This story is why our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment: so you can protect yourself from a tyrannical government:
Ruby Ridge & Waco Tragedies: Examples of ‘Out-of-Control’ Republican Government?
“New rules of engagement were drawn up specifically for Ruby Ridge,” Beck noted. Those new rules allegedly included allowing federal agents to use deadly force against the Weavers even if they posed no immediate threat. Beck also said that “weak gun charges” were all it really took for Feds to have the excuse the needed to close in on the Weavers.
Understand, no matter what you may have heard from the propaganda arm of our government known as “the main stream media,” Ruby Ridge was government sponsored murder. It was unconstitutional all the way around: from the entrapment to the writing of laws (here called “rules of engagement”) designed to cover specific people in a specific circumstance. Yes, that is specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution, and it is forbidden. But then, all we need to do is call a law a “regulation” and voila! No more restriction on what the government can do (you know how that works: just call an act of war a kinetic military action and you no longer have to worry about the war powers act or the constitution).
So, if you are one of those who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about sports shooting and hunting: congratulations! You have been duped and are now a mind-numbed government drone. If you are one of those who does understand that the 2nd Amendment is for self-defense but you think the U.S. government would never attack its own citizens: congratulations! You have been duped and are now a mind-numbed government drone. But there’s still hope. You can shake free of the government/media/education system-induced stupor. All you have to do is take personal responsibility and educate yourself, and that starts by going back and reading what the founders actually wrote. May I suggest you start here?
[Note: I focused on Ruby Ridge because Waco is controversial, but mostly because RR is the clearest case and because it happened under the Presidency of a Republican -- the Party that is supposedly in favor of the Constitution. Hillary said it on the Greta VanSustren show last night: "It's not what you say, it's what you do that matters." Well, what did Bush Sr. do here? And where is the evidence that the Republican Party has changed since?]
I watched this on GBTV yesterday… beyond scary!
And yet you pooh-pooh the Libertarian Party……Here’s a fun article: http://mises.org/daily/6335/Cartman-Shrugged
Attorney General Eric Holder has begun the implementation of three gun control measures related to President Obama’s Jan. 16 executive orders.
And here we go folks …. the Feds (without knowing the ramifications) has decided to move forward with sorting people, and retaining their personal information.
Scary stuff.
Augger,
This isn’t directed at you: it’s said more to the ceiling, but:
“I told you so.”
Well, we have been saying it for years now.
Wait for it … wait for it …
All gun laws enacted even well before the NFA 1934 are unconstitutional, but we still let them do it. Although the NFA ’34 was actually a tax measure intended to keep former prohibition agents employed, it did have the effect of getting these guns out of the hands of law abiding American citizens…who in their right mind would pay a 200 dollar tax on a 100 dollar gun, especially during the depression or a 200 dollar tax on a fifty cent piece of tubing.
Read section II of the ATF Gun Card. I wonder if our Head Criminal in Charge, Eric Holder, is facing a term in the big house for up to 10 years for delivering guns into the hands of Alien criminals and drug runners.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf His defense is they are not “Aliens” they are undocumented drug runners.
Chhelo,
When they come to get my guns, do you think they’ll turn and leave when I insist that I am not violating the law, but alternately upholding a condition liberty?
LOL