Federal Government Caves to Right Wing Terrorists At Bundy Ranch

[Geaux4it]

Gee I remember when liberals considered protest and standing up for what you believe in patriotic.

That doesn't apply to conservatives.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's what I support.

I DO NOT support people with guns threatening Federal Agents.

And many, many of us don't support the FEDS threateing a rancher with guns.

More of us (good) than there is of them (bad)

Over 1 million hunting licenses sold in Michigan alone.

Hhmm

-Geaux

 

[Erand7899]

Gee I remember when liberals considered protest and standing up for what you believe in patriotic.

Protest and standing up for what you believe is fine.

Bringing your guns and threatening Federal Authorities?

Not so much.

The Feds are backing off because they don't want a bloodbath.

If these were Black Panthers in the inner city?

You folks couldn't wait until they all had bullets in their heads.

You are once again projecting your own desire for bloodshed onto your opponents.

 

[Seawytch]

You know...I think there is some prime pot growing land up in Northern California...I think I'll get me some guns and squat on some. It's free speech, right?

 

[Sallow]

"Right Wing dream of revolution"?

No, exercising the purpose of the Second Amendment.

It's not in the constitution, but it's written in the Founders personal and official papers.

Of course its not in the Constitution.

Because it's not the "purpose" of the Second Amendment.

What? To hunt?

Naw...it's in English.

Second Amendment
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And if that's not clear?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

You have the "right" to bear arms in the service of the country and under control of the government.

Gun nuts have corrupted original intent.

 

[chikenwing]

Right wing TERRORIST,this is what the left thinks of everyone else. Bigoted racist absolutely tolerance for people that think differently from them. Willing to label fellow Americans terrorist,and revel in their deaths

Damn disgusting!! .

 

[Geaux4it]

Of course its not in the Constitution.

Because it's not the "purpose" of the Second Amendment.

What? To hunt?

Naw...it's in English.

Second Amendment
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And if that's not clear?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

You have the "right" to bear arms in the service of the country and under control of the government.

Gun nuts have corrupted original intent.

Says the minority

If a tree falls, does........

-Geaux

 

[Sallow]

That doesn't apply to conservatives.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's what I support.

I DO NOT support people with guns threatening Federal Agents.

And many, many of us don't support the FEDS threateing a rancher with guns.

More of us (good) than there is of them (bad)

Over 1 million hunting licenses sold in Michigan alone.

Hhmm

-Geaux

Naw.

What you are supporting here is lawlessness.

The Rancher is on Federal Land allowing his cattle to graze without paying for it.

And he owes the government a million bucks.

 

[Sallow]

What? To hunt?

Naw...it's in English.



And if that's not clear?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

You have the "right" to bear arms in the service of the country and under control of the government.

Gun nuts have corrupted original intent.

Says the minority

If a tree falls, does........

-Geaux

The MAJORITY of the people in this country DO NOT own guns nor do they want to own guns.

 

[Geaux4it]

That's what I support.

I DO NOT support people with guns threatening Federal Agents.

And many, many of us don't support the FEDS threateing a rancher with guns.

More of us (good) than there is of them (bad)

Over 1 million hunting licenses sold in Michigan alone.

Hhmm

-Geaux

Naw.

What you are supporting here is lawlessness.

The Rancher is on Federal Land allowing his cattle to graze without paying for it.

And he owes the government a million bucks.

I do not support lawlessness or I would be a supporter of Illegal Immigration. If the law is the law, then it's the law

-Geaux

 

[Erand7899]

Nice spin. They didn't fend off anything. They knew they were not going to get gunned down. Otherwise they wouldn't have put their kids and wives out front.

The wives volunteered, and no kids were in front.

If anything, this was the only thing keeping the men on the front lines alive, even though the hidden Patriots in sniping locations would have mutually massacred the feds in response (who then would have been hit with air power and guided rocketry/artillery due to bullet detection systems in an open desert, which would have then caused mass unrest and secession from the Union on State and County levels and mass defection in the military ranks and dissolution of the US Armed Forces and as a result the collapse of the US dollar and the instantaneous evaporation of the welfare state.... HOLY SHIT SON)

Fucking pipe dream.

And you do realize you are defending a rich dude involved in a criminal act.

Right?

Dirty Harry Reid is rich and is involved in a criminal act, and has been using the power of the federal government to further that criminal act, and you dumbasses are supporting him.

Then, you wonder why you are considered low information voters.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Of course its not in the Constitution.

Because it's not the "purpose" of the Second Amendment.

What? To hunt?

Naw...it's in English.

Second Amendment
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And if that's not clear?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

You have the "right" to bear arms in the service of the country and under control of the government.

Gun nuts have corrupted original intent.

Actually, anti-gun nuts have been induced to misread the Second Amendment in manner akin to the reading you just ascribed to it.

The odd first clause (about the militia) does not condition the right nor does it limit the right to only military service and to government control. Indeed, the notion of "government control" over a right is kind of meaningless gibberish.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about the dangers of government and the Second Amendment actually reflects such thinking. The demand of the States to have the Bill of Rights be a PART of our Constitution (as a precondition t ratification) was not some mindless self-contradictory exercise in insisting on subservience to the very central Federal Government they mistrusted.

 

[Sallow]

And many, many of us don't support the FEDS threateing a rancher with guns.

More of us (good) than there is of them (bad)

Over 1 million hunting licenses sold in Michigan alone.

Hhmm

-Geaux

Naw.

What you are supporting here is lawlessness.

The Rancher is on Federal Land allowing his cattle to graze without paying for it.

And he owes the government a million bucks.

I do not support lawlessness or I would be a supporter of Illegal Immigration. If the law is the law, then it's the law

-Geaux

And yet here you are defending the criminal acts of Mr. Bundy and the militia men.

Go fig.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Also, IF it were true (it isn't, but "if" it "were" true) that the Federal Government had "caved in" to right wing terrorists, then what would that say about the "leadership" of President Obumbler?

 

[Sallow]

What? To hunt?

Naw...it's in English.



And if that's not clear?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

You have the "right" to bear arms in the service of the country and under control of the government.

Gun nuts have corrupted original intent.

Actually, anti-gun nuts have been induced to misread the Second Amendment in manner akin to the reading you just ascribed to it.

The odd first clause (about the militia) does not condition the right nor does it limit the right to only military service and to government control. Indeed, the notion of "government control" over a right is kind of meaningless gibberish.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about the dangers of government and the Second Amendment actually reflects such thinking. The demand of the States to have the Bill of Rights be a PART of our Constitution (as a precondition t ratification) was not some mindless self-contradictory exercise in insisting on subservience to the very central Federal Government they mistrusted.

Ah so a should be able to purchase thermal nuclear arms?

They do come in a brief case size, now.

And it's the only way to feel safe.

 

[chikenwing]

You have the "right" to bear arms in the service of the country and under control of the government.

Gun nuts have corrupted original intent.

More critical thinking on display. One could corrupt the 2nd anymore than this.

 

[Geaux4it]

Naw.

What you are supporting here is lawlessness.

The Rancher is on Federal Land allowing his cattle to graze without paying for it.

And he owes the government a million bucks.

I do not support lawlessness or I would be a supporter of Illegal Immigration. If the law is the law, then it's the law

-Geaux

And yet here you are defending the criminal acts of Mr. Bundy and the militia men.

Go fig.

No, I'm pointing our the sheer absurdness on the lefts position relative to 'law of the land'. I can play it if we enforce all laws, not just the ones that fit your political agenda.

Build the fence and go after the rancher.

The FEDS are picking and choosing and that is whats pissing off the American people

-Geaux

 

[bripat9643]

Gee I remember when liberals considered protest and standing up for what you believe in patriotic.

That doesn't apply to conservatives.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's what I support.

I DO NOT support people with guns threatening Federal Agents.

But it's OK when federal agents threaten people with guns?

 

[Sallow]

Also, IF it were true (it isn't, but "if" it "were" true) that the Federal Government had "caved in" to right wing terrorists, then what would that say about the "leadership" of President Obumbler?

He was in Nevada?

Hmm..that guy does get around.

 

[chikenwing]

Ah so a should be able to purchase thermal nuclear arms?

They do come in a brief case size, now.

And it's the only way to feel safe.

LOL when one has nothing,you get this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The whole incident is startling. I mean, if a Democrat Senator can't use the full power of the government to steal land to enrich his friends and himself, are we still a free country?