Freedom,
I have visited there. Other than the totally reasonable price on a pack of cigarettes, the thought of becoming a full-fledged freedom loving capitalist never entered my mind.
All said and done, its so much semantics perhaps. Hell, maybe its time for me to get off a high horse and pay homage to CA for being right.
Regards to you all,
Jai Pey
To Erratum:
(yeah I still have fighting spirit, I’m tired and weary from dancing around a mutual understanding of the 2nd Amendment)
[quote]
"If a tyrannical government were to try to infringe upon the rest of the Bill of Rights, what’s stopping those who are already part of a formal militia from responding?"
The fact that they are a part of the hypothetical oppressive government, and would be perpetrating the oppression, rather than fighting it?
[/qoute]
See I think this is jaded and fatalistic. If my own Canadian Government, with no force but the Military and RCMP decided to run things differently, there’d be cops and army files who’d refuse to do their will and would probably fight and die, the same as I would. If these people value the freedom they’re supposedly volunteering to fight for, where’s your problem? It’s not in the safeguard of regular everyday Joes having access to comparable weaponry in the event of tyranny; rather, its the people who are in control not knowing what they’re fighting for in the first place.
Indeed I meant lynch mob. A lynch mob, though, might well refer to themselves as a “posse”. Here you have caught me being cynical and pessimistic.
That idea of posse, in and of itself, is interesting: temporary deputization of a regular person with little/no training for use in tracking a fugivtive, protecting a place, even with firearms, fully justified by the Law.
Now to Freedom:
All of these arguments go right back “To the original Framers” and what it meant to them. Does anybody really agree that in today’s age, standing armies are dangerous? “Oh hell yeah course we do, thats why we roll back the Defense Dept. budget every year.” Standing armies are dangerous if and when the chain of command, right down to the lowliest NCO, cannot exercise a thought pattern. Arguably, its a despotic system to begin with, it NEEDS to be, and its already top-heavy on the officers. However, if the regular men who fight in that army forget what they’re fighting for, all the despotic officers in the world won’t get them to fight. Similarly, if the country that stands behind said -standing army forgets what its fighting for, the same thing will happen… you’ll lose…errr, I mean, you make a Strategic withdrawal. (See Viet Nam)
Graciously, I think I found my will to fight again.
Regards,
Jai Pey
2 things need clarifying here, with that statement: (1) Majority of killings by governments on their own people in what type of political system; (2) in what type of country (i.e. economic status worldwide)
Also, freedom:
I DID have to be licensed before I could write: At least, I had to get poetic license to write outside the rules of grammar and still get published, which meant I had to get published once first. Now what’s wrong with making a person “jump thru a hoop” of showing a basic competency with an automatic firearm if he/she is gonna keep it in the house, with the understanding that they’re be able to keep that firearm (outside the regular rules of Law) for use, in the event of Government tyranny? Thats part of the price of freedom, yes?
People can call me orwellian, but man… there’s a paranoia about the government knowing anything that really blows my mind.
Freedom, I’m picking on your texts but its because I find them so intrguing… 
Freedom said:
Hmm… now lemme think. Criminals are who, in the regular population? No not a specific race, color, or creed, but a proportion of a high population density who repsond badly to stresses and perhaps have come from less than fortunate backgrounds. Foreseeably, a criminal can be law abiding thru school and college, get married, have 3 kids, a big home, a dog and cat, 2 cars, and 15 semi-automatic weapons of his choice. And the day he becomes criminal the world will say “I never knew THAT side of him” and “He was always so nice and friendly” and they’ll bag him and the remains of his victims and call it a crying shame. I don’t know if knowing what he owned before the fact will help… just because you, freedom, choose to live within the law doesn’t mean all gun-owners do; nor people in my profession, youth work for a church.
another freedom-lovin post:
Whats wrong with Law enforcement? Can’t respond quick enough? Why not? At least, I suppose, if I have a gun and a criminal (that dastardly sunufagun) comes into my home, I can die shooting at him, trying to do something about it… never mind the fact that my wife and kids are still in the house and probably in just as much danger. So the criminal has to get thru me first, and if he does, and no-one’s called the cops, what did that profit the rest of my family? In a way its selfish, John Wayne-esque, and a bit like the Alamo. Sure, you might be the one who shoots and scores first, getting aforementioned criminal; you’re best bet in doing that will be to take the time personaly to get competent with the weapon. So you’re back to jumping hoops, right?
I can understand, BTW, how umping hoops for yourself (ie. at a private range by the range rules, on your own time; not by government regulation) would be preferrable to the average (dare I say paranoid) american. You still won’t know if you’re up to snuff with government standards in the army, though, will you?
With Switzerland: Every man is required to have the gun, WHY? Because they are AUTOMATICALLY PART OF THE COUNTRY’S STANDING ARMY. Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure someone will)… They all have to go to Boot, they all have to prove competency, they all have to serve whenever they’re called.
Thats enough libel and slander for now,
Regards, especially to Freedom; In search of freedom we struggle ever onward…errr, roundabout.
Jai Pey
Jai Pey,
I think the problem is that people envision this MOMENT in time where a government decides to leave it’s people and take over.
There will not be a declaration or statement about this. It is a series of small incremental “legal” steps that slowly take away our freedom.
There is not ONE cop who would question kicking in my door at 4 in the morning if they had a “proper” search warrant. They would be happy to drag me off and throw me in jail.
But if the process for getting search warrants becomes corrupted, then we are all at risk of being dragged off at a person’s will.
Then if the criminal justice system gets corrupted, you are as subject to a long jail term as anyone in 1960s Russia.
Take Waco for ewxample:
The ATF did not even bother to bring the warrant with them that day.
The entire thing was over a $400 tax they thought was owed.
They came as an ARMY to kick in the door and shoot anyone who resisted them.
They then decided it was ok to gas children with a gas that is outlawed by the Geneva Convention for use in a war.
All the survivors were aquitted by a jury, but had that thrown out by the judge and were put in jail.
There is ample evidence that America’s police are willing to ignore the truth and do whatever keeps them in “power.” For a wider spread example, just check out what is happening in LA.
And for the Original Framers…
We must ALWAYS go back to the original Framers. ALWAYS.
Everybody signed up and agreed to a specific Constitution. The only way to change anything in the Constitution is by an Amendment. If you want to just “figure out” what it means today, we will have 50 different interpretations of every part of the Constitution.
I mean, maybe today a warrant just isn’t neccesary to enter a home.
The Constitution is carved in stone. It is a major undertaking to change it. This is called the Rule of LAW. The same objective law for everyone.
Freedom,
I wish I could have gotten back into this debate earlier. Let me clarify a few things…
I don’t have a problem with gun ownership. Most gun owners are responsible and handle their weapons with respect.
I don’t have a problem with gun registration, because it doesn’t limit the right to own guns, but can keep guns out of the hand of people who shouldn’t have them. Also, in response to your earlier qestion about how I would feel if I had to register to write or practice religion (1st amendment stuff), last I checked a person had to be registered to vote. Since the constitution was designed to preserve the US as a democratic republic, voting must be held as the most important right, yet there is that registration thing.
I don’t know if you checked out my profile, but I am Canadian. Maybe that is why I have the attitude towards guns that I do have. In Canada I don’t think there is a “right to bear arms” as such, but gun ownership is permitted.
The differences? In Canada guns must be registered, and handguns are illegal. I’ve never owned a gun, but it is my impression that it is probably easier to walk in to a sporting goods store or Canadian Tire and buy a shot gun than it is in the US.
The payoff? The crime rate in Canada is much, much lower.
My final question to you would be this, does your “right to arms” outweigh anothers “pursuit of happiness”?
If I was discussing Lucy Lawless but I wrote Lucy Topless, would that be a Freudian typo?
Hi again Freedom,
I’m not gonna make quotations as before, I’m only concerned with the immediately preceeding post.
(1) Regarding corrupt justice system, reference to 1960’s Russia. There’s a big difference between the Russian Communist system and the democracy of the United States in today’s age. If Justice is corrupt, you have, for example, an Internal Affairs unit that examines policies, practices, and PEOPLE. Its not about the process, after all… You’re all for the PROCESS dictated by the Constitution. Its what happens when PEOPLE abuse it that we’re talking about.
(2) The Original Framers. Did they mean to establish literal understanding, or figurative? If its literal, then we ought to abolish all forward steps in philosphy, statesmanship, political process, and a myriad of other things from the past 200 years, not to mention changes in technology. I think you’d find the Constitution as valid a document as it is, even interpreted in the Spirit of its intentions. being forward thinking enough to realize its NOT written in literal stone. Its just a piece of paper, and amendments can be made, even after a lengthy process. Which is why amendments HAVE been made in the past. Just as you say the cops in LA don’t want to lose power, neither do the people who “control” the process of “The Rule of Law” want to lose power. There SHOULD be power given to your House of Representatives to take care of the PEOPLE in control. If they’re not doing their job, then you’ll get abuses of power. If the Constitution CAN be changed, what does that tell you about the intentions of the original Framers??
Regards,
jai Pey
I deny the truth of that statement.
What is your reference or cite?
Jai Pey,
Regards right back at you. 
Feel free to quote me as much as you want, it makes me happy to know that at least ONE person is reading my posts.
So here we go again.
They were all victims of ONE type of government. The type where a small group of men get in charge of the country and are driven by power with no regard to any other individual. These men have no morals when it comes to other people’s right to life, liberty and property.
Well, first off, it’s my house. What gives the government ANY right to make me jump through any hoops to exercise my rights on my own property?
Everyone examples so far have missed the mark because they are not registering with the GOVERNMENT to exercise a natural right. Working hard in the private sector to get yourself published is NOTHING like asking the government for permission to practice your religion.
This arguement is a red herring. People in the real world do not just snap and go off on a killing spree. Sure, you will throw around some examples, but the truth is that out of 200 million people and 85 million gun owners, 4 or 5 examples a year just doesn’t have any impact.
Anyway, you are allowing criminals to regulate what lawful people can do. In a free country the “What if” game is not a viable part of any discussion about what freedoms I will give up.
Cool. It wasn’t my profession, but I ran a youth group for the last 5 years at a local church. I can say it was probably one of the most important things I have ever done with my life.
Why not? How about because no one really wants to be watched 24/7 by a cop. Freedom involves risk. Just becasue you are free does not mean you are safe. If you are looking for safety, then freedom probably is not for you.
What is quick enough when you wake up with someone in your house? A minute? 5? 10?
Do you really want to suffer whatever this guy wants while waiting for the police to show up?
This sounds to me like you have a misconception of self defense. You picture the homeowner as a bumbling fool who is as likely to shoot himself or his family as he is the criminal. Who said you can’t dial 911 with a gun in your hand? Who said you can’t dial it first?
What do you propse to do without a gun after you dial 911? Talk about killing time…
Selfish? No way. How can you say a person who wants to put themselves in between a criminal in their home and their child is selfish? What would constitute an honorable way to handle this?
Maybe groveling and begging for you and your families’ life? Letting him kill you first, hoping he kills you slowly so that the police get there before he kills everyone else?
I respect you too much from your previous posts to think that you really mean this.
You have also ignored women who live alone, older folks who live alone and single mothers.
This is irrelevant. What do the government standards have to do with me at 4am when someone is in my home? I reject out of hand any government standard of proficency as a prerequisite for firearms ownership.
Sounds good to me. But this still has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Think about it this way.
Go waaaaaayyyyy back to the 1790’s. Imagine somebody coming to a drill with their privately owned firearm. This guy is horrible. He can’t march straight. He can’t shoot straight. Half the time other people have to load his rifle for him. They try to teach to teach him, but he is hopeless.
At the end of the day, do you think anyone there feels they have the right to take his rifle away from him? No way, this guy is taking it home with him for ONE REASON. Because it is his personal property.
Ok Bricker I’m off to surf for a cite.
Would it have any effect on your opinion of what happened there to learn that this is true and was never reported by the mainstream press?
Please give me one example of how this would keep a gun out of a criminal’s hand.
All of our us have the Right to Bear arms. Please show me ONE insstance where MY right to own firearms has infringed on your “pursuit of happiness.” I would also like to point out that the pursuit of happiness is different than the right of hapiness.
What about 20 years from today? Who can garuntee what it will be then?
This points out exactly my point. You can not just interpret something differently, there has to be an Amendment.
As a side note, we would probably disagree on whether it is even possible to repeal any of the Bill of Rights.
Ok Bricker.
I know you will question the links, but I do not know where to find a network story on this 6 years later.
Since they never really covered the truth about the story, it makes it hard to find a mainstream link on the web.
[Waco Link](http://www.monumental.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/page/b_wsws01.html#Judge Charlie McCarthy Presiding)
After a little more searching I found this:
That should be a fairly authoritative source if you want to disprove my statement.
Freedom,
that last post was your most convincing to date; you’ve almost got me.
This is what I said, I didn’t intend to introduce the “red herring” argument of “What if” as a justification… just it is part of how people think. As I say plainly, I doin’t know if knowing ahead of time what he’s in control of will help.
Regarding type of government:
Alright, a working answer! JK. Well, at least, til the “no regard for individuals/rights” part… I agree, they didn’t have any regard, but that wasn’t the agenda they pursued. The OUTCOME of the agenda they pursued was no regard for personal rights. Hitler didn’t get elected on the “I have no regard for you” platform; he truly believed in the things he said and the policies he enforced. These policies, sure, emphasized no regard for the Jewish people in particular. This argument is weak and I know it… it just doesn’t “jibe” well with me. I do know that there is a fundamental difference between an elected government like your own and that of 1930’s Germany.
next:
In Canada, its not guns so much as child pornography. Personal property, too, why should the government have any say about it?
I see a strong analogy with the publishing thing. Of course its my own argument so why shouldn’t i? :rolleyes:
I agree, too, that writing, religion, and firearms are all dangerous things when in the wrong hands. I can’t understand why letting the government know I legally have “x” guns and legally practice openly “y” religion makes any difference in my life.
I’ll take issue with this next argument before you rightly take issue with something I said badly…
and a couple lines later…
I say, with or without a gun, you’re taking the risk to suffer anyhow, and YOU agree to this when you talk about freedom. Of course I don’t want to suffer whatever the criminal has in mind… but not wanting to, and suffering anyway, is the chance we all take. having a gun is useless without being able to use it. You can’t use it if you’re dead. You can’t use it effectuively if you don’t know how.
And we are supposedly watched by the cops 24/7 anyhow. Sorry, we’re “protected and served” by the cops, 24/7.
now, in this next one you truly have me by the potatoes, and may I be the first to thank you, you are honorable as well…
Good, we’re on the level here. I think a person should be able to provide adequate defense. I don’t think he needs to charge down the stairs with rifle and handgun and proceed to blast away. This is a matter of personal reflection and education… what do I do if, and one of the things should legally be, call the cops.
I was thinking a nice bottle of white wine, perhaps light conversation… SOrry couldn’t resist. Canadian, see?
What else can you do? I don’t know and I’ve never been in the situation either. I really wonder, though, if having or not having a gun makes a difference here. what makes a gun more effective than my fists? Its NOT more effective if I don’t know how to use it.
I’m not clear here, and its my own fault. Its selfish for a person to not be able to use a weapon for defense of the family due to lack of personal readiness, like training and proficiency. If this needs to be regulated, so be it says I.
I don’t. And I hope that, in that situation, I wouldn’t grovel and beg. My point is, if I am more able to use my fists and body than a firearm, then what does it profit me to use a gun I can’t handle? Also, assuming the criminal is oing to be “right at home” in a strnage house, in the dark, is a bit much too… he’s going to be keyed up the same as you, but advantage of home turf is yours.
I came from a single-parent household… my mother is a strong woman. We had a 12-gauge shotgun in my father’s trunk of belongings, old and rusty and un-usable. Only firearm in the place.
EVERYTHING. The reason why you have argued for automatic weapons all along is so that a well-regulated militia can stand up to a tyrannical
HEY!!!
We made 2 pages on ths debate!
Here’s to the next 20, I swear I’ll buy a round of good Canadian beer to everyone still talking in circles, present company included.
Regards to all,
Jai Pey
Jai Pey,
Since you live way out east, I guess I can handle some Moosehead
Adam,
Trust me, Alexander Keith’s with a sensible amount of salt added is MUCH better.
To each their own. Seeing as you’re western, I could handle a Wildcat, too.
Regards,
jai Pey
I wasn’t talking about beer
No way.
Sorry. If a jury found them “not guilty,” in a criminal trial, a judge cannot simply override that and enter a finding of guilty.
Trials are not conducted in a vacuum. There is a transcript. There is an appeals process. Once the jury returns a verdict of “not guilty,” the constitutional protections against double jeopardy kick in. A person so aquitted can rise in his chair, laugh, and admit the crime; he is still immune from criminal punishment for that crime. (Of course, if he testified in his own behalf, he might be admitting perjury… but he’s free from punishment for the crimes aquitted.
Unfortunately, I don’t have Westlaw or Lexis anymore. But never without my trusty phone, I called the clerk’s office for the Western District of Texas (Mr. William G. Putnicki) and spoke to a very pleasant lady named Mary.
She gave me the docket number (W93-CR46) of the case that Judge Smith heard, and she assured me that the jury returned a GUILTY verdict. There was, she recalled, some disconcerting reaction from the jury over the judge’s sentence, but that is a far cry from the jury finding them innocent.
There was also an appeal, on which one of the party names was Brad Branch – so someone with access can pull up the appellate record… but based on my conversation with the clerk’s office, one of the grounds for appeal won’t be double jeopardy, because the jury’s verdict was guilty.
Sheesh!
By the way –
If someone claimed to have seen a marching band and a parade float on Thanksgiving Day, I wouldn’t hold them to a particularly high standard of proof, since it comports with reason and common sense to see such things.
If, however, someone claimed to have seen a floating marching band hovering over the city of Washington DC, I would require more vigorous evidence.
When you asserted that a group of people was sentenced as guilty even after a jury aquitted them, what convinced you of that fact. I guess I’m suggesting that such a story fits into the floating band category, and you should have demanded a high standard of proof.
Glad to be of service.
The appeal, if y’all are interested in looking up the full text, is U.S. v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1996).
The counts against the defendants relevant to the appeal were:
> Count 1: From on or before February 19, 1992, to April 19, 1993,
> conspiracy to murder federal officers and employees engaged in the
> performance of their official duties in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?
> 1117.
> Count 2: On or about February 28, 1993, aiding and abetting the
> murder of four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
> (ATF) while said agents were engaged in the performance of their
> official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?? 1111(a), 1114 and 18
> U.S.C. ? 2.
> Count 3: On or about February 28, 1993, using or carrying of a
> firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, to wit, Count
> 1, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 924©(1).
> Count 7: On or about April 19, 1993, knowing and unlawful possession
> of a firearm, namely an explosive grenade, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
> ? 5861(d).
> Count 9: From on or about February 19, 1992 to February 1993, a
> conspiracy to unlawfully manufacture and possess machineguns in
> violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 371 and 18 U.S.C. ? 922(o).
> Count 10: In February 1992 to February 19, 1993, aiding and abetting
> in the unlawful possession of machineguns in violation of 18 U.S.C.
> ?? 2, 922(o).
Here’s the summary of the decisions of the trial court:
> The Government dismissed the charges against one of the twelve
> Davidians, Kathryn Schroeder, pursuant to a plea bargain. After a
> jury trial lasting nearly two months, the jury acquitted four of the
> Davidians on all counts on which they were charged. The jury also
> acquitted all eleven of the Davidians on Count 1, which alleged a
> conspiracy to murder federal agents. However, the jury found seven of
> the Davidians, Renos Avraam, Brad Branch, Jaime Castillo, Graeme
> Craddock, Livingstone Fagan, Ruth Riddle, and Kevin Whitecliff,
> guilty on Count 3 for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of
> violence. The jury acquitted all eleven of the defendants on Count 2
> for aiding and abetting the murder of federal agents but convicted
> Avraam, Branch, Castillo, Fagan, and Whitecliff on the
> lesser-included offense of aiding and abetting the voluntary
> manslaughter of federal agents. Finally, the jury convicted Craddock
> on Count 7 for unlawful possession of a hand grenade and convicted
> Paul Fatta on Counts 9 and 10 for conspiring to manufacture and
> possess machineguns and for aiding and abetting the unlawful
> possession of machineguns, respectively.
Note that ‘the jury convicted’ the defendants.
While I do believe the BATF greatly overstepped their authority and the Waco affair was grossly mishandled, I ain’t gonna spread any misinformation about it.
Hm, something went wonky with my copy and paste. Just ignore those question marks in the code citations.