BF2S Forums WACO Branch Davidian Raid, What did You make of it ?

CreepingDeath wrote:

I still stick behind my orginal statment :
  I still feel that 3 of thier major rights where violated. Freedom of religion cult or not , Freedom of speech, and the right to bare arms..And our goverment got away with the murdering of these people . . .Sad but true . .
   And B.Schuss people that think like you are what is taken our rights and what they ment to be are changing. Concindering when our Consitution was written when the only type of guns we had where muskets.One shot rifles .. Your right take all guns that aren't a musket and distroy them.
   Any kind of religion is a type of cult . Catholics all listen to thier priests and if they don't well your a hypocrite. Baptists listen to a minister .Anytime someone see's someone start a church that isn't like the norm of a religon like catholic. baptists mormans, seven day advests, or whatever they want to call, its a cult.
    Now whats really BULLSHIT about freedom of speech is you have to go and get a permit BUY a permit from our goverment inorder to hold a public speech. And if they don't want you to speak opion your protest in public. They will turn you down on your permit. This is so funny when everyday you hear how we are fighting to keep our rights over in foreing lands. Yeah right ..
    our wonderful goverment everyday is taken our freedoms away each and everyday. Because people like yourself are gofors or go alongs just because you think our goverment is the best. SAD SAD VERY SAD

1. explain to me what a gofor is, if you will. I am not of english or american origin.
2. where exactly did I say that my government is the best ? As far as I remember, I did not reference any other government at all. I was simply commenting on your assessment.

Americans amaze me. They have incredible patriotism and love for their country, but at the same time seem almost paranoid as far as their government is concerned. Some even join together in local militias and train militarily to be "prepared" in case their government ever decides to take some of their freedoms away.

What is it that makes so afraid of that ? what makes you think it will ever happen ? do you have so little faith in the democratic traditions of america ?

B.Schuss wrote:

1. explain to me what a gofor is, if you will. I am not of english or american origin.
2. where exactly did I say that my government is the best ? As far as I remember, I did not reference any other government at all. I was simply commenting on your assessment.

Americans amaze me. They have incredible patriotism and love for their country, but at the same time seem almost paranoid as far as their government is concerned. Some even join together in local militias and train militarily to be "prepared" in case their government ever decides to take some of their freedoms away.

What is it that makes so afraid of that ? what makes you think it will ever happen ? do you have so little faith in the democratic traditions of america ?

1.  I believe by gofor he means gopher maybe?  I'm guessing it's describing anyone who just willingly without thought follows what another entity tells them to do?  I personally calls these types sheeple because they are like mindless sheep following the shepherd[sic?] to the slaughter.

2.  I'm guessing it was an assumption by him that you were supporting the current form of government ideology in America, which is Social pseudo-Democratic(i.e. it's the government's job to take care of the people)  probably not a true definition, but it's just how I see it.

I have patriotism and love for the Constitution.  Yes, the country is beautiful, but it would be a shadow of it's former self without the Constitution.  Because of the continual eroding of those freedoms laid out by the Constitution(most of the freedoms are natural rights, not granted by the document, but merely confirmed by it), many ARE paranoid of the current form of government.  In truth, to remain free REQUIRES everlasting vigilence.  What we are seeing nowadays is the result of a lack of vigilence and resolve.  The vast majority just do not care as long as they can live from day to day and be fed, no matter what the cost.  I saw a quote once that crystallized the definition of freedom to me.  I forget the exact quote and who said it, but it went something like this: "Those who would give up a little freedom for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither."

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I had faith in the system until Bush got elected.  The right-wing fruitcakes want to put religion back in schools and slowly tear down the separation of church and state.  That along with Bush and his already wealthy, money grubbing friends/contributors, along with a Senate that is heavily stacked with Republicans, would make anyone not on the far right fringes scared.

I know I am.

I would have no problem with the seperation of Church and State if the Government hadn't extended its reach FAR beyond it's original responsibilities.  The State has essentially become a defacto religion in and of itself, which is another reason people are paranoid of it.  {Want to be clothed and fed?  Believe in welfare.  Do not ask where we get the money to provide it.   Just vote faithfully to keep us in office.  Do not use logic to examine our policies.  Just blindly believe that we have YOUR best interests at heart.}

Last edited by Jobarra (2006-01-12 12:04:06)

Jobarra wrote:

1.  I believe by gofor he means gopher maybe?  I'm guessing it's describing anyone who just willingly without thought follows what another entity tells them to do?  I personally calls these types sheeple because they are like mindless sheep following the shepherd[sic?] to the slaughter.

2.  I'm guessing it was an assumption by him that you were supporting the current form of government ideology in America, which is Social pseudo-Democratic(i.e. it's the government's job to take care of the people)  probably not a true definition, but it's just how I see it.

freedom has its limitations. some don't have the freedom to say no ( for example those who fight in iraq ).
do they all agree with the war in iraq ? probably not, but they go there none the less.

If freedom is so important to you, you should have protested the patriot act, the guantanamo prison, the illegal CIA prisons, the illegal wire-tapping of phone calls ( ordered by your president ). none of that happened. oh well, at least you still have your rifles at home...

as far as I know, your current form of government ( parlamentary democracy ) is the best we have today.
It is the same as we have, the same as most of europe and the world has.
But that wasn't my original point. this topic is about the way the law enforcement agencies handled the waco raid. some have argued that the feds violated or infringed the rights of the davidians as given in the constitution. IMHO, that was not the case.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Jobarra wrote:

1.  I believe by gofor he means gopher maybe?  I'm guessing it's describing anyone who just willingly without thought follows what another entity tells them to do?  I personally calls these types sheeple because they are like mindless sheep following the shepherd[sic?] to the slaughter.

2.  I'm guessing it was an assumption by him that you were supporting the current form of government ideology in America, which is Social pseudo-Democratic(i.e. it's the government's job to take care of the people)  probably not a true definition, but it's just how I see it.

I have patriotism and love for the Constitution.  Yes, the country is beautiful, but it would be a shadow of it's former self without the Constitution.  Because of the continual eroding of those freedoms laid out by the Constitution(most of the freedoms are natural rights, not granted by the document, but merely confirmed by it), many ARE paranoid of the current form of government.  In truth, to remain free REQUIRES everlasting vigilence.  What we are seeing nowadays is the result of a lack of vigilence and resolve.  The vast majority just do not care as long as they can live from day to day and be fed, no matter what the cost.  I saw a quote once that crystallized the definition of freedom to me.  I forget the exact quote and who said it, but it went something like this: "Those who would give up a little freedom for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither."

It was Benjamin Franklin, and this is the entire quote.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Do you mean to say that our government would take advantage of us. After all we pay them for there efforts, I know for one they don't hand out parking tickets and DMV tickets to line the pockets of the bankrupted state agencys.  Let's face it the American peoples tax dollars have been misspent in the past 20 years if not longer, in affairs that don't benifit us.  I'm really sick of reading about our financing of people that hate us, and the waco "affair" was an other control tactic to keep us inline.

America is for the people by the people, so why then are we controled by only the rich 5%. I don't even mean the rich who made it there by themself, I'm talking about the trust fund babies like BUSH. Who has a longer criminal record then mine, and because of his daddies power doesn't even have a lick of problem from it.  Now if the branch dividian where a richer group of people "scientoligist" the government would have accepted there payoff and left them alone.

I'm not quite sure why you quoted my post.  I simply clarified who made the statement (Ben Franklin) and the entire/proper wording of the quote.  I suspect you were responding to the poster to whom I quoted.

B.Schuss wrote:

freedom has its limitations. some don't have the freedom to say no ( for example those who fight in iraq ).
do they all agree with the war in iraq ? probably not, but they go there none the less.

If freedom is so important to you, you should have protested the patriot act, the guantanamo prison, the illegal CIA prisons, the illegal wire-tapping of phone calls ( ordered by your president ). none of that happened. oh well, at least you still have your rifles at home...

as far as I know, your current form of government ( parlamentary democracy ) is the best we have today.
It is the same as we have, the same as most of europe and the world has.
But that wasn't my original point. this topic is about the way the law enforcement agencies handled the waco raid. some have argued that the feds violated or infringed the rights of the davidians as given in the constitution. IMHO, that was not the case.

1.  Freedom has no limitations except those placed there by personal responsibility.  Society is also a limiter on freedom, however, your personal responsibility to society is what limits it.  The Bill of Rights is there to reiterate that even the minority have basic rights though, so society is not always correct in its limitations.  It is up to one's own decisions to correct society's usurpations of your personal rights.  Those serving in Iraq swear an oath to the Constitution, not the country.  They swear an oath to remove both foreign AND domestic enemies.  If there was an illegal war, it is their responsibility to not fight and in fact remove the usurpers of the government.  The citizens themselves are there as the last line of defense if those should fail.  While many soldiers complain about being there(who in their right minds wouldn't), the majority I have seen/heard/read do believe they need to be there.  Many also report the true things that are happening there that the journalists aren't reporting.   It is pretty amazing,  during the wars previous to the Vietnam war, the press seemed to always put a positive spin on the news(yes, alot was on the verge of propaganda).  However, during the Vietnam War and afterwards, the media just seem to focus ONLY on the negative news.  Sorry, got off track.  The Iraq War is a whole other subject

2.  Who says I didn't protest all of those issues?  You realize the predominantly liberal media is inordinately biased towards those who protest for their freedom right?  It's amazing the era we live in.  The rise of the Television gave rise to the manipulation of the population through a more widespread media.  Thankfully, the Internet is fairly independent so now we are seeing a more proper balance of news as people report for themselves instead of large corporate entities.

As I stated above, all of these issues SHOULD be causing alarm in ALL Americans.  However, I also temper it with the fact that many of the people reporting these issues will just as conveniently ignore all of the same types of issues when one of their candidates is in office.

Who said I have any firearms? Properly maintained firearms are expensive

3.  I respectfully disagree.  We are a Constitutional Republic, which, IIRC is different from a Parliamentary Democracy.  The Consitution is the overriding factor in law in the first form.  The Parliament is the overriding factor in law in the second form.  Of course, that is part of the problem.  Many of the sheeple believe that we live in a Democracy.  Democracy is as much a red herring as Communism.  It is not good when the majority control the minority.  I believe the Constitutional Republic is the best government possible of course .  Back to the original topic, I believe that the government is acting unconstitutionally by imposing controls or outright bans on the ownership of those weapons that a normal infantryman would carry during wartime.  IIRC, the warrants being served were for violations because the Branch Davidians were in possession of select-fire rifles(specifically M16s) as well as other very minor modifications to legal weapons that somehow(as defined by ATF) made them felonies.  Since I believe the current 'laws' are unconstitutional, then I DO believe that the government committed a crime if THAT is what they were serving a warrant for.

I'm sure we'll eventually see some comment about me thinking people should be able to keep and use biological,nuclear, or chemical weapons, so I'll get that comment out of the way.  This is an incorrect assessment of what a normal human being would use to defend himself.  First of all, the storage of any of those weapons by normal citizenry would be inept at best.  So that person is infringing on the rights of those around him by keeping the extremely volatile substances near him.  Also, those types are weapons are weapons of mass destruction.  A sane and RESPONSIBLE citizen would not use those types of weapons within 300 yards of them.  Sorry, but inevitably, someone always brings this argument up when I say that citizens have the right to use any equipment that an infantryman would have ready access to.

As for if the Davidians were committing crimes of another sort.... we will never know.  If they were committing the crimes that were tacked on to the warrant, then yes, they should have been arrested.  Child Molestation is harming to another individual who doesn't have the proper understanding of what is happening to them.  Do I agree with what the Davidians do?  No.  Do I believe the government committed a crime?  Yes.  Can I as a single citizen do anything directly to affect it?  Realistically, no.  However, I can hopefully educate to the best of my ability those that blindly follow what is fed to them and keep working for change.  The forefathers warned that 'the tree of liberty must be watered with blood from time to time', but I would NOT want to see that in my lifetime.  I guess that's what it comes down to.  We will keep slipping deeper into the water and not feel the temperature rising until we are already boiled.

Man.   It's high up here on the soapbox

Oh and on an other note, every one of use right now at this very moment have materials to make an explosive at our houses. If you don't you definatly don't clean, cause serveral comman household cleaning products can be used to make a bomb. Not sure which tho so don't ask.

as Off topic as you are uninformed .

Who are you refering to horseman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian here you go

Jobarra wrote:

The right to bear arms is simply the natural born right of all humans to self preservation.  They put it down on paper because they saw how easily a government could fool its subjects into giving up that right.  They thought that if it was put down on paper, there is no way it could be misinterpreted.  Unfortunately, they also did not have communist and socialist ideologies back when they were writing the Constitution so they had no idea about the type of mental damage that could be caused when a government controlled the education outlets.  Fortunately, they were smart enough to figure out that even this blatant, NATURAL right, even when written down, could be usurped eventually.  That is the second reason for the right to bear arms.  Quite simply, the framers of the Constitution would include any type of weapon a single man could muster and maintain by himself.  Why?  Because a single man should be able to muster the ability to defend himself from well armed usurpers.  In effect, a man must be able to revolt if the government has usurped the powers of the Constitution.  If he can't, then the Constitution is null and void to begin with as the citizens do not have the power over the government, but vice versa.  So yes, I believe George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would probably have at least an M16a2 in their homes if not a M60.

Great post and well written, however I respectfully disagree on several of your points.

In terms of natural rights, yes...people have a right to defend themselves, but there IS a point where reason must enter the picture.  If everybody was to interpret the Constitution like you say, people could literally own any type of weapon as long as you call it a gun or have it operate on the same general principle of firing something down a barrel.  Wanna use depleted uranium shells?  Well...if people has access to them, they could.  Feel like developing a "gun" that can level a city block?  Knock it out.  Wanna use a Vulcan rotary cannon for home defense?  Sure thing.  Perhaps people were more responsible back in the 16th and 17th Century, I dunno.  But to be frank, I would be far more concerned about how responsible my neighbor with the Vulcan is than the police, SWAT, FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, or the US armed forces.

I would also like to go out on a limb here by saying that I not believe that ANY Democractic nation should have citizens with weapons that rivel or surpases its government's armed forces.   What is to stop a "movement" from ceeding a state from the union if the Army is scared to go in?  I know is sounds far fetched, but we see examples of this everyday in third world nations ravaged by civil war.  It is great to allow citizens the ability to fight against their government to enact positive change, but what about the citizens that have the ability to fight against their government for power and greed?

Jobarra wrote:

It all boils down to common sense really, and because of the education system of this country, there is no common sense left.  Because of the education system of this country, we will continue to slowly slip into socialism until it is too late.  Noone will revolt because it is too horrible an idea, and their government is 'taking care' of them.  It is saddening to see this country fall, but it is inevitable.  Humans will always figure out how to enslave humans.  While freedom isn't perfect, it is still the choice I would pick over the current government.

It is very easy to blame government control of the educational outlets for pacifying people's minds, but that is a cop out.  People would rather simply blame the government than take responsibiliy for not knowing about their government.  The proof is in the falling average number of voters, the lack of knowledge of how our government works, lack of knowledge about the candidates, how laws are made and changed, lack of knowledge of how to enact change.   How many people actually knew what an electoral college was until the Bush/Gore election?  Sadly...very few.  Hell...a frightening number of American's couldn't even draw the shape of the United States if you asked them to.  Even more so, it isn't like the information is being "hidden" from the people by the government.  There is plenty of information and educational material that can provide an INTERESTED mind on how the system works.  The problem is that we have become to complacent.  Too self centered in our own pleasure to really care.   The mentality that the government is going to take care of it is because people don't CARE until their personal "pursuit of happieness" is threatened.  Examples?  People are screaming about gas prices, the job market, and the economy.  If we were still flying high like during the Internet Bubble, people wouldn't give a rat piss about what was going on in Iraq.

Jobarra wrote:

BTW, the "they didn't have drive-bys, etc." argument is incorrect.  The framers of the Constitution DID have murders committed with firearms back in their day.  They still believed that every man should have the tools to defend himself.  This is because they understood that the tool was only used by the man to commit the act, not the committer of the act.  They tried the man for murder and punished him if found guilty.

I am sure that they did have "murders" with firearms back then.  However, riding by on a horse and firing 1 bullet from your muzzle loaded ball pistol at somebody in your town with a population of 1242, is not what I would compare to loading up a spinner-equipped hooptie with 3 of your homies and spraying a crowded city street with automatic weapons fire.  If each of those bullets have a name on it, you are talking about 1 person dead vs. 90 to 100.  Unfortunately, the stakes are a lot higher today than back then.  We are living in world where one person holds the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in their hands.  When you think about it, that is scary.

Jobarra wrote:

I just find it hilarious that someone thinks a gangbanger is going to mount a .50 caliber MG on their ghetto fabulous ride and go do a 'drive-by' with it.  Do you really think someone would actually get away with that?  They would be found and prosecuted rapidly.
"Wait, stop with the hydraulics.  It's making my shots go wide!  And turn up the system.  I can still hear the gun firing!"

You mean something like this?

http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.asp … C7&p=2



Seriously though...no, I don't think that gangbangers are going to roll that hard.  But then I think you might be downplaying the lethality of an M16 or AK which is much more realistic in terms of being able to be owned by an average citizen.

Jobarra wrote:

Edit:
And yes, the basic idea behind freedom is personal responsibility.  Unfortunately it doesn't work nowadays because today's society has moved towards blame of others for the acts that one commits.  I agree though.  You CANNOT have freedom without responsibility.  Otherwise, you have anarchy, which is worse IMHO than no government.

Well...the way I look at it is that society as a whole will always pay for the stupidity or irresponsibility of a select few.  Why else do we even HAVE laws?  In a perfect world, if everyone was responsible and treated their fellow man like they would want to be treated themselves we would not need laws or weapons at all.  The fact that we keep coming back to is, this isn't a perfect world and we must make laws and take actions that benefit society as a whole.

- Beatdown

Last edited by Beatdown Patrol (2006-01-12 23:27:37)

. " Freedom is good,  but we can't be TOO  free "   lol ..... off the thread. Stick to the Topic.

Orion5413 wrote:

just to let you know they had a .50 cal in the tower and where beating the crap out of the atf. Ma duce ownes everything for 1836 meters. Atf screwed up by not doing their home work. the fire thing well the CEV from the 91st eng Bn  at FT> Hood has never been able to fire tear gas( Iwas in the 91st at the time and watched it at lunch). It has a 165mm gun that was pointed the wrong way when the fire started.

If there was a .50 Cal in the Tower why didnt the ATF hold it up for photos after the Raid?

They love to do that.

Did it melt? lol

They were so desparate after the Ruby Ridge Raid they had a Crossman BB gun on the Trophy table becuase it was the meanest looking gun they found there.

By the Way the ATF FBI got the shit sued out of them for both raids. So we can cancle the " Was it Ilegal "
Argument. We know the answer to that.

When you kill Dogs and Puppy's that are locked in, Fenced in kenel, You are making the Statemant

" We are here to Hurt you and we are Going to. " I mean what Tatical purpose did it serve.

The ATF said " the Days of showing up and knocking politely on your door are over "

When did the Goverment grant law enforcement the power to change Laws.?

jobarra wrote:

Back to the original topic, I believe that the government is acting unconstitutionally by imposing controls or outright bans on the ownership of those weapons that a normal infantryman would carry during wartime.  IIRC, the warrants being served were for violations because the Branch Davidians were in possession of select-fire rifles(specifically M16s) as well as other very minor modifications to legal weapons that somehow(as defined by ATF) made them felonies.  Since I believe the current 'laws' are unconstitutional, then I DO believe that the government committed a crime if THAT is what they were serving a warrant for.

interesting point. problematic, though, as this seems to imply that the constitution can override any existing law ( put up by the current administration ) and that it is up to each citizen to individually decide which laws are in accordance with the constitution ( and can therefore be obeyed ) and which are not in accordance with the constitution ( and can therefore be ignored ).
You know yourself that this is no true. The only lawful authority to rule on interpretations of the constitution is the Supreme Court.

Even if you believed that a certain law was against the constitution you would have to follow due process and challenge it in front of the Supreme Court.

Opening fire on ATF agents who were executing a properly issued search/arrest warrant, killing 4 and wounding 16 is not the appropriate way to deal with the situation.

What were the FED's supposed to do after that  ? Just leave ?

Again, I am not saying the operation went smoothly. Obviously, mistakes were made. The first one was the guy who leaked the information on the upcoming raid to the news, which allowed the davidians to prepare for it.

Putting all the blame on the ATF though, is not right, IMHO.