Could what happened in Waco...

[HoosierCowboy]

...be considered Terrorism?

[hack89]

1. No

just violent criminal activity between two criminal gangs. It would be like calling a typical weekend in Chicago terrorism.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. It's not real terrorism until...

...the ride to Homan Square.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Under some elements of bush era surveillance and criminal

Law, I believe the answer is yes.

The keystone pipeline protestors faced counterterrorism surveillance, for instance.

[Hangingon]

4. These guys were not protesting anything.

This was a turf meeting that went bad. They don't care what you or I think they want to destroy the opposition. Much more like Bloods and Crips -

[Politicalboi]

5. No, white guys with guns is just a mob

Any other color is terrorism.

[Eleanors38]

6. I used to call these kind Thugs®. I don't know, now.

[ManiacJoe]

8. Still the correct term.

Last edited Wed May 20, 2015, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

[spin]

14. Don't let the thought police create a new dictionary as in the novel ...

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.

Newspeak

Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".

Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts are eradicated. The goal is for everyone to be speaking this language by the year 2050 (the story is set in the year 1984 — hence the title). In the meantime, Oldspeak (current English) is still spoken among the Proles — the working-class citizens of Oceania.

***snip***

As Orwell further states (through the character of Syme, who is discussing his work on the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary), "By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."[1]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[Eleanors38]

16. Orwell? That gun-toting socialist.

[spin]

18. I recently reread "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and I did see a lot of similarities between ...

the novel and the world we live in today.

I wasn't really aware of Orwell's opinions on gun control, so I did some quick research.

That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell

I realize that today's Democratic Party favors strong if not draconian gun control. However I am an elderly gun owning Democrat who comes from a long line of gun owning Democrats who worked in the iron and steel mills in Pennsylvania.

It sometimes feels to me that the world has turned upside down. It seems more logical to me that the Republican Party "the party of the rich" would be pushing for gun control as the 1% have good reason to fear an uprising when the lower classes finally decides they have had enough.

It might surprise some but Richard Nixon was a strong supporter of gun control.

Richard Nixon Gun Control: Former President Wanted Total Ban On Handguns, Records Show
AP | By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Posted: 03/11/2013 6:38 am EDT Updated: 05/11/2013 5:12 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- Few presidents in modern times have been as interested in gun control as Richard Nixon, of all people. He proposed ridding the market of Saturday night specials, contemplated banning handguns altogether and refused to pander to gun owners by feigning interest in their weapons.

Several previously unreported Oval Office recordings and White House memos from the Nixon years show a conservative president who at times appeared willing to take on the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby then as now, even as his aides worried about the political ramifications.

"I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house," Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. "The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth." He asked why "can't we go after handguns, period?"

Nixon went on: "I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it." But "people should not have handguns." He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/richard-nixon-gun-control_n_2851660.html

So I have to admit that I agree with Orwell and in my opinion, the Second Amendment does help guarantee to a degree that we will never have a Big Brother government as Orwell portrayed in [Nineteen Eighty-Four.

[Eleanors38]

19. Yeah, Nixon was a banner, as was Reagan...

Funny, when growing up, the rare mention of gun control seemed to come from the GOPers of the day.

Though I feel there is a strong role for the federal government in securing the health, safety and welfare of ALL the people, one of the drawbacks to the "activist government" philosophy many progressives have adopted is the notion that the government (usually through its policing power) can and should prohibit this or that in the name of some conjured "health & safety." This is when a good philosophy becomes an ideology in itself, usually in contradiction to federalism.

[spin]

20. It's difficult for me to understand why the national government in Washington ...

is so much wiser than the more local state governments. If there is a problem it seems to make good sense to have as many as 50 states working on different approaches to solve the issue. That should result in some successes that other states can consider and possibly implement.

One size does not always fit all.

[tularetom]

22. Reaagan panicked in 1969 when some Black Panthers protested outside the CA state capital

carrying M1's, bolt action rifles and shotguns and pushed through a rather draconian carry law.

Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

And that's why we still have these stupid restrictive laws here in California. Thanks, Ronnie.

[Eleanors38]

23. I wonder if that guy still has his dad's Garande.

[Duckhunter935]

24. I would live to get an M1

[Eleanors38]

25. I would "live" to get one, too! Somebody here can explain why...

it is next to impossible to find and buy one of service rifles. I don't get it.

[Duckhunter935]

27. "live" oops

you would think there would be some out there. I love the few Mosins I have, and they are cheap. Even my K31 was not that expensive, but an M1, wow.

[tularetom]

29. A few years ago you could still get them through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP)

http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/

It's the pentagons method of disposing of surplus firearms.

They had M1 carbines and Garands, 1917 Enfields and 03 Springfields. I've not used them so I can't vouch for condition.

There are a few hoops you have to jump through but nothing drastic.

[Eleanors38]

30. Thanks for the tip!

[Straw Man]

32. CMP

They have M1 Garands in many different grades ranging from beat-to-hell to like-new. They are priced accordingly.

You can expect to spend from $600 to $1000 for a Garand, unless you want one of the "sniper" models, which run a lot higher. They have apparently phased out the "rack grade" rifles, which ran about $400, IIRC, but were in disastrous shape cosmetically.

M1 Carbines seem to be a thing of the past at CMP. You're at the mercy of the consumer marketplace for those. Ditto for the '03 Springfields and 1917 Enfields.

There has been some buzz lately about CMP getting the retired military 1911-pattern .45 pistols to sell. This has become a hot-button issue for gun controllers, who predictably don't want it to happen, despite the fact that all CMP purchases are subject to background checks and the laws of the state in which the purchaser resides.

[beevul]

33. "...despite the fact that all CMP purchases are subject to background checks..."

"...despite the fact that all CMP purchases are subject to background checks and the laws of the state in which the purchaser resides."

Wait, what? You mean they want more than a "few common sense regulations", and are in fact just plain anti-gun?


I'm shocked, shocked I say!

[DonP]

34. I'be bought rifles from the CMP - very good

2 Garands
1 M1 Carbine
1 '03 Springfield

All in good condition and the Garands and the '03 all shoot far better than I do at the 200 and 600 yard markers.

On the Garands you can trace some of the serial numbers to their unit of issue. One of mine went to my uncle's Marine unit in the Pacific. Every scratch and mark on the stock came from somebody dragging it across a beach somewhere and I wouldn't re=stock it for the world.

They deliver direct to your door, or in my case the office via Fedex. I order 30-06 from them too. Funny to get a call from the front desk telling me there's a big long box and 2 ammo cans I have to sign for.

"What's in the ammo cans?" Ummm, ammo.

History in your hands.

[tularetom]

28. I wish I still had mine

I qualified with the M1 Garand in 1960 or 61.

And I'm still reminded of it every time I look at my deformed thumb nail.

[Eleanors38]

7. Apparently, these gangs use extortion regularly, even against other bikers...

who choose to ride together and show colors and insignia of Any sort: You pay the Council of Clubs a monthly "tax" ro ride and show approved colors. Or face physical attack. This from NPR's "On Point" this morning. So that form of terrorism is institutionalized in the gangs. Apparently the gangs are not only international (esp. The Banditos), but are growing as they pick up ever more vets -- WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and now the Mideast Wars.

[ileus]

9. Not really....the only real victims in this were the LEOs that showed up

and had to put the scumbags down like dirty dogs.


They showed up knowing what was about to go down...

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. No: no political component whatsoever.

Terrorism has a political intent. Thus was just a bunch of thugs being thugs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Agreed except I would phrase it as "ideological" in place of "political"

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. Agreed. That's a broader, more-descriptive term.

[clffrdjk]

12. maybe, too early to tell.

[Eleanors38]

17. As in when does the Gulf Cartel become terrorist.

[Duckhunter935]

21. No

I think it was just a bunch of thugs that were more than likely criminals

[Maedhros]

26. No, and we need to stop using "terrorism" to score political points.

The incident in Waco involved two criminal gangs fighting over a disagreement. We have ample laws in place to deal with such events without throwing the "terrorism" label on it.

The term "terrorism" is so ill-defined that it can be - and has been - interpreted as "criminal activity by a cultural or political group that I personally don't like." For example, conservatives call Earth First! sabotage "terrorism" simply because they don't like Earth First!

The problem with throwing around the term "terrorism" is that designation of a crime as such allows law enforcement to essentially ignore the Constitution in many respects. I'm not in favor of that.

[virginia mountainman]

31. No..

What happened in Waco was two groups of people, for whatever reason, decided to "have it out"....