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

Russians must have showed up, they ran like it.

Keep poking the sleeping giant Big Government dick heads. 



 

Around the Network
badgenome said:

At the heart of the problem is the feds claiming land inside of established states, which is a flagrant violation of state sovereignty. I mean, it is kind of an absurdity that they claim ownership over 85% of Nevada.

Explain both of these points.



Goatseye said:

Do you have a link for the bolded part?

Here.



noname2200 said:

Explain both of these points.

Well, here's a map of how it shakes out. The situation in the west is just terrible. There's no good reason I can think of for the federal government to own any land in any fully incorporated state, and if there's a compelling reason for decisions about land in Nevada to be made in an imperial city some 2000 miles away instead of in Carson City, I'd like to hear it. Ownership of any public land should have been transferred to the state government the moment they became a state.



badgenome said:
noname2200 said:

Explain both of these points.

Well, here's a map of how it shakes out. The situation in the west is just terrible. There's no good reason I can think of for the federal government to own any land in any fully incorporated state, and if there's a compelling reason for decisions about land in Nevada to be made in an imperial city some 2000 miles away instead of in Carson City, I'd like to hear it. Ownership of any public land should have been transferred to the state government the moment they became a state.

Well that, and when Georgia and Virginia had to give up land to the Federal government it was ruled that the federal government can only hold land in trust for the formation of new states and not for any other reason, and must give that land to the state when formed.

 

Of course, government power expanded via the Judiciary since then.



Around the Network
pokoko said:
The guns could have turned it into something worse. The exposure is what saved the day.

However, I'm not sure I understand this. He's using land he doesn't own in order to make money but refuses to pay anything? While others do pay? I see no reason why I should be on this guy's side.

Exactly. Guy wants to have his cake and eat it too.

(goes without saying that i won't respond to the lunacy of right-wing power trippers thinking that gun ownership does anything substantive to stop the State).



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

It's not a matter of how it can be used. It's whole purpose IS to be used to defend ourselves from government, just every other unalienable right within the Bill of Rights/ Constitution. They're designed to protect from a tyrannical government and give us the power to put a stop to it if ours were to ever reach that point. Second Amendment just happens to be one of the most important ones in the sense it's pretty much the one that once the people lose it, there's no hope for the rest. Just take a quick glimpse at some of the worst political powers throughout history, and you'll find that the governments first order of business was, just about always, to remove arms from the people. Why is this? The people can no longer defend themselves.

Example: USA without 2nd Amendment but still has 1st scenario

Me: *Publicly protesting recent law passed on Capital hill
Government Official: "What are you doing?"
Me: "Expressing my right to free speech"
Government Official: *hold gun to my head "No you're not."

Just think about this for 5 seconds...



0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

badgenome said:
pokoko said:
The guns could have turned it into something worse. The exposure is what saved the day.

However, I'm not sure I understand this. He's using land he doesn't own in order to make money but refuses to pay anything? While others do pay? I see no reason why I should be on this guy's side.

He doesn't own it, but his family has used it for 120 some-odd years and he had a permit until 1993, when the feds began deliberately running ranchers off the land using constant fee increases and claims of environmental concerns. In Bundy's case, the feds expressed concerned about tortoises and capped his herd at 150 head, to which Bundy responded by ceasing to pay the fee.

At the heart of the problem is the feds claiming land inside of established states, which is a flagrant violation of state sovereignty. I mean, it is kind of an absurdity that they claim ownership over 85% of Nevada.

Anyway, it's the kind of thing that the feds could easily have won in the court of public opinion if they had just portrayed him as a deadbeat and took a softly, softly approach. But thugs gonna thug.

This i have to agree with. Overreach is a problem, and now they have a PR nightmare where the militia wingnuts look like they're in the right of things, when really it was about a deadbeat refusing to pay for use of land that he doesn't own. Frame it as a property thing from the government's side and you'd have the left-wing protestors out instead



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

noname2200 said:
badgenome said:

At the heart of the problem is the feds claiming land inside of established states, which is a flagrant violation of state sovereignty. I mean, it is kind of an absurdity that they claim ownership over 85% of Nevada.

Explain both of these points.

The recent Bundy Ranch story covers both perfectly. I think that's what he's what he's referring to.





0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

DialgaMarine said:
It's not a matter of how it can be used. It's whole purpose IS to be used to defend ourselves from government, just every other unalienable right within the Bill of Rights/ Constitution. They're designed to protect from a tyrannical government and give us the power to put a stop to it if ours were to ever reach that point. Second Amendment just happens to be one of the most important ones in the sense it's pretty much the one that once the people lose it, there's no hope for the rest. Just take a quick glimpse at some of the worst political powers throughout history, and you'll find that the governments first order of business was, just about always, to remove arms from the people. Why is this? The people can no longer defend themselves.

Example: USA without 2nd Amendment but still has 1st scenario

Me: *Publicly protesting recent law passed on Capital hill
Government Official: "What are you doing?"
Me: "Expressing my right to free speech"
Government Official: *hold gun to my head "No you're not."

Just think about this for 5 seconds...

And if you threaten to shoot the officer, or actually shoot him? What then? Go all John McClane and kill off a whole SWAT Unit?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.