Federal Government Caves to Right Wing Terrorists At Bundy Ranch

[bripat9643]

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 defend new Black Panther party hoodlums who threatened to
slaughter white babies over decent American citizens? Typical.

They slaughtered babies, when, exactly?

Waco, Ruby Ridge.

By the way..I find it hilarious you mention the Black Panthers since it was Ronald Reagan that took away their second amendment "rights".

Mulford Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was hunky dory..right?

The Black Panthers kill people.

 

[Geaux4it]

Naw...it's in English.



And if that's not clear?



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.

Of course not. The infringement is allowed to stand by the people. We're not forced to do anything.

We allow it

-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.

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

They did that, when, exactly?

And yeah..if they are going after a lawbreaker? They get to use guns if the lawbreaker resists and threatens them with deadly force.

I am sure you are horrified by this.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Naw...it's in English.



And if that's not clear?



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.

Why trot out that long rejected, refuted and baseless silly sophistry?

It might be a bit more interesting if you'd stick to the topic.

I'd say this much. IF we assume (for the sake of the discussion only) that the Federal Governments BLM Agents had some justification to enforce laws, rules, regulations and even some court decisions against the rancher, was the proper way to go about it the way the Federal Government's agents did things?

Snipers? Really?

Confronted with such a massive display of force and behavior, what is it the rancher is "required" to do? Passively submit to outrageous government force and threats of violence?

I don't actually get behind the behavior of the ranchers nor even of those who came to his aid. On the other hand, I don't support the behavior and tactics of the federal agents in this case, either.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Of course not. The infringement is allowed to stand by the people. We're not forced to do anything.

We allow it

-Geaux

Keep shooting kids in the face and we'll see how long that lasts.

 

[Erand7899]

It is not a coincidence that the people who are defending the tax evader and law breaker in the case are the same people who find Putin so strong and inspiring. This guy IS NOT A PATRIOT! He is a criminal that is stealing tax money. Our tax dollars make up for the million plus dollars that this rich rancher owes.

This confrontation has absolutely nothing to do with grazing fees owed to the federal government. That is just the excuse the BLM is using to close down the Bundy ranch, and further another rip off of the taxpayers for the benefit of Dirty Harry Reid and family.

The turtles and cows have been co-existing on the land for a couple of hundred years and would for another couple of hundred years. Yet, BLM decided to limit the grazing rights of ranchers to an unsustainable level, and force those ranchers out of business, all on the pretense of defending those turtles. A business they have engaged in for well over 150 years. Is that what we pay the BLM to do?

It is not just a coincidence that Dirty Harry Reid and his son have been working with a Chinese company to steal thousands of acres of public lands for another solar panel rip-off. Nor is it just a coincidence that the grazing land in question is part of the environmental mitigation scam associated with that rip-off of public lands. Sacrifice the ranchers so that Dirty Harry can get richer.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Of course not. The infringement is allowed to stand by the people. We're not forced to do anything.

We allow it

-Geaux

Keep shooting kids in the face and we'll see how long that lasts.

Meh? Doubt it, you can still hold out for 'Hope & Change'

-Geaux

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Yes, the enshrinement of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE in the SECOND Amendment to their Constitution clearly "means" that such "right" is CONDITIONED upon it being in "service" of the country AND that such "right" be "under control of the government."

Because, evidently, no right is a right unless the government can control it.



Damn, chickenshit, you are pathetically clueless. Sallow might be able to form some kind of argument along such lines. Doubtful, but at least he has the capacity for logic. YOU, by contrast, mindlessly intone shit he says when you couldn't piece together two coherent sentences if your life depended on it.

Tell me, chickenshit, you have a right to free speech, too. Or ,so says the First Amendment (the one JUST before the Second Amendment if you get lost). Should that "right" also be limited by government control?

If not, then what is the basis for CONDITIONING some rights but not others?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Why trot out that long rejected, refuted and baseless silly sophistry?

It might be a bit more interesting if you'd stick to the topic.

I'd say this much. IF we assume (for the sake of the discussion only) that the Federal Governments BLM Agents had some justification to enforce laws, rules, regulations and even some court decisions against the rancher, was the proper way to go about it the way the Federal Government's agents did things?

Snipers? Really?

Confronted with such a massive display of force and behavior, what is it the rancher is "required" to do? Passively submit to outrageous government force and threats of violence?

I don't actually get behind the behavior of the ranchers nor even of those who came to his aid. On the other hand, I don't support the behavior and tactics of the federal agents in this case, either.

He could have avoided all that by paying his taxes and adhering to the law.

Just sayin'.

And the Feds did bumble this.

He's been getting away with this crap for over 2 decades.

There was a better way to go.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Why trot out that long rejected, refuted and baseless silly sophistry?

It might be a bit more interesting if you'd stick to the topic.

I'd say this much. IF we assume (for the sake of the discussion only) that the Federal Governments BLM Agents had some justification to enforce laws, rules, regulations and even some court decisions against the rancher, was the proper way to go about it the way the Federal Government's agents did things?

Snipers? Really?

Confronted with such a massive display of force and behavior, what is it the rancher is "required" to do? Passively submit to outrageous government force and threats of violence?

I don't actually get behind the behavior of the ranchers nor even of those who came to his aid. On the other hand, I don't support the behavior and tactics of the federal agents in this case, either.

He could have avoided all that by paying his taxes and adhering to the law.

Just sayin'.

And the Feds did bumble this.

He's been getting away with this crap for over 2 decades.

There was a better way to go.

Dude- Quit touting the 'law' as the root cause here. Why don't you support your elected officials in building the fence and arresting those law breakers? Think about how much $$ was spent on one rancher.

Let's start arresting all law breakers.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

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?

If someone is breaking the law, shouldn't law enforcement be armed in the enforcement of those laws? Law Enforcement is usually accompanied by weaponry are they not? Do you feel "threatened" whenever a police officer is present?

 

[Geaux4it]

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?

If someone is breaking the law, shouldn't law enforcement be armed in the enforcement of those laws? Law Enforcement is usually accompanied by weaponry are they not? Do you feel "threatened" whenever a police officer is present?

But the police have no legal obligation to come to our aid. So, we choose the same defensive weapons the police do

-Geaux

 

[Sallow]

It is not a coincidence that the people who are defending the tax evader and law breaker in the case are the same people who find Putin so strong and inspiring. This guy IS NOT A PATRIOT! He is a criminal that is stealing tax money. Our tax dollars make up for the million plus dollars that this rich rancher owes.

This confrontation has absolutely nothing to do with grazing fees owed to the federal government. That is just the excuse the BLM is using to close down the Bundy ranch, and further another rip off of the taxpayers for the benefit of Dirty Harry Reid and family.

The turtles and cows have been co-existing on the land for a couple of hundred years and would for another couple of hundred years. Yet, BLM decided to limit the grazing rights of ranchers to an unsustainable level, and force those ranchers out of business, all on the pretense of defending those turtles. A business they have engaged in for well over 150 years. Is that what we pay the BLM to do?

It is not just a coincidence that Dirty Harry Reid and his son have been working with a Chinese company to steal thousands of acres of public lands for another solar panel rip-off. Nor is it just a coincidence that the grazing land in question is part of the environmental mitigation scam associated with that rip-off of public lands. Sacrifice the ranchers so that Dirty Harry can get richer.

This is laughable at best.

The site for the solar plant is 200 miles away from the Bundy ranch.

Sorting Fact From Fiction on Chinese Solar In Nevada | Commentary | ReWire | KCET

 

[Seawytch]

Why trot out that long rejected, refuted and baseless silly sophistry?

It might be a bit more interesting if you'd stick to the topic.

I'd say this much. IF we assume (for the sake of the discussion only) that the Federal Governments BLM Agents had some justification to enforce laws, rules, regulations and even some court decisions against the rancher, was the proper way to go about it the way the Federal Government's agents did things?

Snipers? Really?

Confronted with such a massive display of force and behavior, what is it the rancher is "required" to do? Passively submit to outrageous government force and threats of violence?

I don't actually get behind the behavior of the ranchers nor even of those who came to his aid. On the other hand, I don't support the behavior and tactics of the federal agents in this case, either.

He could have avoided all that by paying his taxes and adhering to the law.

Just sayin'.

And the Feds did bumble this.

He's been getting away with this crap for over 2 decades.

There was a better way to go.

Dude- Quit touting the 'law' as the root cause here. Why don't you support your elected officials in building the fence and arresting those law breakers? Think about how much $$ was spent on one rancher.

Let's start arresting all law breakers.

-Geaux

Hmmmm, something isn't stacking up. This from just one hour ago...

Record number of deportations upsetting to some

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Why trot out that long rejected, refuted and baseless silly sophistry?

It might be a bit more interesting if you'd stick to the topic.

I'd say this much. IF we assume (for the sake of the discussion only) that the Federal Governments BLM Agents had some justification to enforce laws, rules, regulations and even some court decisions against the rancher, was the proper way to go about it the way the Federal Government's agents did things?

Snipers? Really?

Confronted with such a massive display of force and behavior, what is it the rancher is "required" to do? Passively submit to outrageous government force and threats of violence?

I don't actually get behind the behavior of the ranchers nor even of those who came to his aid. On the other hand, I don't support the behavior and tactics of the federal agents in this case, either.

He could have avoided all that by paying his taxes and adhering to the law.

Just sayin'.

And the Feds did bumble this.

He's been getting away with this crap for over 2 decades.

There was a better way to go.

He had what he believes is a valid argument and until the "cases" run their course, we don't yet know that he is (legally) wrong. Perhaps he should have paid the taxes. But then again, maybe the demand was never valid as applied to his situation.

I don't care.

What I do care about is that the Federal Government's BLM Agents most certainly did engage in a dangerously precipitous course of conduct. They did a bit more than just bungle their handling of the government's side.

The PROPER procedure might have entailed placing the rancher under arrest. Pursue criminal charges, maybe. The proper response, however, did not entail bringing in a small Federal "armed" army of agents.

The RANCHER might have been able to avoid all this by paying taxes he says he should never have been deemed to owe, and in the process of doing so, perhaps having gutted his own future legal arguments about his long time squatter's right to that disputed land.
Not sure that was a do-able option.

But the Federal Government without any question also had other options available to it to "avoid all this." In fact, one might even say they had an OBLIGATION to pursue those "other options" before FORCEFULLY moving in as they did.

 

[TooTall]

Probably.

Put it puts on display to the nuts that an armed response can be successful.

That's not a good thing.

It is successful which is why we can't allow ourselves to become disarmed

-Geaux

So when the Black Panthers or the Weathermen Underground were shooting cops, that was okay?

How many feds got shot at Bundy's ranch?

 

[Sallow]

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

If someone is breaking the law, shouldn't law enforcement be armed in the enforcement of those laws? Law Enforcement is usually accompanied by weaponry are they not? Do you feel "threatened" whenever a police officer is present?

But the police have no legal obligation to come to our aid. So, we choose the same defensive weapons the police do

-Geaux

That's malarkey.

Cops in NYC carry their service sidearm most of the time, even when off duty.

And they are obligated to come to the aid of anyone that is in need.

And do so plenty of times.

 

[Seawytch]

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

If someone is breaking the law, shouldn't law enforcement be armed in the enforcement of those laws? Law Enforcement is usually accompanied by weaponry are they not? Do you feel "threatened" whenever a police officer is present?

But the police have no legal obligation to come to our aid. So, we choose the same defensive weapons the police do

-Geaux

What?!? You're veering a bit off track now aren't you?

This Bundy has broken the law. He got caught and was told to pay for his law breaking. Should he pay or should he arm himself and call a bunch of armed kooks off the internet to come hang out with him as he breaks the law?

 

[Sallow]

You defend new Black Panther party hoodlums who threatened to
slaughter white babies over decent American citizens? Typical.

They slaughtered babies, when, exactly?

Waco, Ruby Ridge.

By the way..I find it hilarious you mention the Black Panthers since it was Ronald Reagan that took away their second amendment "rights".

Mulford Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was hunky dory..right?

The Black Panthers kill people.

The black panthers slaughtered babies at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

That's pretty delusional.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

He could have avoided all that by paying his taxes and adhering to the law.

Just sayin'.

And the Feds did bumble this.

He's been getting away with this crap for over 2 decades.

There was a better way to go.

Dude- Quit touting the 'law' as the root cause here. Why don't you support your elected officials in building the fence and arresting those law breakers? Think about how much $$ was spent on one rancher.

Let's start arresting all law breakers.

-Geaux

Hmmmm, something isn't stacking up. This from just one hour ago...

Record number of deportations upsetting to some

If the Obumbler Administration is intent on failing to enforce our Immigration laws at the point of origin (i.e., by declining to secure our porous borders) then "deporting" larger numbers of illegal aliens does not mean that the Administration is actually doing its jobs. If Obumbler "deports" more aliens now than before, but an even greater number are freely coming here, the math probably leaves us with MORE illegals here, not fewer.

You are right. Something is not adding up. Statistics lie and Obumbler lies more.