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

[Kasz216]

Mr Khan said:

thranx said:

Mr Khan said:

 

So how do we spin the part where they wanted to use the women as meat shields, eh? I want to see that one.

I haven't read that one. But for me, I dont care about the messenger,  I care about the mesasge. The message is for the feds to let states take control. Doesn't matter to me if I did or did not like Bundy, the message is right. Why is it that people have to attack the messengar and not the message? Why should the feds control these lands? That is what should be being asked. Bundy stated why the state should have them, why cant the feds put their reasoning out there? If it was because of the turtles, why was the land sold for houses? why are the turtles now being killed by the government. More importantly, why is it that the news only story about this is that he is racisit? and that he wants to use women as meat sheilds? Why are we disussing that instead of who should control the land, feds or state? I guess the media has done its "job" on this one.

Because it's important to discuss how dangerously insane the militia movement is?

This guy had 20 years of chances in court to prove that he had something going for him. You yourself mentioned a movement by western states to resolve this issue. The government was only trying to collect its due after twenty years of nonpayment.

Only mistake they made was in their rough handling of Bundy's son. That shouldn't have happened (and if it hadn't, the guy's cattle would have been taken without a fuss, largely).

There's a movement to do it, but generally the Federal government's stance has been to ignore the states, even when they pass laws demanding the state gives them their land.

Like Utah did in 2011.  Utah passed a law demanding the fedral government hand over the land and disperse it like they originally agreed to, and the federal government has basically just ignored them and took the state to court.

 

Generally the problem is that the enabling clauses in the western states constituions giving them control of the land were MEANT to be so private citizens didn't just start claiming private land left and right as soon as they got in the state, while the states distributed the land slowly over the course of a decade or two.

What happened in reality was, the states basically just held on to it.

Basically the federal government is welching on it's obligation and relying on the federal primacy law to do it.