Re: Explosives, Criminality, and Preemptive Action

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 03:03 AM 3/10/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:

>My personal belief, from the news reports I've read (which may be
>incorrect, of course), is that the ingredients were for use in a bomb,
>whether or not they'd ever have gone through with it or not. The ancillary
>items found (dozens of assault rifles, weapons manuals, patriot literature,
>crank, meth, etc.), and the stockpiling of ANFO precursors, suggests an
>Oklahoma City-type scenario.

Justa sec, Tim, the second amendment says, "keep and bear _arms_", not 
merely "guns."  My dictionary defines arms as "objects used as weapons."  
Explosives can be used as weapons, both offensively and defensively.  Are 
you assuming that the possession of ANFO must be offensive?

>This is what I think was objective reality.
>Now, before certain readers go ballistic, start foaming about how TCMay and
>his Tentacles of Medusa are pawns of Bill and Hillary, not to mention spawn
>of Satan, etc., I'm not saying that what they did is criminal. Having the
>potential to build a bomb or other deadly gadget is not the same as
>actually building and using one. 

But again, it appears that you are assuming that "building a bomb" is not 
covered in the 2nd amendment.  I believe, to the contrary, that it very much 
is covered, even if this interpretation isn't very much respected.

>But should law enforcement have waited until the bomb 

"the bomb"?   Again, you're assuming a lot...  
What would you say to a person who buys 1000 pounds of AN, who claims to do 
it because he believes that some day, it might be outlawed or restricted 
severely by an even-more oppressive government?  Is there anything 
illegitimate in anticipating and preparing for the advent of tyranny?

>The argument that because farmers can use these products that the use must
>have been an innocent use is a weak one. Anyone with any common sense can
>see what they were up to. Who's kidding whom?

Again, I disagree.  I broadly interpret the 2nd amendment to  mean that I 
should be entitled to possess ANY "objects used as weapons," including 
chemical (both explosives and poisons), biological, and yes, nuclear.  

Thus, the possession of bomb-making materials cannot be interpreted as a 
by-definition-offensive position, and it isn't even clear to be that the 2nd 
amendment isn't supposed to cover weapons whose "only" use is offensive.  
Remember, the people who wrote the 2nd had just fought and won a revolution, 
and they were well aware that people needed the tools to do this if they 
were to stay free.

>Certainly the folks in Oregon will not face much prosecution, as near as I
>can figure. The weapons charges may affect their parole (some of them are
>ex-cons). The drug amounts are small. And the ANFO precursors....not clear
>to me at all that having these is a violation of the laws about explosives,
>but maybe it is.

Not in Oregon!  AN can be bought, without ID, in most places that stock
fertilizer.  

>>This whole situation is nothing more than jackbooted thugs getting a rush by
>>stomping on people.  FTJBT
>
>Overly simplistic. Don't misunderstand me: I share your anger at Waco, Ruby
>Ridge, gun confiscation, tens of thousands of laws, high taxes, etc. But I
>doubt the Oregon bust was a bunch of Waco Warriors assaulting the compound
>with tanks and helicopters.

True, it wasn't, but that was simply because those people in Oregon didn't 
choose to defend themselves.  Tiny amounts of drugs were found, all of which 
could have been planted by the cops to justify post-facto the raid.  (I'm 
not saying they WERE planted, merely that police are usually fully prepared 
for such eventualities.  Drugs are usually chosen because they are illegal 
per-se, and it's easier to sneak in an ounce of pot than 200 pounds of AN. 
 If they don't find anything suspicious, they usually come prepared to make 
their own evidence.  I know, because one of my best friends is an ex-cop who 
tells me all about this kind of stuff.)

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com