It was for the first guy who made that claim.
FEMA Concentration Detention Camps
- Thread starter clcooper
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well first you are defending him which means to me you condone his actions which put all of them in danger and second there were a few things going on, one was the state of texas was investigating the rape of children and the ATF was investigating issues with guns being sold improperly.
I think that you both need to really think about what you are saying here because he was guilty of a lot of things, just because he wasn't convicted means little.
The ATF had the right to inspect the location where he conducted business because being the place where this all took place was listed as the place where they conducted business as a federally licensed gun dealer. The licensing process and the agreement is not an infringement of anyone's right to posses a firearm nor is it an a limiting factor to the citizentry at large to access firearms, which limits any argument you two can have. The constitution does not include business transactions in the second amendment and even to the point where I can make my own firearm within reason without justifying or licensing my activity. In addition, private sales (meaning NOT COMMERCIAL transactions) are also no infringed upon by any licensing of any dealer - including me selling my firearm to anyone I want - except a felon. The belief that this is a gun dealer's license is infringement is as ludicrous as much as claiming that he was innocent of crimes that were being investigated - some of which is very serious.
When people bring up the idea of innocent until proven guilty, it seems they want to say it wasn't his fault for breaking the law, an argument that is used by civil rights lawyers when their client kills a family or two (like the twinkie defense). The concept you guys keep stating is not about someone's innocents, because the officer under our laws the law can assume a person is guilty UNTIL they are charged with a crime and brought before a judge. UNTIL that time, investigators can assume guilt in order to find information to support the case for the state or to remove any issue of guilt.
Just trying to justify the idea that he wasn't afforded due process under the law is another ridiculous statement because as I said he had options. He could have fully cooperated with the ATF/state of Texas, he could have followed the laws he agree to in the first place or he could have just surrendered after the fact that he and his followers killed federal law enforcement officers. BUT instead he held kids and others hostage, threaten to take it to the limit with their deaths so he was in control of the situation and is to blame for the results, NO ONE ELSE!
NOT at all. Claiming to be Jesus and abusing children should be.
Greg, I reread what I said, I see nowhere where I defended his ALLEGED actions.
IF you recognize the Feds authority over U.S. citizens Constitutional right to own and carry guns, I don't, then they could question him and/or arrest him on those federal charges.
The other charges, were State charges. The Feds have no legal standing.
No due process, no speedy trial, no right to face your accuser.
He may well have been the evil being that Clinton claimed he was but we will never know. He was denied that most basic right of a trial in front of a jury of your peers. I think Clinton went after him because he was better at being a pig that he was.
IF you recognize the Feds authority over U.S. citizens Constitutional right to own and carry guns, I don't, then they could question him and/or arrest him on those federal charges.
The other charges, were State charges. The Feds have no legal standing.
No due process, no speedy trial, no right to face your accuser.
He may well have been the evil being that Clinton claimed he was but we will never know. He was denied that most basic right of a trial in front of a jury of your peers. I think Clinton went after him because he was better at being a pig that he was.
Greg, I reread what I said, I see nowhere where I defended his ALLEGED actions.
IF you recognize the Feds authority over U.S. citizens Constitutional right to own and carry guns, I don't, then they could question him and/or arrest him on those federal charges.
The other charges, were State charges. The Feds have no legal standing.
No due process, no speedy trial, no right to face your accuser.
He may well have been the evil being that Clinton claimed he was but we will never know. He was denied that most basic right of a trial in front of a jury of your peers. I think Clinton went after him because he was better at being a pig that he was.
IF you recognize the Feds authority over U.S. citizens Constitutional right to own and carry guns, I don't, then they could question him and/or arrest him on those federal charges.
The other charges, were State charges. The Feds have no legal standing.
No due process, no speedy trial, no right to face your accuser.
He may well have been the evil being that Clinton claimed he was but we will never know. He was denied that most basic right of a trial in front of a jury of your peers. I think Clinton went after him because he was better at being a pig that he was.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
When you are claiming he is innocent until proven guilty, it makes you look like you are justifying his actions. The court of public opinion is not a place where innocents or guilt is judged according to our laws but according to society. Raping children is not a good thing and regardless what rights he has, we as a society have the right to voice our opinion.
Well first it isn't a case where the feds have authority over a citizen nor is it any where near the case of the right to own and/or carry a firearm. BUT it is a case where a federally licensed GUN DEALER was being investigated for a number of reasons and under the agreement that a GUN DEALER signs, is the lack of any freedom not to be search or have records seized and/or property that is part of the GUN DEALER'S business. THIS is an agreement, Koresh like the other thousands of dealers knew exactly what this meant and he decided NOT TO follow the laws of the United States. NO constitutional issues, no plain old joe-bob citizen being harrassed because of his Winchester '94 in the back window of his pickup as he goes from Georgia to Alabama.
OH AND on top of that, he wasn't charged so nothing with due process or anything about innocents is even remotely considered.
Well not exactly, there was a question of him transporting minors over state lines - a federal issue.
AND WHY?
Because this was an INVESTIGATION, no one charged YET.
Well learn the difference between an investigation, a criminal charge, due process and how the courts work.
By the way, I believe Oprah is more evil than Clinton.
Raping children is a bad thing and I would have no problem shooting him if he was convicted in a court of law. They were only alleged charges and not a federal crime. It should not be one either.
I don't believe that the feds have any authority to license gun dealers. It is none of their business.
Oprah was/is disgusting to be sure, be no real power. Like the ability to send in tanks and kill as Clinton did.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well I didn't see him charged with a crime but an investigation so he seeing he wasn't charged, he can be considered guilty for the purpose of investigating the crimes. Regardless, he was in control not you or I or the federal government and I am not defending their disgusting show of force but rather illustrate the lunacy with some positions being taken that leaves out important facts like the fact that he agreed to inspections at any time of the day for any reason by the ATF under the laws we presently have.
So again, you are all for having felons being able to buy firearms and you are all for freedom to commit crime, right?
It seems that when someone engages in commercial activities, it moves them into a different level. Being a GUN DEALER is not the same as being a citizen because a dealer can be a corporation or a partnership or anything like that. Individuals are not infringed upon because access is not an issue, the issue is keeping commercial activities within a realisitic boundaries of the law - hence people who are felons can't use gun dealers to purchase firearms.
By the way, if you want to know, if it wasn't for dealers and there records, a number of crimes against innocent people would go unsolved.
NO real power?
I think IF she went into politics, she would have a huge following, may be even bigger than Obama. She could easily replace Hillary and be so effective that she would solve all the middle east problems within months.
She has power, she is evil and she is greedy.
Nope, if I had my way felons would never have the chance to get their hands on guns. They would be spending far more time in prison than they are now. I would also be cutting back on crimes. We keep inventing crimes, it s rampant on the Federal Level. Many criminals are little more that political prisoners.
Besides, it is NOT the federal governments job to police what should be a State issue. Most felons are convicted of State crimes.
The feds need to slither back into the sewer that is DC and stay there.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well punishment isn't an issue, prevention is. Having legal access to firearms is an issue, not having a gun dealer being licensed by the feds. If you want to have a world where society is open to the point that criminals are treated like citizens, then we can pitch the constitution out the window and start over. But until that time, we as citizens are the ones who need these controls, not because one segment of the population wants to control the other but because we are a diverse group with different views on how we need to protect ourselves and how we deal with crime.
Inventing crimes?
Like say the DNR of Michigan bringing criminal charges against someone who OWNS a piece of land that they deem wetlands and fill it in to use it?
To me that is the most egregious form of abuse, a state taking the right of ownership of property away from someone based nothing more than the need to preserve something that man has no control over anyway.
When you speak of constitutional issues, the foundation for most if not all of our rights is property ownership, not environmental preservation so the crime that is invented is abusing the right of the individual to do what they want with a piece of land.
But the point when Koresh name was brought up was to show that the feds, even doing their obligation as we asked them to do was not the right thing to do. Justification for an invasion of privacy and rights seem to be made while at the same time ignoring the fact that Koresh and others were federally licensed Gun Dealers engaging in commercial business. They were not hunters nor were they Joe-bob with the Winchester '94 in the back window.
NO you and others need to get moving and take the time to talk to people to change their minds in voting for people who make it a life long career. You as I are at fault which you acknowledge this fact and it is you and I who can make a difference. Until that time, when we can forget about what a congressmen or senator does for the individual, but how they governor on key issues, it won't change.
I do not support the government, at any level, taking away personal property, including wages. What I earn is just as much my property as my house.
I vote as I see fit. I always speak my mind and try to speak to others about this. Just as in here, it does not work.
I make all the difference I can. I cannot force, nor should I, people to change how they vote. I can only speak my mind. I seem to do that a lot in here.
By the way, I think you will find, for the most part, that what the DNR, or what ever it is called these days, are responding to federal law.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Not an excuse, the DNR is part of the problem when it prevents people from freely using their property. Excuses can be made any which way people want, the feds make them do it or its for the children but the fact remains that if one wants to support the constitution and the freedoms we have, the foundation of that freedom when sitting with private property must be supports in the same manner as everything else - no exceptions.
And when that I said that I supported this? What about my private property? That is taken from me on a regular basis. I have NO option. They steal my wages. If I resist I will be jailed.
I did not excuse anything, just pointed out the laws involved. Write your congressman if you don't like it. I had nothing to do with it.
I write mine all the time. He ignores and steals more from me.
And when that I said that I supported this? What about my private property? That is taken from me on a regular basis. I have NO option. They steal my wages. If I resist I will be jailed.
I did not excuse anything, just pointed out the laws involved. Write your congressman if you don't like it. I had nothing to do with it.
I write mine all the time. He ignores and steals more from me.
EASYTRADER
Expert Expediter
Why does the phrase "Usefull Idiot" come to mind.