By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

DevilRising said:
Give me a fucking break, honestly. That dumbass was using government land for 20+ years without paying a dime, even though the law that said he had to pay for using land NOT HIS OWN was signed into law but the great and powerful Ronald Reagan. And so even though they don't give a single shit about his cows or how cheap he is, a bunch of dumb-fuck, trigger happy gun-nuts show up in his town, scaring the shit out of the locals by the way, and pretend like they're ready to go to war with the feds?

Here's a couple of thoughts:

1. They would have lost, and lost bad. In fact, if it weren't for a concern over the loss of life to agents and innocent locals, and worrying about election season coming up, the government should have just carpet-bombed the whole lot of them. The point being, they were a bunch of hill-billies, up against trained government agents, with the fucking US ARMY on standby. Tanks, rockets, bombs, actual training, actual educations, you name it.

2. The fact that the gov. backed down is understandable, but also troubling. They backed down because they didn't want to create the biggest public massacre in ages. They backed down because it would make local politicians look bad, or it might even "Make Obama look bad", and would play into the already existing ridiculous hysterical frenzy these far-right-wing nutjobs have worked themselves into.

BUT, because the gov. backed down, this will also embolden idiots like this nation-wide, to think that they can get whatever the fuck they want, so long as enough of them show up with loaded guns. No due process, no voting and using non-violent protests, etc., like any civilized, educated, conscientious American. Nope. Just overzealous fervor, thinking you have power because you walk around with something that could easily kill people. IE the "guns give me second, bigger dick" theory. This is bad news in a country where many states are enacting "Stand Your Ground" laws, that allow morons in places like Florida to murder people in cold blood, even in broad daylight at times, and get away with it so long as they can prove they "felt threatened".

This is troubling, because the same kind of clowns that showed up to "Defend" some jackass in Nevada who has been illegally using government land to feed his cows for decades and doesn't feel like paying, are the same kind of clowns who are openly professing in online groups, that they want to fight and kill federal agents, police officers, politicians, public figures, etc. You know.......TERRORISTS.

And yet I gather some people seem to think they're "Freedom fighters"? Well.....I'm sure that the fuckin' Taliban and Al Quaeda think they're "freedom fighters" too. I'm sure all the crazy gun-nuts who have gone on shooting sprees killing innocent people, even little kids, in the last decade+, probably thought they were making some kind of point of doing it for the "greater good" somehow too. Fuck, the goddamn Unibomber was this same exact type of person. He thought he was fighting a "tyrannical government" too.

The point is, this is going to get worse before it gets better....and this kind of lawless "Wild West" that these Tea Party hacks seem to dream of, is NOT the America the founders intended, nor is it the America that most sane Americans, myself included, want to live in. If these morons want to TRULY know what it's like to live under a "Dictator" or a "Tyrannical Government", and have all their precious freedoms trampled upon.....then why don't we deport them all to nice, happy places like Somalia, or Syria, or North Korea, and see how long they would actually last without all of their excess food, without free access to the internet (much less electricity) to post all their hate bullshit, without freedom of speech and government PROTECTIONS to allow them to walk around acting like they're tough shit.

It's because they LIVE in a free, first world country where even the poor live great compared to a LOT of third world nations, that they are even allowed to live and act like they do. If they lived in any of those places I mentioned, or dozens more, they'd all be skinny within a month, and likely dead not long after that. This world has no place for the phoney tough and crazy brave. If they were really interested in making American society better, they would realize that you do that through EDUCATION, by bettering yourselves and the community around you. NOT by trying your damnedest to drag us all back into the fucking Dark Ages.


Wow, just wow. I think first off you might want to check your facts.

1st he was paying to graze the land. It wasn't until the BLM came in and started significantly limiting the number of cattle they were allowed to graze. To the point where their heards were unsustainable AND begane confiscating them for slaughter and sale. Which BTW the surrounding state officials told the feds not to even bother attempting to sell them in their states out of protest.

2nd the man owns mineral rights AND water rights on those lands. He also with his own funds placed roads and other improvements to the land with the permission of the BLM. Its not like he is some deadbeat who just moved in a week ago and is now squatting.

3rd I find your passion for the carpet bombing of citizenry by their own government very troubling but hey it highlights why we have a second amendment oin the first place. Good thing you weren't in charge there.

4th I also find it very silly how naive you are that A North Korea style government couldn't exsist over here should we relenquish or right to bear arms AND what do you think would happen to a dictator like Kim Jong Un or any of the other regimes you mentioned actually allowed their citizens/subjects to bear arms? Something tells me their regimes wouldn't last very long. Even in places where they have managed to gain access to firearms i.e. Syria the government uses chemical agents and other heavy arms to suppress them.

Too many problems with your post. No time to delve into them all. Wow, just wow.

 

 



Around the Network
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?



-CraZed- said:
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Silly argument, unless you're standing up for militias armed with black powder rifles/handguns. 

However, I do believe the Freedom of Speech laws should be re-addressed.  It should be emphatically illegal for any news company to run a story they know to be false.



-CraZed- said:
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Er, pardon? I apologize for pointing this out but you don't make much sense. There is a reason why the right to bear arms is so heavily debated and it is because the definition of "arms" has changed and it is uncertain where the line of "acceptable arms" lays. Please explain your point other than throwing out unrelated remarks. I am willing to discuss if you stay reasonable



mornelithe said:
-CraZed- said:
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Silly argument, unless you're standing up for militias armed with black powder rifles/handguns. 

However, I do believe the Freedom of Speech laws should be re-addressed.  It should be emphatically illegal for any news company to run a story they know to be false.

So does the first amendment not apply to televeision, phone, and internet media? 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
-CraZed- said:
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Silly argument, unless you're standing up for militias armed with black powder rifles/handguns. 

However, I do believe the Freedom of Speech laws should be re-addressed.  It should be emphatically illegal for any news company to run a story they know to be false.

So does the first amendment not apply to televeision, phone, and internet media? 

Have you not noticed the Government attempting to rewrite the laws for free speech on the internet?  Seriously?  If you haven't, then you've had the blinders on.  Look up the Stop Online Piracy Act, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, also PIPA.  The US Government has been trying to ram through this shit for years.



mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
-CraZed- said:
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Silly argument, unless you're standing up for militias armed with black powder rifles/handguns. 

However, I do believe the Freedom of Speech laws should be re-addressed.  It should be emphatically illegal for any news company to run a story they know to be false.

So does the first amendment not apply to televeision, phone, and internet media? 

Have you not noticed the Government attempting to rewrite the laws for free speech on the internet?  Seriously?  If you haven't, then you've had the blinders on.  Look up the Stop Online Piracy Act, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, also PIPA.  The US Government has been trying to ram through this shit for years.

I understand what the government does. I was replying to your argument, however. Should (not "does") the government be able to apply the logic that the second amendment was written for different technology, and therefore is regulatable, to free-speech? 



sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
sc94597 said:
mornelithe said:
-CraZed- said:
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Silly argument, unless you're standing up for militias armed with black powder rifles/handguns. 

However, I do believe the Freedom of Speech laws should be re-addressed.  It should be emphatically illegal for any news company to run a story they know to be false.

So does the first amendment not apply to televeision, phone, and internet media? 

Have you not noticed the Government attempting to rewrite the laws for free speech on the internet?  Seriously?  If you haven't, then you've had the blinders on.  Look up the Stop Online Piracy Act, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, also PIPA.  The US Government has been trying to ram through this shit for years.

I understand what the government does. I was replying to your argument, however. Should (not "does") the government be able to apply the logic that the second amendment was written for different technology, and therefore is regulatable, to free-speech? 

Actually, the one thing our Government absolutely needs to do is update a great deal of laws to 21st century realities (Marijuana is officially as dangerous as heroin, according to our Government).  Now, do I think they should start rewriting every amendment, or restricting things?  No.  But, certain common sense things should.  Like, as I said, making any news organization responsible for knowingly broadcasting false stories.

Part of this countries problem is the absolute snail pace they work at, which makes it pretty difficult to keep miles and miles and miles of legislation up to current events.



If the government owned that land and/or maintained that land in any way, then they should charge a grazing fee for it. If it was a community grazing ground owned by the government then yes, those cattle should have been rounded up. Land costs money, so the government decided to start charging for a service they provided....

Exactly what way did the guns help anything. In this scenario, the protestors were instructed to keep their guns in their cars. It sounds more like people who owned guns that came to protest rather than people starting a standoff as a method of protesting. Which sounds like the most horrible idea ever. Can you imagine what would happen if one of those people did something stupid and a firefight broke out??? Bloodbath...



sundin13 said:
-CraZed- said:
sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Er, pardon? I apologize for pointing this out but you don't make much sense. There is a reason why the right to bear arms is so heavily debated and it is because the definition of "arms" has changed and it is uncertain where the line of "acceptable arms" lays. Please explain your point other than throwing out unrelated remarks. I am willing to discuss if you stay reasonable

Has not the definition of speech changed? Or what is private vs. not private? People always devolve the discussion to muskets and black powder (another poster above you) etc. so I guess free speech advocates are defending only the printing press then? Or search and seizure limited to just paper? These rights don't change. They never have. Only the people have changed and how they have chosen to apply them.

Every single one of the amendments are as they are. The verbage has not changed and they are not technically in any order of precedence or importance per se but if one was to conclude as much then the 2nd Amendment would be *gasp* second only to the right to free speech and the open practice of one's religion.