DHS Assessment on "Rightwing Extremism"

[softwareNerd]

McVeys' act was a retaliation for the government's action at WACO. If he is at war with you, then you must, by nature support that act.

That conclusion does not follow from the premises. He puts himself at war with me by attacking me with weapons. Do not say that I was not in that building, that my close relative did not work there, or that my kid did not attend the day-care there. That would be a completely unprincipled response. In principle, McVey attacked me.

Are you also cheering for the Mexican gangs that shot a U.S. border agent?

You are basically saying that anyone can pick up weapons and go after the government, and even after "bystanders", as long as he's going after things that the government ought not be doing. Someone using that reasoning can blow up the post-office, the social-security office. Heck, he could also justify taking out the local public-school that is being funded with his money.

In essence, you're saying that it is fine for McVey to have killed you or someone you love. You speak of emotional responses! You bet it is emotional when someone wants me and my own dead. It is one thing when that person is some waco environmentalist saying that humans should die; but, someone on this forum! It is craziness that doesn't belong here.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

McVeys' act was a retaliation for the government's action at WACO. If he is at war with you, then you must, by nature support that act. That act was a denial of the right to keep and bear arms. Is that what you support?

There are a lot of issues involved regarding the Branch Davidians, and only one of those involves the right to bear arms. While I do think one has the right to bear arms, I don't think one has the right to set up an armed camp within the US jurisdiction. Remember that the government has a monopoly on the use of force in a geographical area, and that under those terms there can be legitimate terms regarding permitting armed camps or disallowing them.

I do think that Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian Gonzales were test cases on the part of the government, and that excessive force was used by the government as a show of force. None of the people involved in those incidents were taking up arms against the US government, but the government under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno acted as if they were; and they didn't want a court battle, they wanted to smack down a few people -- and did that.

Regarding militias, yes, at one time they were definitely needed because we didn't have a standing army, and the citizen militia could be called upon to defend the country if need be. And I don't think they are needed these days. Besides, I don't want a large group of armed men agitating against the Feds without knowing what they are agitating for, and I don't know of a militia that I would support, except insofar as they are an extension of self defense. Our rights are being eroded due to bad philosophy, and violently overthrowing the government is not going to do any good anyhow without a better philosophy in place, and by that time armed revolution won't even be necessary.

In other words, we do not want there to be a kind of "all Feds are fair targets" mentality to be speaking for us, and I repudiate them. The government needs to be upholding individual rights, and we have to fight for that, but the fight is primarily philosophical and moral, not military or paramilitary. It is interesting to note that Ayn Rand originally conceived of Atlas Shrugged as a civil war, but then realized that wouldn't be necessary; and if you noticed, none of the strikers took up arms against the government.

[Space Patroller]

You premises are based on a false assumption.

[/quite]

My premises are not based on any assumptions (I know too well what happens when you assume something). They are either physical facts or established by the time they got to me and are, for these purposes metaphysically given. Otherwise they would not qualify as premises.

WACO and the article in Reason Magazine a dozen years earlier blows that into very small flinders.

it was the government who had introduced violence into the equation. Isn't that and act of agression and the act of an aggressor? Once physical violence is used the normal precdures are by the boards and "The aggressor is resposible for the consequences of his actions [who said that? wasn't me ]" The introduction of lethal force should tell you what the ATF thinks of high school civics.

Now, you might say that McVey OUGHT to have used some type of appeal but when one side of an argument introduces force, especially lethal force, if you've got a brain, you know what that appeal can be used to wipe.

In Nazi Germany, shielding Jews was illegal. Do you really wanto to argue about legality? Besides once lethal force is used, all bets are off Again from Ayn Rand "the only thing you can do with a criminal is crack his skull before he cracks yours". Does that apply to tyrants?

Who was itt that said "morality ENDS [emphasis added] where a gun begins"? which is what makes the aggressor soley, totally and unquestionably responsible for all the consequences of his aggression. when that level of aggression rises to lethality, does it rise to the levelof being answered for in kind? If not then the government has the right to slaughter its citizens and rights, law, morality and reason become meaningless abstractions Who was it that said "Men have only two ways to deal with each other; logic or a gun, that is reason OR [emphasis added] force". Implicit question, Which side do you want to be on?

[wuoyr]

He should have been publicly hung from the neck until dead.

You have your wish (after a fashion) and all that attends it, as well: Today, but what of tomorrow? Are you sure that it won't come back to bite you (I guess that means our Tea party is off). A question. When you let the cat in, does she leave her tail outsice--or her claws?, put another way, Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. I would sleep with one eye open.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Zip]

WACO and the article in Reason Magazine a dozen years earlier blows that into very small flinders.

I'm sorry I was unaware the the government could not be changed through democratic vote in the USA, similarily I was unaware that the government could not be brought to court in the USA.

it was the government who had introduced violence into the equation. Isn't that and act of agression and the act of an aggressor? Once physical violence is used the normal precdures are by the boards and "The aggressor is resposible for the consequences of his actions [who said that? wasn't me ]" The introduction of lethal force should tell you what the ATF thinks of high school civics.

Now, you might say that McVey OUGHT to have used some type of appeal but when one side of an argument introduces force, especially lethal force, if you've got a brain, you know what that appeal can be used to wipe.

Was McVeigh in direct danger during any one of those incidents which you cite as justification for his butchery? No... therefore he ought to have used the same process as any other citizen who has ever been wronged by the government. We live in a society with laws that respects the rule of law and as a citizen of that society we have relinquished the right to exercise retaliatory force except in cases where our lives are immediately in danger. The USA is not, NOT a dictatorship, there is no tyrant of the USA. Your argument is a feeble conspiracy theory looking for an excuse to justify the unjustifyable

In Nazi Germany, shielding Jews was illegal. Do you really wanto to argue about legality? Besides once lethal force is used, all bets are off Again from Ayn Rand "the only thing you can do with a criminal is crack his skull before he cracks yours". Does that apply to tyrants?

If you believe you are living in a tyranny then perhaps you should seek out a freer nation that respects individual rights more than the USA.

Who was itt that said "morality ENDS [emphasis added] where a gun begins"? which is what makes the aggressor soley, totally and unquestionably responsible for all the consequences of his aggression. when that level of aggression rises to lethality, does it rise to the levelof being answered for in kind? If not then the government has the right to slaughter its citizens and rights, law, morality and reason become meaningless abstractions Who was it that said "Men have only two ways to deal with each other; logic or a gun, that is reason OR [emphasis added] force". Implicit question, Which side do you want to be on?

So you blame the government for McVeigh's acts, does that mean that when the guy who was abused by his father goes on a murderous rampage and murders 10, 20 or 50 people that's okay because he was forced into the act? Garbage!

You have your wish (after a fashion) and all that attends it, as well: Today, but what of tomorrow? Are you sure that it won't come back to bite you (I guess that means our Tea party is off). A question. When you let the cat in, does she leave her tail outsice--or her claws?, put another way, Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. I would sleep with one eye open.

This makes no sense, but I think I'll put on my tinfoil hat...

[Space Patroller]

I'm sorry I was unaware the the government could not be changed through democratic vote in the USA, similarily I was unaware that the government could not be brought to court in the USA.

in the case of Ruby Ridge. a court found against the goverment but the candyass Idaho Governor refused to prosecute the ones who did the deed. and besides would that bring back the dead?

Was McVeigh in direct danger during any one of those incidents which you cite as justification for his butchery? No... therefore he ought to have used the same process as any other citizen who has ever been wronged by the government. We live in a society with laws that respects the rule of law and as a citizen of that society we have relinquished the right to exercise retaliatory force except in cases where our lives are immediately in danger. The USA is not, NOT a dictatorship, there is no tyrant of the USA. Your argument is a feeble conspiracy theory looking for an excuse to justify the unjustifyable

When the rights of one are violated the rights of all are endangered. That's part of the raison d'etre of this thread; right? When lethal force is used, the lives of all since it makes a mockery of the first of the inaliable rights of the Declaration of Independence which is the document of the principles upon which we were founded, right?. for it establishes the principle that the government at a time of its chosing or the logic of these kinds of things runs its course may do with its citizens what its particular occupants see fit. The actions of WACO and Ruby Ridge, and others. fall under "He has sent men to harrass us". RIGHRT???!?

If you believe you are living in a tyranny then perhaps you should seek out a freer nation that respects individual rights more than the USA.

and I want to see that it STAYS the best place in the world. Right now, the things that I describe are ABBERATIONS. But does eating today mean that you will not need to eat tomorrow? Is not past prologue?

No we are not a tyranny, yet, However, the makings of a tyranny are all in place. It remains for them to be brought under the control of one agency or person. When the government messes with an element of the Bill of Rights with impunity, What do you think?

As Kerry O'Quinn, Objectivist editor of STARLOG put it in an editorial on STAR WARS and tyranny. "By the time a nation becomes a tyranny it is too late."

So you blame the government for McVeigh's acts, does that mean that when the guy who was abused by his father goes on a murderous rampage and murders 10, 20 or 50 people that's okay because he was forced into the act? Garbage!

No but if he wastes his old man I don't seee much of a problem.

WHO INTRODUCED LETHAL FORCE AT WACO (and Ruby Ridge)?????????????!!!!!!!!!!? I'm getting tired of repeating that . It goes back to the discussion that Gene Burnes introduced in c'89 and the only answer I got was that it varied with the person who was answering it. Granted, it was theoretical at that time with no real precedent but even then it was scary. And to compare the actions of an armed government, which has many persons who I think are competent to be held responsible for their actions that show thought and planning (I hope they're sane) to the actions of a single nutso father: stretch that elastic any further and it breaks and slaps you a good one upside the head.

This makes no sense, but I think I'll put on my tinfoil hat...

Who is this "McVeigh" that you keep bringing up?

Tlhis is strange because as a "Space Patroller" I'm a 30th Century G-Man. Our civilization is modelled after the United States, but it was the United States of the 1950's. I don't ever want to have to deal with a Timothy McVey situation in my time so I don't want to let the conditions for it exist. I've spent more time defending the government than attacking it but that business at WACO and Ruby Ridge was so out of bounds that it had to be answered for in kind and the responsibility for all actions placed at the cause.

It's interesting that in all the attempts to defend the status quo, which is indefensible, Nobody askde what should be done or at least what I would do. It's just been attack attack attack.

From what I understand about McVey, he saw something in Iraq in Gulf War I that pushed him over the edge. He said it was "the way the Iraqi [surrenderers] were treated'.

[Myself]

Who is this "McVeigh" that you keep bringing up?

Tlhis is strange because as a "Space Patroller" I'm a 30th Century G-Man. Our civilization is modelled after the United States, but it was the United States of the 1950's. I don't ever want to have to deal with a Timothy McVey situation in my time so I don't want to let the conditions for it exist.

You realize that these insane ramblings make no sense, right?

[Zip]

in the case of Ruby Ridge. a court found against the goverment but the candyass Idaho Governor refused to prosecute the ones who did the deed. and besides would that bring back the dead?

So then there is the SCOTUS

When the rights of one are violated the rights of all are endangered. That's part of the raison d'etre of this thread; right? When lethal force is used, the lives of all since it makes a mockery of the first of the inaliable rights of the Declaration of Independence which is the document of the principles upon which we were founded, right?. for it establishes the principle that the government at a time of its chosing or the logic of these kinds of things runs its course may do with its citizens what its particular occupants see fit. The actions of WACO and Ruby Ridge, and others. fall under "He has sent men to harrass us". RIGHRT???!?

Absolutely right if you drop the context that you live in a free country with rights and laws that are respected 99.9% of the time

and I want to see that it STAYS the best place in the world. Right now, the things that I describe are ABBERATIONS. But does eating today mean that you will not need to eat tomorrow? Is not past prologue?

No we are not a tyranny, yet, However, the makings of a tyranny are all in place. It remains for them to be brought under the control of one agency or person. When the government messes with an element of the Bill of Rights with impunity, What do you think?

Thanks for making my point for me. You admit that you do not live in a tyranny you say the USA is the freest nation in the world then the FACT is that there are options, hundreds of which that could and should have been exercised before any armed confrontation could or should have been.

No but if he wastes his old man I don't seee much of a problem.

You mean once he's older he should go back and kill his attacker? Why should he be exempt from going through the proper police channels? Your forgetting the fact that we as members of a society agree to give up on retribution in our own names

WHO INTRODUCED LETHAL FORCE AT WACO (and Ruby Ridge)?????????????!!!!!!!!!!? I'm getting tired of repeating that .

Was McVeigh there? NO.

It goes back to the discussion that Gene Burnes introduced in c'89 and the only answer I got was that it varied with the person who was answering it.Granted, it was theoretical at that time with no real precedent but even then it was scary. And to compare the actions of an armed government, which has many persons who I think are competent to be held responsible for their actions that show thought and planning (I hope they're sane) to the actions of a single nutso father: stretch that elastic any further and it breaks and slaps you a good one upside the head.

What are you talking about?

Who is this "McVeigh" that you keep bringing up?

LOL, please by all means google Timothy McVey and then google Timothy McVeigh.

Tlhis is strange because as a "Space Patroller" I'm a 30th Century G-Man. Our civilization is modelled after the United States, but it was the United States of the 1950's. I don't ever want to have to deal with a Timothy McVey situation in my time so I don't want to let the conditions for it exist. I've spent more time defending the government than attacking it but that business at WACO and Ruby Ridge was so out of bounds that it had to be answered for in kind and the responsibility for all actions placed at the cause.

It's interesting that in all the attempts to defend the status quo, which is indefensible, Nobody askde what should be done or at least what I would do. It's just been attack attack attack.

From what I understand about McVey, he saw something in Iraq in Gulf War I that pushed him over the edge. He said it was "the way the Iraqi [surrenderers] were treated'.

I'm not going to argue conspiracies with you SP. The articles I read stated that McVeigh was angry at being rejected by the Green Berets (IMO it was probably because he was unstable) and then he got involved with white supremacist piece of shit and declared war on the US and decided to attack a building full of unarmed bureaucrats and children.

[fountainhead777]

i do not think there is any way you can justify the murder of innocents in the crossfire of McVey's bombing against the Federal government. If he had only killed federal agents it would have been slightly better btu still unjust. If it had only been against those who participated in the Waco, etc attacks it still would not be just.

Violence is only appropriate in self defense. His action did nothing to defend anyone or anything. It only killed.

Why do you feel the need to justify an outrageous killing when there are many better ways to protest the infringement of rights.

[Space Patroller]

I can't go point for point here since it's gotten back to a general discussion. I do have some comments.

NOW we're getting soemwhere. with respect to flunking out of the Green Berets. If you can show that this was either the total or main cause of MeVey's action. then that means he was using WACO as an excuse. It also refutes the court's findings. I hope you can find evidence or proof for that and I'm not too choosey on how strong it is, given some of the other antics I've heard about from this guy. It would exonerate the real gun rights rebels and take away from the gun-grabbers one of their major fangs. Just because I held him innocent of a real crime (unless you consider rebellion a crime) because the ATF was soley and totally ata faut for WACO and Ruby Ridge, and is an agency of tyranny, often acting on it's own like the EPA and DOT (which was responsible for forcing the states to adopt seatbelt laws), and other tyrranist agencies, doesn't mean I liked the guy bat to quote St. Thomas Moore "I'd defend the Devil in court if I had to" and "If you don't give the Devil his due, there's Hell to pay". In fact, when you see some of that has come out of government, you do get tempted from time to time to consider the tinfoil Trolian, because if it isn't a conspiracy, it damn well oughta be.

That just gave me an idea. "ComspiracyCentral.com a fake conspiracy website. We have to come up with standards and rules for a "good" conspiracy e.g. "it must have two of the following. AIG, Aliens, the oil compaies, the FBI, cattle mutilations. remote viewing, UFO's, and a pun ending...". There are 3 categories Leftist, Rightist and Full-Bore Whackjob. What say you?

whether or not he was a White Supremicist is irrelevent here. In fact most of the "identity" politics are over and the left and the cases of rightist identity politics are a reaction to a percieved and often actual threat.

I understand him to be from that whole Oklahoma-Idaho area. There's been a rebellion going on there for decades called thr "range war".Those folks out there are very different from us. The Law has very little presence so they take care of business on their own. Well, when you live miles apart that's to be expected. We, especially libertarians and Objectivists kind of idolize these folks. In fact you would not like them at all nor would they like you. They have a totally differet culture sort of like backwater Cajuns and some Melungions. They're don't take kindly to outsiders and are really still in the nineteent century as far as mores and folkways go.

We both have data that shows McVey to have been sent over the edge. That brings up the issue of being competent to stand trial. But then we have the constant bitching and moaning about self-esteem and being "strssed out" in the modern US, which most persons in this world would consider Paradise and if my parents or your grandparents heard this they'd say "what the [bleep] are you bitchin' about? [then the litany of 'in my time...'] you're just a soft lazy good-for-nothing". If the WWII generation was "the greatest generation" mine was the "lucky generation" and the "squandering generation". The Gen-X'ers and Millenials were not well served. You have no idea of what it was like to grow up int the post-war era.

Also involved is the collateral casualties issue. Was this meant to be a massive kill or was that just the way it went down? If it was an intentional killing spree and if the guy was competent to stnad trial, then let me pull the switch on him but that has to be showm to be the case. That would be a crucial difference between him and Bill Ayers; from my understanding, Ayers' crew made it a point to avoid loss of life. Granted that 80% of the beurocrats are agents of tyranny, off withut which the world would be better anyway. Even Ayn Rand told some of the Reds she came across tha that they would or should "hang from the lampposts", but still intent to create a casualty specticle is another matter. This too depends on the nature of the enemy. William Calley got railroaded. He was fighting an enemy that used grenade babies and culturally did not value life as we do and I think he did the prudent thing. But then, he was tried by rear echelon and that's why we call them REAR echelon. They have no knowlege of what's going on and they make their decision form thousands of miles away whill sitting on their rare ends.

if you're going to bomb a building. You usually clear it out at gunpoint, which means that you have a sufficient force to do the job. This was the modus operandi of the first incarnation of the IRA. Or you do it at night. But then there's the issue of guerilla tactics used against a superior force. However modern commo networks may put a rebel into the position of catch as catch can

Wheter a citizen can be "at war" is another smoke, too. That can be a term used to cover a bunch of things. Certainly they can be in rebillion. Which Gen Sherman considered treason but I'm not sure if that's accurate. It was an attempt at secession

As to who may be in rebellion over what. Muss Rand said that "A freer nation has the right to invade a less free on [but she did not say an obligation and implicit in her statement was that it was to make it freer]". Now nations are groups, If the citizen does not have the right to chooxe his fight whether or not he is in immediate danger, that gives the group greataer rights than the individual. and as I said "a threat to one is a threat to all" Beyond that, it brings up "They came for the Poles and I did nothing. They came for the Jews and I did nothing. Now they are coming for me and there is nobody" or "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separatly"

As to wheter or not we have a tyranny. The tyran does not go on CNN and say "Hey folks, we no live in a dictatorship", they act surrputitiously and spread through areas. We certainly have the mechanism for it. All that is needed is for someone to connect the parts and turn on the machine and we are headed there.

I mentioned George Mason. From Erni Ross, a self-proclaimed Objectivist c1989 quoting Mason; Disaming the people "is the final line of tyranny". And these folks didn't make much of a distinction between the attempt and the accpmplishment. I'm not one to gainsay those who laid it on the line. I daresay that if he saw what is tolerated he'd commit suicide leaving the note "We fought and bled for your freedom and you just give it away like a thing of no value".

Edited April 18, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Zip]

This will be my last post on this...

I can't go point for point here since it's gotten back to a general discussion. I do have some comments.

NOW we're getting soemwhere. with respect to flunking out of the Green Berets. If you can show that this was either the total or main cause of MeVey's action. then that means he was using WACO as an excuse. It also refutes the court's findings.

You really don't get it do you. Of course it was an excuse. The only way for it NOT to have been an excuse would have been for Mcveigh to have actually been present at Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Just because I held him innocent of a real crime (unless you consider rebellion a crime) because the ATF was soley and totally ata faut for WACO and Ruby Ridge, and is an agency of tyranny, often acting on it's own like the EPA and DOT (which was responsible for forcing the states to adopt seatbelt laws), and other tyrranist agencies, doesn't mean I liked the guy

The fact that you hold him innocent of a crime is disturbing to say the least. This guy is a mass murderer, nothing more. He was not some romantic revolutionary he was a butcher. You're as bad as those lefties that claim Che Guevara was a hero.

We, especially libertarians and Objectivists kind of idolize these folks.

Speak for yourself.

We both have data that shows McVey to have been sent over the edge. That brings up the issue of being competent to stand trial.

McVeigh emerged at his trial as intelligent and sane. He has never expressed remorse, although he has hinted that he regrets the deaths of the 19 children.

After examining him in prison, psychiatrist Dr John Smith concluded that prisoner 12076-064 was a decent person who had allowed rage to build up inside him to the point that he had lashed out in one terrible, violent act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1321244.stm

Also involved is the collateral casualties issue. Was this meant to be a massive kill or was that just the way it went down? If it was an intentional killing spree and if the guy was competent to stnad trial, then let me pull the switch on him but that has to be showm to be the case.

When I gave this guy the legitimacy of retaliation by using the analogy of the child beaten then going on to kill 20, 30 or 50 people because of it, I was giving him more credit than he deserves. Frankly a more apt analogy is that a child hearing about another child being beaten goes out years later and murders hundreds of people because of it.

As to who may be in rebellion over what. Muss Rand said that "A freer nation has the right to invade a less free on [but she did not say an obligation and implicit in her statement was that it was to make it freer]". Now nations are groups, If the citizen does not have the right to chooxe his fight whether or not he is in immediate danger, that gives the group greataer rights than the individual. and as I said "a threat to one is a threat to all" Beyond that, it brings up "They came for the Poles and I did nothing. They came for the Jews and I did nothing. Now they are coming for me and there is nobody" or "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separatly"

As to wheter or not we have a tyranny. The tyran does not go on CNN and say "Hey folks, we no live in a dictatorship", they act surrputitiously and spread through areas. We certainly have the mechanism for it. All that is needed is for someone to connect the parts and turn on the machine and we are headed there.

I mentioned George Mason. From Erni Ross, a self-proclaimed Objectivist c1989 quoting Mason; Disaming the people "is the final line of tyranny". And these folks didn't make much of a distinction between the attempt and the accpmplishment. I'm not one to gainsay those who laid it on the line. I daresay that if he saw what is tolerated he'd commit suicide leaving the note "We fought and bled for your freedom and you just give it away like a thing of no value".

Using Rand to try to legitimize this point of yours is disingenuous to say the least. Rand did not even think that it was time for people to "shrug" in America, much less go straight to guns and blowing innocent people up in an all out war. You are doing nothing more than taking her words and the comments of others out of their context to prop up your strawman arguments.

I'm done...

Oh, could you please, please, please learn how to use a spell checking program.

Thanks.

[Space Patroller]

This will be my last post on this...

You really don't get it do you. Of course it was an excuse. The only way for it NOT to have been an excuse would have been for Mcveigh to have actually been present at Ruby Ridge or Waco.

The fact that you hold him innocent of a crime is disturbing to say the least. This guy is a mass murderer, nothing more. He was not some romantic revolutionary he was a butcher. You're as bad as those lefties that claim Che Guevara was a hero.

Speak for yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1321244.stm

When I gave this guy the legitimacy of retaliation by using the analogy of the child beaten then going on to kill 20, 30 or 50 people because of it, I was giving him more credit than he deserves. Frankly a more apt analogy is that a child hearing about another child being beaten goes out years later and murders hundreds of people because of it.

Using Rand to try to legitimize this point of yours is disingenuous to say the least. Rand did not even think that it was time for people to "shrug" in America, much less go straight to guns and blowing innocent people up in an all out war. You are doing nothing more than taking her words and the comments of others out of their context to prop up your strawman arguments.

I'm done...

Oh, could you please, please, please learn how to use a spell checking program.

Thanks.

Hey Jerko, I didn't offer my hand for you to twist my arm: GFY; and at lightspeed!!

[Zip]

Hey Jerko, I didn't offer my hand for you to twist my arm: GFY; and at lightspeed!!

Well at least you managed to spell this correctly.

You thought I was being a jerk? Well let me tell you... there was this time when I was watching Star Trek and then you know what happens when Dilithium crystals are malformed. But then you never know when the cat you are trying to skin is really a giraffe eh what?

[DavidOdden]

Ahem. Civility, gentlemen.