing (and hope for the best) or do something to effect a change.

I am not one of the movers and shakers, nor did I ever wish to be, but I did do the one thing I think we should all do. Teach our children to THINK!

 

[Glock 31]

I think I will defer to 44 AMP's point of view on this one. While I understand how racists believe their views and actions are protected under the first, it still makes me feel that allowing such behavior is more of bad example of American freedom, rather than a good one. Which leads me to suspect I'm trying to prove my points on a moral and emotional basis, rather than one focused on clearly what the constitution and BOR define as our freedoms.