Quoted:


I don't think it's constitutional due to the closure of the machine gun registry. When you pass an excise tax on the trade\commerce of some item as part of the tax code, and then refuse to accept the tax, you've likely exceeded the authority outlined in the constitution by creating a de facto ban. IIRC Rock River Arms won a federal district court case on that argument and the US Attorney chose not to appeal. It was based on a full auto 1911. I'm not a lawyer or anything though. I tend to have a broader view of the scope of government authority beyond strictly what's spelled out in the constitution.

Is it a good law? Probably overall, no. But personally the investment value in the 2 machine guns that I have far outweigh any utility I might gain from actually owning\shooting new machineguns if the NFA were to magically disappear. You have to figure there are plenty of people with hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in guns that would be made nearly worthless overnight.

Quoted:
Admitted troll  

Quoted:


For all the talk in here, this crap still continues as being acceptable. The guy never said he would shoot an unarmed woman and in fact said he would not take a shot, under any circumstance, if it endangered the children.

It's one thing to be upset and against this, but it is another to spout of inaccurate information to make your point.

Quoted:
There are emotional ties...

Quoted:

Because hiring weiss was a good idea?  I'm not saying he hired him, but he didn't have a problem with it until we did.

Quoted:
You are now free to attack me if you feel necessary.

Quoted:
There are emotional ties...

Quoted:
I got to the part in bold and the rest became tl;dr despite my interest.  To compare the events at Ruby Ridge to lawful warfare and traffic accidents is significantly beyond the pale for me.  Honestly, it really pisses me off. A lot.  There's nothing else I can say without a ban.

Quoted:
Especially if they support keeping a man who said he would have shot an unarmed woman holding a baby in the face.  

Quoted:



This is my favorite line. Where does he say he would do this? I watched the video, he says very clearly, that the rules of engagement were thrown out because kids were present and at risk for being hit. That he would not take a shot if it put their lives at risk.

Did you guys actually watch the cspan video or just jump to where people told you to jump? If so, we are as bad as the liberals for taking things out of context when it suits our goals. I may not agree with him being retained on staff, but I don't see him in the same light as some of you.

Quoted:
He said he to would have taken the same shot. A shot on a person running away which required shooting at a spot and not the actual target. A shot which did not consider what was in the background. A shot which didnt need to be taken in the first place. A shot that killed a woman holding a baby. A shot where a womans older children saw their mothers face blown off.

IMHO Monroe's testimony was more about protecting the blue line than anything else. A fact that shows he has no integrity.

Quoted:


There's a difference though. Taking a shot at a suspected killer versus taking a shot at an innocent woman with a baby in her arms. That was all I was getting across. The man says clearly he would never take a shot with children in harms way. It's pulling one thing out of context and ignoring what he says later which contradicts this point everyone wants to push. I'm ok with taking info from the testimony, but take it all not just the parts which fit the argument.

Quoted:
I'll have to side with our resident tranny lovin' brony on this, as GoatBoy's statement presumes that there is no difference between Law Enforcement on US soil, and a Soldier in a war zone.

WTF M8.

Quoted:
I'll have to side with our resident tranny lovin' brony on this, as GoatBoy's statement presumes that there is no difference between Law Enforcement on US soil, and a Soldier in a war zone.

WTF M8.

The day following the shooting of Marshal Degan (whom the jury later found had been shot by Kevin Harris in self-defense) we see, from the testimony, the Associate Director of the Marshal Service, one Duke Smith, and the leader of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, one Richard Rogers, being flown from Washington to Ruby Ridge where they would soon take on this "crazy skinhead," Randy Weaver, and his equally "crazy skinhead family." According to the testimony, the two men, their own neatly groomed heads together, are agreeing on a new shot-on-sight rule of engagement. A rule of engagement is a euphemism for the authority under which officers are authorized to kill citizens. Under common law, as under the laws of all fifty states, one can intentionally kill another only in self-defense, and then only if one reasonably believes that he or a third person is in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm. This, too, was the essence of the FBI's traditional rule of engagement as set out in its regulations in plain, easy English, a rule by which the FBI and its Hostage Rescue Team were fully bound.

But now we see Rogers changed that rule. As they flew over the broad, flag plains toward the mountains of Idaho where ruby Ridge lay green as rubies are red, the law of the land was changed into a simple order to kill. Instead, it now read that snipers, bearing their heavy target rifles with their ten-power scopes that can put a bullet into a pea at two hundred yards, could and should kill any adult at the Weaver homestead who was armed, whether that person is threatening with a gun or not. This, when Randy or Kevin, yes, when even Vicki, innocently walked to the outhouse carrying their rifles, they were dead. Thus, when they ran out to see who had just driven up, as was their well-known habit, and they carried their rifles, which was also their well-known habit, they were dead. The officers who decreed into life this new death-dealing rule of engagement must have known from the hundreds of hours of surveillance films the marshals had previously collected that whenever the Weavers left the house they were always armed. The result of the new rule was that all the adults at the Weavers would now be shot, thus eliminating the troublesome Weaver problem once and for all, and in effect executing the well-known unwritten penalty imposed by cops against any who kill a cop.

Contemplate the enormity of the power of these two men from separate federal agencies as they changed the law of the land and, according to Eugene Glenn, On site Commander at Ruby Ridge, and Richard Rogers with the full knowledge and consent of the Assistant Director of the FBI, Larry Potts, in Washington headquarters. They were changing the law by decree, by a bald, secret order, in barely legible handwriting on a small piece of paper, an order that provides that the FBI snipers can and should kill any armed male at the so-called "Weaver compound." From the evidence, as we gathered it from our cross-examination, we watched Rogers change the law in the same way that any tyrant rules, by overt edict, one that emerges on the crest of a whim, without the consent, yes, without even the knowledge of the people. Rogers, with the power to command those who are trained to kill and who are willing to kill and who have at their disposal countless instruments of death, thus deployed such men and such instruments under these new death-warrant rules of engagement.

...

We were told that before the killing of Vicki Weaver, the new rule of engagement had been amended to read that the officers could and should shoot any armed male, as distinguished from the original language, any armed adult, who presented himself or herself at the Weaver compound. but the claim that there was such an amendment made before Vicki was shot is in my opinion suspect, for not only was the original order to shoot any armed adult -- which , of course, included Vicki -- but it was Vicki who, indeed was thus killed. For it was Vicki who, from the beginning, had been case by the marshals in the role of the leader, the brains, the heart and soul of the Weaver clan, it having been the marshal's conclusion that none of the Weavers would ever surrender so long as Vicki was alive.

After the shooting and after it became clear that the sniper, Lon Horiuchi, lead man on the FBI Hostage Rescue team, had killed an unarmed mother holding her baby, and considering the fact that no one held a warrant for Vicki's arrest (as the FBI had by then admitted to themselves), it seems more than likely that the new rule of engagement was amended, after the murder of Vicki Weaver, to provide for the killing of only armed males. Without such an amendment, how else could the officers convincingly contend that Vicki Weaver's death had been just a tragic mistake?

...

Nevertheless, unbeknown to the Weavers and under the cover of darkness, the FBI spread its Hostage Rescue Team across the way in positions that were unobservable to the Weavers -- six skilled sniper sharpshooters with their sniper guns resting readied for the kill along with six observers. The FBI had made no demand that the Weavers surrender before the officers were to fire. Nor had anyone even hinted to the Weavers that six sniper teams waited with their eyes pushed up against their scopes, ready to kill any armed male who walked out the front door.

...

"I'm hit," Randy hollered, and when Sara saw that her father was alive but stunned, she'd jumped in behind him and began pushing him out ahead of her. They had run, the three of them, Kevin in the rear, toward the house. They had run with their backs to the snipers. And, under my cross-examination, Horiuchi admitted that he was trying to kill the running Harris, for was not Horiuchi a sniper trained to kill, committed to kill in accordance with the new rule of engagement? And Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, weren't they armed? More than that, Horiuchi admitted he believed it was Harris, not Weaver, whom he had shot in the first place, although Weaver stands about five feet seven and Harris stands well over six feet tall. And at the door, of course, stood Vicki, armed only with her ten-month-old child, Elisheba at her breast.

"I'm hit, Momma," Randy had cried to Vicki as he ran toward the door that Vicki had been holding open for them. "I'm hit."

"Get in here!" Vicki shouted, and those were her last words. We know the rest. Horiuchi's bullet smashed into her head and blew off the side of her face. And after she fell Randy pried the baby from her hands, and Randy and Sara dragged the body of their slain wife and mother over to the side of the kitchen where she lay, her blood flooding the kitchen floor. Sara spread a blanked over her dead mother. And after that, the body lay there for many days in the hot August air, rotting before the sight of the children, before the small child Rachel, the crying baby, and the Sara huddled with her father, waiting to be killed. And in the other room, Kevin Harris lay slowly dying of his chest wounds from the same bullet that had killed Vicki, and sometimes he begged Randy to kill him, to take his gun and to shoot him in the head to stop the unbearable agony.

In the meantime, the FBI sent agents who crawled under the house and stuck listening devices under the floor. And although Randy many times screamed out to the officers that they had killed his wife, the officers pretended they did not know she was dead, and they mercilessly taunted the family. "Did you sleep well last night, Vicki?" and "Show us the baby, Vicki? We had pancakes," and on it went. And the officers placed a robot on the front porch that was equipped with a sawed-off shotgun, and the FBI approached the Weaver house only in an armored personnel carrier, a tank of sorts, and the FBI brought up its negotiator who spoke to the Weavers over a bull horn. The FBI kept spotlights on the small house all night, and played loud music so the people inside could not sleep, and the FBI tried to drive the people, if not out of the house, then out of their minds.

And, of course, we remember that Lon Horiuchi, who had taken the stand, had testified that, indeed, he had intended to kill Kevin Harris, who was running for his life, his back to the sniper. Yet the prosecution claimed that the sniper, who admittedly could see and hit a fly at two hundred yards with his ten-power scope, could not see the head of Vicki Weaver through the glass window of the open door. Instead, the prosecution attempted to make the jury believe that the curtains were closed. But from my own discussion with Randy that fact seemed in question, especially after the government failed to produce a crucial Horiuchi drawing of what the sniper had seen when fired.

From the drawing made by Horiuchi during an interview with the FBI at a hotel, on hotel stationery, he draws in no closed curtains at all. In the lower right-hand corner of the window we see two partial heads

http://www.ruby-ridge.com/horiuchi.gif

as if people were squatting there. Indeed, Randy and Sara had dived into the house just ahead of Kevin Harris. And it was Harris, not Weaver, who presumably had killed a federal officer, and who Horiuchi himself was admittedly trying to kill, whether or not he was carrying out the unwritten law that seemed to doom the cop-killer. Be that as it may, the method of hitting a running target is for the shooter to place the "mildot" seen in the scope on the target -- harris in this case -- which places the crosshairs ahead of the target, thus leading the target, so the bullet and the target will arrive simultaneously. Shortly after the killing this is exactly as Horiuchi himself drew it for the FBI interrogator.

Horiuchi's drawing shows us that he must have known that human beings were behind the flimsy door. He had to know that someone, presumably Vicki or ten-year-old Rachel, was likely standing behind the door to hold it open. Moreover, the drawing proves he knew exactly where it did strike -- at the cross, as he shows it in the drawing. Vicki Weaver's head was behind the cross, that apocalyptic symbol, which served also as the point of aim for the killer.

When Howen confessed to the judge that the FBI had withheld this pivotal piece of evidence, Horiuchi's drawing, His Honor, Edward Lodge, was irate. A legal as well as a moral obligation demands that the government produce all of its exculpatory evidence in its possession, that is, all evidence that is favorable to the defendant. From the outset we had told the jury that the evidence would establish that Mrs. Weaver was intentionally shot by the federal agent. The Horiuchi exhibit, withheld from us by the FBI, supported the conclusion that, at a minimum, the sniper knew human beings were behind the door into which he was shooting, presumably Vicki. But perhaps the drawing, along with the killing of Vicki Weaver, implied more -- that Horiuchi could see where his bullet would strike, that with his high-powered scope he could plainly make out the most minute details of Vicki Weaver's head and frightened face.

What does a judge do with an omnipotent FBI that will violate the law as well as the rights of innocent citizens by withholding evidence that is crucial to freedom?

Quoted:

.  Of the FBI Agents assigned to the Ruby Ridge tragedy, Dale has been one of the most outspoken. He has delivered dozens of presentations to more than 1000 civilians titled “Mistakes and Lessons of Ruby Ridge”.  


Thank you.  -Steve Troy

I weighed carefully the decision whether or not to retain Dale and could find no ethical or moral reason to remove him.

Quoted:

.  Of the FBI Agents assigned to the Ruby Ridge tragedy, Dale has been one of the most outspoken. He has delivered dozens of presentations to more than 1000 civilians titled “Mistakes and Lessons of Ruby Ridge”.  


Thank you.  -Steve Troy

I weighed carefully the decision whether or not to retain Dale and could find no ethical or moral reason to remove him.

Quoted:

According to Troy, he wasn't even involved in the hiring process at TA.

Since it's impossible for us to verify that, we can either take it or leave it.  He made it right in the end.  That should count for something.

Quoted:


Right o, didn't see it.

Quoted:

.  Of the FBI Agents assigned to the Ruby Ridge tragedy, Dale has been one of the most outspoken. He has delivered dozens of presentations to more than 1000 civilians titled “Mistakes and Lessons of Ruby Ridge”.  


Thank you.  -Steve Troy

Quoted:
Guys, I'm going to be honest here, and make a suggestion.

In light of the BS that Troy stands for now, there is something that can be done where the effects will be felt at Troy financially, even more than simply so many of us not buying new products, and that is, to flood the market with all of our used Troy products.

If the market is flooded with Troy products, then the market for new stuff will be be greatly diminished. Each used sale creates a loss of new sale. Troy doesn't make a dime on the product since it's used, but, they will be liable for warranty repairs in many cases.

If you have friends that are building something new, and want good quality but can't spend the cash, sell them your used Troy goods at a discount.

Get a hand written receipt from your buddy that just shows you sold one of their products, with your name, and the reason you sold it, and put it in an envelope and mail it in to Troy.

Then, whatever you were going to buy new that Troy would have been an option for, buy something from a competitor, and send a copy of the receipt , with you name, and why you didn't buy Troy.

Quoted:
I'm not going to read all the way through this but let me see if I have it straight. Troy hired a former FBI guy that participated in Ruby Ridge, internet freaks out, Troy fires him, internet remains freaked out. Is this accurate?

Quoted:



No.

Troy has hired 2, fired 1 - the one left was responsible for willingly shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby.

Quoted:
I'm not going to read all the way through this but let me see if I have it straight. Troy hired a former FBI guy that participated in Ruby Ridge, internet freaks out, Troy fires him, internet remains freaked out. Is this accurate?