Bundy Terrorists

[Yurt]

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

Yurt cannot argue the points, thus he whines and tattles.

not according to scotus. as you are so fond to say, you don't get to make that decision. scotus does and they said they do not have to be under the control of the government. your opinion is irrelevant, scotus has ruled and you are wrong.

i even cited the case for you and you claim i can't argue points? are you senile?

You don't get to make the decision as to what SCOTUS says.

The militia cannot lawfully oppose LEO or military forces.

Your cite and interpretation are wrong by your own post.

Yep, you can't argue. We know your buddy used to cite material that blow up his arguments. You do the same.

nope, you said unless they were under government control, they were bandits. i said you are wrong, scotus said you are wrong.

your opinion is irrelevant and quite senile. you're don't get to move the goal posts. further, NON of them were arrested. all law enforcement said they did nothing illegal. but mr. armchair warrior fakey the "republican" says scotus is wrong and law enforcement is wrong. yet, fakey constantly says people who disagree with scotus are wrong.

LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

"A list of intelligence" of enemies of the state. Lefties joked about "ranch-Dividian" What's next for the left, burning people alive?

False equivalency.

 

[JakeStarkey]

nope, you said unless they were under government control, they were bandits. i said you are wrong, scotus said you are wrong.

your opinion is irrelevant and quite senile. you're don't get to move the goal posts. further, NON of them were arrested. all law enforcement said they did not illegal. but mr. armchair warrior fakey the "republican" says scotus is wrong and law enforcement is wrong. yet, fakey constantly says people who disagree with scotus are wrong.

LOL

They were banditti when operating against government forces.

You can't argue the point, so you slur. You are halfway decent at that.

 

[PredFan]

Nothing like that at all, predfan.

The militia bandits were contempt of the law.

EXACTLY like it. You don't think that those terrorists were in contempt of British law, or German law, or South African law? Get a grip.

 

[Yurt]

But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Show us how to apply that to the banditti at Bunkerville.

show me they are bandits. you made the claim, it is not up to me to back up your claim.

i've been citing my claims and backing them up. can you back up your claim?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing like that at all, predfan.

The militia bandits were contempt of the law.

EXACTLY like it. You don't think that those terrorists were in contempt if British law, or German law, or South African law? Get a grip.

Only in your mind, PredFan. The unorganized militia at Bunkerville were operating against the lawful forces of American government.

 

[Yurt]

Come on, Yurt, at least try to make a sensible argument.

and jake's meltdown commences......

 

[Yurt]

Nothing like that at all, predfan.

The militia bandits were contempt of the law.

EXACTLY like it. You don't think that those terrorists were in contempt if British law, or German law, or South African law? Get a grip.

Only in your mind, PredFan. The unorganized militia at Bunkerville were operating against the lawful forces of American government.

yet all law enforcement said they did nothing illegal.....

 

[Yurt]

Yurt, your post above is why folks laugh at you.

The militia were not under the control of the government, thus they were bandits.

Yet you are defending the use of women and children as shields.

Yes, they state can rescind parental rights for criminal action.

people laugh at me because i show your ignorance? sure starkey, sure....

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is why starkey refused to debate in when i called him out. virtually everytime he does, he loses. he simply doesn't know what he is talking about and is frequently wrong on the facts.

hence why most of his posts are solely ad homs. and lies. because i don't defend the use of them as shields and said so when this first came out. but to expect honesty from starkey.....welll....i won't hold my breath

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

Yurt cannot argue the points, thus he whines and tattles.

don't forget, this was your original claim which you have now moved the goal posts because you know you are wrong but can't admit it

poor loser

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, Yurt, at least try to make a sensible argument.

and jake's meltdown commences......

Your arguments have been defeated.

The militia were operating as banditti against the lawful forces of the government.

How long have you been a member of the far right reactionary militia?

 

[JakeStarkey]

don't forget, this was your original claim which you have now moved the goal posts because you know you are wrong but can't admit it poor loser

You moved the goal posts. The militia were operating as banditti.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From Heller.

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Yet Yurt cannot show that the militia at Bunkerville were acting lawfully.

 

[Yurt]

From Heller.

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Yet Yurt cannot show that the militia at Bunkerville were acting lawfully.

they were a citizens militia. they don't need to be under government control. the decision clearly states there are militia's under government control and militia's who are not. thus, your statement that they are bandits because they are not under government control is wrong. scotus says you are wrong, your opinion contrary is irrelevant.

all law enforcement said they acted lawfully.

you can't cite a single thing that shows they were unlawful because they weren't under government control.

 

[Yurt]

don't forget, this was your original claim which you have now moved the goal posts because you know you are wrong but can't admit it poor loser

You moved the goal posts. The militia were operating as banditti.

by showing you scotus said you are wrong that just because they weren't under government control that they are bandits...is moving the goal posts?



you're insane, literally.

your original statement:

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

 

[whitehall]

Funny how the radical left drifted into fascism apparently without realizing it. A couple of decades ago the left was concerned and sometimes outraged about government surveillance, intrusion and abuse and now they defend it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From Heller.

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Yet Yurt cannot show that the militia at Bunkerville were acting lawfully.

they were a citizens militia. they don't need to be under government control. the decision clearly states there are militia's under government control and militia's who are not. thus, your statement that they are bandits because they are not under government control is wrong. scotus says you are wrong, your opinion contrary is irrelevant. all law enforcement said they acted lawfully. you can't cite a single thing that shows they were unlawful because they weren't under government control.

(1) The militia does not need to be under government control when it is opposing LEO or armed forces? Really?

(2) link for the bolded above please

 

[JakeStarkey]

by showing you scotus said you are wrong that just because they weren't under government control that they are bandits...is moving the goal posts?



you're insane, literally.

your original statement:

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

Your own SCOTUS quote destroys your argument, Yurt.

Yes, the militia were operating outside of government control against the government.

That's criminal activity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Funny how the radical left drifted into fascism apparently without realizing it. A couple of decades ago the left was concerned and sometimes outraged about government surveillance, intrusion and abuse and now they defend it.

Enforcing the law is not intrusion. And when the militia abusively acted as outlaws, surveillance is certainly an acceptable and desired government action.

 

[Yurt]

by showing you scotus said you are wrong that just because they weren't under government control that they are bandits...is moving the goal posts?



you're insane, literally.

your original statement:

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

Your own SCOTUS quote destroys your argument, Yurt.

Yes, the militia were operating outside of government control against the government.

That's criminal activity.

1. law enforcement does not agree with you. no one was arrested or even charged.

2. you're now moving the goal posts again, you said BECAUSE they were not under the control of the government, and THUS that makes them bandits. scotus said you are wrong and that you can have legal militias that not under the control of the government. why are you still lying about that?

 

[Yurt]

From Heller.

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Yet Yurt cannot show that the militia at Bunkerville were acting lawfully.

they were a citizens militia. they don't need to be under government control. the decision clearly states there are militia's under government control and militia's who are not. thus, your statement that they are bandits because they are not under government control is wrong. scotus says you are wrong, your opinion contrary is irrelevant. all law enforcement said they acted lawfully. you can't cite a single thing that shows they were unlawful because they weren't under government control.

(1) The militia does not need to be under government control when it is opposing LEO or armed forces? Really?

(2) link for the bolded above please

1. if it is opposing LEO or armed forced, how the fuck are they going to be under government control? you obviously didn't understand heller at all. the very reason militia's can operate legally without government control is because of our right to fight against tyranny.

2. you don't get a link until you start linking when i ask for one. i've asked you dozens of times and you never, not once, gave a link. further, i know you were in threads when the sheriff said he could not arrest them because they were doing nothing unlawful. further, no one was arrested. further, no one was charged. further, law enforcement does not agree with you and neither does scotus. your opinion is irrelevant and you don't get to interpret the constitution according to your previous words that only scotus gets to.