Quantcast
the right to bear arms and how it can be used to defend from big government

Forums - Politics Discussion - the right to bear arms and how it can be used to defend from big government

mornelithe said:
thranx said:
mornelithe said:

There is no scenario where they 'take' from the Federal Government.  Their only option is going a legal, peaceful route, where the land rights are transferred to the State. Otherwise, they'll simply get 'dealt' with.

 they take the land by force or legal means it does not matter. I never stated how they would, but I meant legally. that is why they had a multi state meeting about it, to plan how to legally take the land back. But failing that, I would be fine with them defending (like Bundy did) or retaking their land by force. States still have rights, and I would love for state vs feds rights to come to a head and for the feds to back down (as they should)

Yeah, that'll work out really well for them, I'm sure.  Part of me would absolutely LOVE to see them try.  The part who loves seeing Darwin Awards handed out to people who die for being idiots, that is.

Its like you didnt even read the thread. Bundy (a rancher, not even of the state, with his militia allys) was able to put the feds back. I think a state would just fine. You have to remeber, the US government cant start shooting at Utahs populace with out reprocussions elseware. So they have to ask themselves, is it worth a potential greater uprising and loss of life to take control of the land or to relinquish it. With how easy it is for info to travel on the net it would be hard pressed for the US government to ever justify it.



Around the Network

To summarize my last few posts, I have questions, for anyone to answer:

Is the land owned by the Federal government excludable?

If so, you agree that this implies the land is privately owned by the Federal Government, and not a public good or a common resource.

My next questions: should government own private land? If so, why?

How does government obtain private land?

If by tax revenue, are they morally justified in purchasing land that is excludable to a portion of the taxpayers with the money of ALL taxpayers? Why?



thranx said:
mornelithe said:
thranx said:
mornelithe said:

There is no scenario where they 'take' from the Federal Government.  Their only option is going a legal, peaceful route, where the land rights are transferred to the State. Otherwise, they'll simply get 'dealt' with.

 they take the land by force or legal means it does not matter. I never stated how they would, but I meant legally. that is why they had a multi state meeting about it, to plan how to legally take the land back. But failing that, I would be fine with them defending (like Bundy did) or retaking their land by force. States still have rights, and I would love for state vs feds rights to come to a head and for the feds to back down (as they should)

Yeah, that'll work out really well for them, I'm sure.  Part of me would absolutely LOVE to see them try.  The part who loves seeing Darwin Awards handed out to people who die for being idiots, that is.

Its like you didnt even read the thread. Bundy (a rancher, not even of the state, with his militia allys) was able to put the feds back. I think a state would just fine. You have to remeber, the US government cant start shooting at Utahs populace with out reprocussions elseware. So they have to ask themselves, is it worth a potential greater uprising and loss of life to take control of the land or to relinquish it. With how easy it is for info to travel on the net it would be hard pressed for the US government to ever justify it.

The feds weren't there for a fight.  Bundy and his merry band of inbred dumbasses better hope to hell it gets settled peacefully.

As far as potential uprisings, you assume every person in the country would be with the Ranchers.  I'd personally be on the other side.  Pay your grazing fees, or GTFO.

As far as justification?  Bundy lost numerous court cases, the Fed has every right to remove them, forcibly if necessary.



Al Bundy :)



Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
mai said:
Mr Khan said:

 

The image i posted was a joke which you might not get (or might, if the rumors about Russia getting America's old sitcoms on TV are true), based on a TV character with the last name of Bundy.

As for the case in question, the BLM Officers have backed off their efforts to seize his cattle for the moment, but the government's not just going to let this guy get his way. There's all sorts of stuff they could do, though, like place a tax lien against his cattle making any proceeds from sale of the cattle go straight into the government's coffers (taking away the money the cattle could earn without having to physically take the cattle).

It would be better for all involved if they solved this peacefully, especially for the wives of the militiamen, as the militiamen apparently wanted to use them as meat shields?

Patriotism at work, folks.


Russia actually has their own married with children.

 

Holy shit, guy's got all of Ed O'Neill's mannerisms in the role down pat.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
mornelithe said:

The feds weren't there for a fight.  Bundy and his merry band of inbred dumbasses better hope to hell it gets settled peacefully.

As far as potential uprisings, you assume every person in the country would be with the Ranchers.  I'd personally be on the other side.  Pay your grazing fees, or GTFO.

As far as justification?  Bundy lost numerous court cases, the Fed has every right to remove them, forcibly if necessary.

Edit: If they weren't there for a fight, they sure as heck brought a lot of guns with them. they must have been for decoration and intimidation though.


I guess you would be. The feds tried taking it by force once already and failed. dont know what else to tell you. Yes he lost many court cases, and still the feds were unable to take the land. By force or legal means. Scratch one win up to the good guys for now.

I never assumed every person would be on his side, if i assumed that there would be no conflict in the first place. i assumed that most americans would not like a government that starts killing its own citizens. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but I think an armed US federal agency shooting people over what is a simple land dispute would awaken others to the possible harm of what an armed to the teeth federal government can do.

Perhaps you should read on his grazing fees and you will understand the situation. If not its ok, many people choose to just believe what they are told and not research, I can't fault you for taking the easy way out.



On a related note, the situation in Albuquerque unwinds further:

From what I understand that protest wasn't because of one homeless guy who has been shot by APD recently (if I've seen this, I'm sure you have seen this video too), but general situation with law enforecement *ahem* procedures.



mai said:

On a related note, the situation in Albuquerque unwinds further:

From what I understand that protest wasn't because of one homeless guy who has been shot by APD recently (if I've seen this, I'm sure you have seen this video too), but general situation with law enforecement *ahem* procedures.

Well that have shot something like 25 people to death in the last 4 years.