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

noname2200 said:

I can think of several reasons why the federal government can and should own land in a state; leaving aside how the feds need some land to operate things like military bases, courts, and administration buildings, there's the fact that the states collectively and knowingly ceded ownership rights over certain land to the federal government when they, the states, created the Constitution (see the Property Clause).

Every bit of land outside the first thirteen legally began with federal ownership: The original thirteen states surrendered all their claims to the land west of the Appalachians when the Constitution was ratified, the Louisiana Territory was purchased by the federal government with federal funds, the Southwest was given to the federal government as part of the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, and the Oregon Territory was ceded to the federal government by the Treaty of 1818, Alaska was bought by the feds from the Russians, and Florida was given to the feds by treaty with the Spanish. I won't profess to know how federal land in the original thirteen states was acquired (I assume largely by purchase), but the legal right and history of federal ownership of state lands is pretty cut and dry (Hawaii admittedly being something of an odd duck), and has existed since the days of the Founding Fathers. If anything, thirty-seven of the states were wholly owned by the federal government before the feds ceded some of that land to the locals.*

You're free to argue the policy wisdom of retaining federal ownership of land vs. ceding all of it to the states, of course, but legally the issue has been settled for quite some time now. Don't forget that the federal government is entirely a contractually-created creature of the states; if they felt that the feds should give up all of its land, they could have made it that way. For that matter, they still can. Instead, they consciously surrendered some of their own land (not a small concession, if you know how rancorous those fights were in the colonial days), and have not made any real concerted effort to change the situation since then.

In the meantime, regarding Nevada specifically, the reason it's federal ownership rate is so high is simply because no one wanted to buy land there when it was first offered: I don't know if you've ever been, but there's a reason 95% or so of the population lives in only two counties, and if hadn't been for a silver boom (and later legalized gambling) I'd wager Nevada would never have reached the population rate it takes to become a state: the place is largely uninhabitable.

 

 

*We are ignoring the whole issue of people who lived on said lands before the territories were ceded to the feds, most notably the Native Americans but also French, Mexican, British, Russian, and even American settlers, only some of whom were covered by the treaties encompassing their territory and only some of whom previously answered to the sovereign who handed the land to the federal government.

I mean, I get how the situation came to be. And I certainly understand that the federal government has thoroughly validated the federal government's ability to own and administer property for a very, very long time now, to the point that it's pretty much all settled law by now. So I don't argue that it's a violation of sovereignty in the legal sense, but rather in the practical sense. While things may nominally be the same as they've ever been, the situation between the states and the feds has changed quite a lot in practical terms as technology and the bureaucracy have advanced. The total state wasn't a possibility until now. Where the federal government in the 1800s would have little interest in micromanaging backwaters like Nevada, and even less ability to do so, today it's a relatively simple thing.

Clearly the desire is there, too. People have long made their careers in government by expanding their agency, thus making it more important. There seems to be a common thread of mission perversion running through a lot of the stories involving federal agencies in recent years: the ATF engaging in weapons trafficking, the DEA climbing into bed with the Sinaloa cartel, and the continuing politicization of the IRS. Here we have seen an effect of the BML's efforts to drive ranchers away during the salad days of the housing bubble. In absence of some serious blowback, it's a trend we can probably expect to continue.

You are ostensibly correct that states which object to the current state of affairs "merely" have to legislate it away, but that is akin to saying that if I didn't like Obama I could "merely" have elected someone else.



Around the Network

Why do you Americans only care when YOUR guns are being apparently taken away? What about the real abuse of government like mass spying or slaughter of defenseless people (by drones and the like) you're government chooses to not like? Don't the seemingly limitless power of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. bother you people? and yet that is never mentioned by libertarians ever

Yes, guns are your right but why is it being used in only a patriotic way to cover the hypocrisies of conservatives? Conservatives are just as happy to do what Democrats do even though they don't like to admit it.

And also what is with this American exception? I live in a country where you can get guns but it is very restricted and I don't feel like i'm in a tyranny.



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

the2real4mafol said:
 Don't the seemingly limitless power of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. bother you people? and yet that is never mentioned by libertarians ever





the2real4mafol said:
 Don't the seemingly limitless power of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. bother you people? and yet that is never mentioned by libertarians ever

Are you serious? Check out ronpaulforums.com, mises,org, reason.com, etc, etc and all you see are countless articles on Edward Snowden, how federal law enforcement agencies are illegitimite, and how the CIA instigates wars. This is not only an issue libertarians address, but it's one of the biggest unifying issues of libertarians, from anarchists, to minarchists, to consitutionalists. It's riduclous to say that libertarians never mention these things, when we are the only ones who do. What happened to the progressives who were historically against such things? Oh they don't exist anymore. 



sc94597 said:
the2real4mafol said:
 Don't the seemingly limitless power of the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. bother you people? and yet that is never mentioned by libertarians ever

Are you serious? Check out ronpaulforums.com, mises,org, reason.com, etc, etc and all you see are countless articles on Edward Snowden, how federal law enforcement agencies are illegitimite, and how the CIA instigates wars. This is not only an issue libertarians address, but it's one of the biggest unifying issues of libertarians, from anarchists, to minarchists, to consitutionalists. It's riduclous to say that libertarians never mention these things, when we are the only ones who do. What happen to the progressives who were historically against such things? Oh they don't exist anymore. 

I'm not an expert on it but from outside the US we hear Americans moan about their guns being taken away but anything to do with the NSA etc. is not seemingly reported on unless it's RT or someone like that. I guess that is deliberate.

And yeah I did generalise abit but I've not had a reason to look into it deeply.

Refreshing to see such thoughts (i hate authoritarianism), although we could never agree on economic matters it's still cool. I would be libertarian if it weren't for all the flaws of capitalism

Maybe, in your country progressives defend it but I sure don't and i'm probably considered progressive by American standards. I admit not all progress is or can be good.   

Also, i find it abit depressing that the people who defend the ideals your country was founded on have to fight to protect it. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Around the Network
sc94597 said:

What happened to the progressives who were historically against such things? Oh they don't exist anymore. 

They exist, but to a large extent the American ones are more partisan than they are progressive. There was an interesting poll showing how Republicans and Democrats exactly flip flopped on the security state and privacy issues once Obama took office, but I can't find it off hand.



You have the right to defend. You have no right to kill.



This story perfectly highlights how and why the right to bear arms is necessary to a free society. Most often those who oppose gun ownership or support extreme limitations on gun ownership often scoff at the notion that we need to be armed to protect ourselves from our own government and yet here you have our own governement with its armed bureaucracies (even bringing in Army Rangers!) harassing a citizen and his family, confiscating their livelihood and supressing and attempting to reduce the areas in which citizens could protest their actions peacefully.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or firing for sport or even so much about self preservation during the perpetration of a violent crime but to ensure that the people could outright and swiftly defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

Kudos to this rancher and all those who showed up to support him.



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 owns the mineral AND water rights to the land in question. Also he was paying for the grazing rights up until the BLM started to limit cattle head sizes and outright kicking other (paying) ranchers off the land. The BLM then started taking his cattle off the land and slaughtering/selling them without notice.

The rancher in question also has with his own money built roads and put up improvements on the land.

Supposedly, the BLM started doing this to relocate a turtle (someone correct me if I am wrong there), which is overpopulated in its preserve and they were already euthanizing to keep their numbers down. Then it became about the unpaid dues which lead us to this point.

Also I have to disagree with the fact that it was just the exposure that made the difference. Occupy Wall Street got TONS of exposure and what came out of that? Zero, zip, zilch, nada. And Waco also got tons of press even without the aid of the internet. It was on TV every day during the whole standoff.

Both having armed opposition and maximum exposure helped these people stay on a near equal footing with the agents whom surrounded them with snipers and armed bureaucrats. There is a reason freedom of speech, religion and the right to assemble and the right to bear arms are the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.

And, even IF it turns out this guy was wrong in not paying etc. etc. that should have been decided in a court of law (which is now where the matter will be heading) not by powerful bureaucrats who have the ability to summon other armed bureaucrats without the due process of law.



-CraZed- said:

Also I have to disagree with the fact that it was just the exposure that made the difference. Occupy Wall Street got TONS of exposure and what came out of that? Zero, zip, zilch, nada. And Waco also got tons of press even without the aid of the internet. It was on TV every day during the whole standoff.

I think the comparable part of Occupy Wall Street was that OWS wasn't evicted from Zuccotti Park, not that they didn't get any of their (mostly incoherent and unrealistic) demands met. And Waco happened at a time when the media essentially consisted of three major networks plus CNN, all of which could be counted on to faithfully regurgitate the government's narrative. David Koresh being a fucking wacko child molester and not a salt-of-the-earth rancher didn't help the Branch Davidians' image.

I think a better comparison is probably Ruby Ridge. Randy Weaver had a lot of guns, too, and all it did was give the feds an excuse to slaughter his family. What he didn't have was a lot of sympathetic people with cameras.