Church Condemns Peaceful Protest?

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Legally there is no difference between the two.

The U.S. Code outlines a charge for seditious conspiracy whose elements strongly resemble the plot to take over and occupy the nature preserve.

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both,”

Good legal point.

Morally, are these protestors terrorists and not peaceful? If they took over the same abandoned building and merely chained themselves to the walls, are they still terrorists and deserve their mandatory 20 year sentences? That's what the legal code says, no?

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I broke into your summer home this winter and slept in your bed all season. I am a peaceful guy though if you show up to take your property back I have no qualms about pumping you full of bullets. Still peaceful though.

Well, you'll get the bullets first, I assure you.

And, yes, you're peaceful in the sense of not taking my summer home by force but you're stealing, no? Stealing is not inherently peaceful.

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

They were found guilty by a jury of their peers of arson to hide poaching. Governments have the legal authority to use violence, if necessary to enforce the law. The illegal use or implied use of force to achieve a political end is by legal definition terrorism.

To hide poaching?

Don't citizens have the legal authority to use violence?

Thus far they have use no force, correct? So, just willing to use it makes you a terrorist?

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 Conservatives foolishly try to claim that at one time the social security program was something special and different. It wasn't.  Conservatives don't understand monetary policy, deficit spending and tax policy.  They just like to worship their guns, their massive defense spending, their foreign wars and such...

 You're funny.

 

I won't respond in substance since this is off track of the topic.

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, saemo said:

Ummm, where are you getting this information? The Hammonds set fire to BLM land, twice. The first time to erase evidence of poaching. The second time they claimed to do so for fire prevention, but in so doing, did not get permission from the actual fire departments who were fighting a nearby fire. Not to mention, there were people camping nearby, who were not notified that a fire was being started near them.

Add to this, that during the investigation incidence of child abuse were reported and documented, by a teenager, who had been "disciplined" by the Hammond family.

They are loony Sovereign Citizen-types. Believing themselves to be sovereign from federal laws and regulations. Bundys also adhere to, and are spouting, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric. 

They were NOT convicted for hiding poaching, period. The second fire extended off their land and onto federally owned land. It burned sagebrushes with no firefighter in sight so far as I know.

 

Child abuse?

 

Huh?

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, saemo said:

From what I gather, the Bundy's (claiming sovereign citizenship) do not recognize federal lands as federal lands. Believing that they can just squat on it as being unclaimed or not owned, and claim it for themselves. Thereby in their eyes, making a National Refuge their private land.

But who knows, sovereign citizens tend to make up their own laws as they go along and expect law enforcement to recognize their made-up sovereign "laws".

These types are known for being violent against federal and other law enforcement. Believing that they are fighting for their sovereignty and are self-stylize "freedom fighters", they tend to view wounding and killing law enforcement officers as something they have to do to protect their made up laws and "sovereignty".

They aren't staging a peaceful protest, but a claiming federal lands as their own and then invoking their "right" as sovereign citizens to protect their land.

Legally, no, the land is not theirs. Legally, no, they are not each a sovereign nation unto themselves. Legally, yes, they are trespassing.

They don't recognize federal law as binding on their sovereign selves.

As I already said. Loons.

 

Who has been violent? Now that they *believe* in something they are to be considered threatening?

Their protest has had zero use of violence. Is that not "peaceful"?

[Avatar4321]

21 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Who has been violent? Now that they *believe* in something they are to be considered threatening?

Their protest has had zero use of violence. Is that not "peaceful"?

Again armed seizure of government property is by definition violent. Not sure why this is difficult to understand

[Stargazer]

On 1/6/2016 at 4:11 PM, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think that any government should own property of this nature except as necessary to fulfill the constitutional purposes you identify.  But, now that the feds are in ownership, the feds can't simply give it away.  They should, like surplus military bases, auction it off.   Then Bundy and his goons would be out of a job.  Once put to economic use, the subsidies they get to run their operations on federal land will disappear.

But this libertarian, once again, declares gun nuts to be abhorrent boors.  The number one plank of the libertarian movement is not to use force or coercion to obtain any kind of political objective.  Guns are necessary evils, but they are evils.  

Well, this libertarian (and gun nut) declares these particular idiots to be abhorrent boors.

Actually, you're wrong about the libertarian principle regarding the use of force.  It isn't the use of force, per se, it is the initiation of force.  If force is initiated against you, you are within your rights to defend with force.  And guns/clubs/swords/knives/tire irons are no more evil than the hands which may wield them.  

The Non-aggression Principle (NAP) is the key to libertarianism, not the passivism or pacifism your "not to use force or coercion to obtain any kind of political objective" implies.  When the farmers and mechanics of the Battles of Lexington and Concord opposed the government's attempt to disarm them of their non-evil weapons (including cannon), force was being initiated against them unlawfully, and their opposition was totally within libertarian principles.  If they were instead to follow the principle you're advocating, they would have passively allowed the troops to do what they were sent to do.

What these Bundy creeps are doing, on the other hand, is opposing the rule of law, and substituting mob rule in its place.  Their action has a bit of the flavor of Shay's Rebellion, but whereas Shay and his compatriots had valid grievances, Bundy and his compatriots do not.  Their hands are decidedly not clean, in the legal sense, as they are guilty of accepting largess from the federal government without accepting the conditions under which it is offered.  They have no justification at all for the occupation of government property which they have initiated.  The ones whom they are attempting to shield from legal action were found guilty of violations of law, and have the right of appeal that anyone else has.  Their lawful remedies do not include the use of force. 

[Stargazer]

On 1/6/2016 at 5:32 PM, Bob Crockett said:

 And, Oregon is not an open carry state.  

Not entirely true.  Oregon state law does not prohibit open carry, and open carry is de facto permitted; however, the state's preemption law does not prohibit subordinate jurisdictions within Oregon from enacting open carry bans or regulations within their borders.  For example, several cities, such as Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence, have open carry bans -- at least, for loaded open carry.  I'm not sure about unloaded open carry.  I will be taking a class on this tomorrow as a part of the training requirement for an Oregon concealed carry permit, and I am sure they will cover this, too.  I believe that there is a general restriction, too, against open carry in government buildings and some other jurisdictions have open carry bans for publicly-owned parks.  Reference: OpenCarry.org/Oregon

[Stargazer]

On 1/6/2016 at 5:55 PM, Avatar4321 said:

Made me wonder if the reason the feds own so much of the west is because malevolent powers wanted to stop the saints from settling more

I doubt it.  In fact, that sounds downright conspiracy theorish.  They wanted more land because they want more power.  It need not be more complicated than that.

[Stargazer]

On 1/6/2016 at 8:12 PM, Bob Crockett said:

I'd like to brandish my sidearm in the local 7-11 and get a free slurpee.  

And I'd give it to you, of course!!!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

WHAT??? Is not the citizen's job to protect citizens from and overreaching government? If not why in the world would the Founding Fathers place the 2nd amendment into the Constitution?

This reaction of surprise is in light of the article I just posted. The Hammond family was declared a pillar of their community by the court that originally sentenced them. These protestors took over and abandoned federal building far from any other building and way far from any inhabitable area. They are armed and willing to fight and die for their cause. The US government is armed and willing to fight and die for its cause yet these protestors, who have threatened no one are terrorists whereas the federal government is justified since it is doing its job? If these protestors are terrorists then why not the federal government? If the federal government is justified in killing for their cause, then why not these protestors? If the federal government is to kill for their cause and it be a social good then why are these protestors "terrorists"?

The Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to defend the state, fight off aggressors (mostly natives at the time), and prevent oppression. These idiots are not being oppressed.

So far I am not impressed with any community considering these numbskulls a pillar of. These people do not even seem able to articulate what their cause is. They have given no real demands. I begin to think they just want to fight and die because they listen to too much Hannity as opposed to have a cause.

These people have threatened. They have seized a government building and are refusing to vacate. The Federal government has every right to take it back. They are terrorists because they are attempting to use the threat of violence to coerce political change. They will fail but they are still terrorist.

To see if you are not biased by a feeling of camaraderie with these people I suggest a thought experiment. Suppose they were Muslims who seized the building. They use no violence but promise to defend themselves if attacked. They have issued no specific demands but insist they have the right to do this because the government is oppressing them and others and the Second Amendment gives them the right to bear arms in this situation. Would you be defending them and calling the government oppressive in this situation or would you label them terrorists?

[Stargazer]

On 1/6/2016 at 9:16 PM, thesometimesaint said:

Federal lands never belonged to the states.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands

The US constitution allows for the transfer of private property to the government by Eminent Domain.

SEE  https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/amdt5b_user.html#amdt5b_hd23

I would hate to see violence on either side. hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

 

I am not going to argue with you about either of your points -- they are correct as far as they go.  

But the only post-13-original-states that entered the union with arguably the same way as the original 13 were Texas and California (and possibly West Virginia).  Similarly to the original 13, Texas possessed all of its own land previous to entry into the Union, and transferred land to the Feds according to the constitutional model I indicated: consent, then purchase. Like Texas, California was never part of an organized territory before being admitted.  The rest of the states were Territories before they became States, and of course they possessed no land whatsoever until they were admitted to the Union.  It is therefore true that Congress was within its rights to admit them while retaining substantial portions of their land as Federal property.  

The thing I am trying to say, my dear TSS, is that the Federal Government should have retained no control of land within the new states, but should have granted them 100% of the land within their borders and then negotiated consent and purchase of lands that it needed from the state.  This would have been within the spirit of the law as expressed in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which stated that the new states formed out of the Northwest Territory be admitted "...on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."  Which I take to mean that the new state possessed all the land within its boundaries ab initio, just as the original 13 states had, and only afterwards would they negotiate with the Federal government for cession of certain lands to the feds.  Not that they retained the bulk of the lands within each state.

Of course, the Constitution allows transfer of private property to the government by eminent domain, no argument here, but I was surprised to find in your link that the federal government could take away anything it wanted from a union state by a simple act of Congress!  I highly suspect that if the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had been told that under the principle of national sovereignty the federal government would eventually be ruled capable of taking state land in this manner that they would have put an explicit prohibition of it into the Constitution!  In fact, the provision in powers of Congress in the Constitution with respect to the taking of property from the state seems to directly contravene this.  I wonder how the Supreme Court managed to overcome this provision!  I guess I will read the decision and find out.  

Thanks for the informative links TSS -- you're a good egg! 

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Subversion?  Of what?  

Before and after LBJ the social security was just a tax.  A retiree did not ever have any sort of vested interest in the revenues of the program. If there isn't enough money in the program, the feds make it up by printing money or deficit spending.  Conservatives foolishly try to claim that at one time the social security program was something special and different. It wasn't.  Conservatives don't understand monetary policy, deficit spending and tax policy.  They just like to worship their guns, their massive defense spending, their foreign wars and such.  Government has no business providing for retirement incomes.  Government has foolishly bred an entire dynasty of welfare babies like Ammon Bundy who thinks he should be able to use federal land to extract a living to compete against cattle ranchers who own their own land.

But, you make a good point about the book of mormon, with rebellion coming when the Lamanites wanted more than one-tenth/one-third/one-half from the Nephites.  The difference, of course, is that we have a Republic and the Republic has voted in those taxes.  You have your Congressman and Senator to blame.  Orrin Hatch, in particular.  

You are absolutely correct as to the status in law of Social Security.  But none of that was admitted by the government.  It was sold to the people as a retirement plan whereby the funds collected were to be set aside in trust for disbursement back to the participants.  If the truth had been publicly admitted, that the government could legally do anything it wanted with the money, including refusing to pay anything at all, the people wouldn't have stood for it, and Congress would not have been able to make it law.  It was a fraud, ab initio.

And you're right, the government has no business providing for retirement incomes (except for government employees, I might qualify that).

I have made that entire sentence above RED in order to express my extreme agreement with it.  Amen and amen!

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still want to know how he thinks government is subversion.  Subversion of what?  In Latin, the term means to overthrow.  Overthrow what, exactly?

As a libertarian, I fully subscribe to Milton Friedman's work.   But, one must articulate one's thoughts rather than spout conservative (which is not libertarian) propaganda (i.e., "subversion" with no particular social order described).  Conservatism is just another excuse not to change to adapt to circumstances, to keep one's fellows in power, to avoid integrating the principles of Christianity into political thought, to have guns, to spend big.   I believe the Book of Mormon plainly teaches a libertarian view -- freedom from government oppression, compulsion (except in defense) and taxation.   Freedom to worship.  Freedom leads to prosperity.  The Book of Mormon teaches that the best economic system is voluntary communism, not compelled by government.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon which talks about big government defense programs, worship of guns, making pro-gun memes every time an elementary school is shot up, etc.

Now you're going off half-cocked on that last sentence.

There is also nothing in the Book of Mormon that talks about sword or cimiter control, either.  As I've said before and will doubtless have to say again, tools are inherently neutral, not evil and not good either.  As for pro-gun memes, what does the Left do every time an elementary school gets shot up?  Why, they make anti-gun memes (or revive the old ones).  The pro-gun memes are usually trotted out in response to anti-gun memes -- except for recently, since the anti-gunners are so predictable, when the pro-gunners bring out their memes preemptively.  I get the impression that you think the statists should be permitted to yammer on at length on statist themes without any response from the other side.  That's not very libertarian, I don't think.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Counterpoint: Federal tax rates are at their near lowest since the Second World War.

Yippee!  We're not be taxed quite as blind as we were being taxed before.  Break out the champagne!

 

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Zakuska said:

According to some past Government Employees... income tax is Illegal.

 

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

These people are properly called morons.

 

Well, I think it is very unwise to advertise one's non-taxpayer status so that the IRS will feel obligated to do something about it, regardless of legality or illegality.  Wouldn't call it moronity, however.

There is actually a legal and lawful basis for thinking that the federal income tax is unlawfully applied to persons who should not be subject to it.  I've done a lot of reading up on the subject, and there are a few interesting court cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled on certain facts that run counter to what most of us think.  I'm not going to trot all them out, as this is kind of off-topic, but most people believe that the 16th Amendment made it legal for the feds to collect taxes on incomes.  In fact that is not true.  The 16th Amendment brushed aside certain restrictions that had previously made a hash out of attempts to tax incomes at the federal level.  In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court stated:

Quote

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [citations omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived".  "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [citations omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

The only questions that remain are these: who is subject to the income tax; and which incomes are to be taxed?  Does the income tax apply only within federal zones, or within the states, too?  You'd be surprised at the oddities in the tax code that can make you think that it doesn't apply generally to people in the states.  But don't try to use any of this in court -- you are horribly outmatched no matter how right might you be.  I was going to post about a thousand words getting more into detail on this, but decided against it.  That's not the purpose of the thread after all.  

I file my tax returns and pay the taxes the IRS says I owe like a good little "sheeple", and I advise all others to do the same.  When Leviathan's mouth is agape, you would be an idiotic krill indeed if you thought you could resist it.  

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Milton Friedman was wrong. Every country that has tried his formula has gone morally bankrupt, and/or economically bankrupt.

SEE https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/milton-friedmans-distortions/

Communism works fine if everyone is equally poor. The minute someone by their own merits, or accident of birth, has something more then communism falls apart. The most successful countries are democratic socialist. 

Well, I could argue with you about democratic socialist countries being the most successful, but the definition of "successful" would be enormously important, and I don't think that your definition is the same as mine, meaning that it would be a useless altercation.

But Milton Friedman was wrong?  And your blogger trumps a Nobel-prize winning economist?  Who is he?  "a UK based economics student who is skeptical of mainstream economics and is interested in potential alternatives."  Great.  He must know, he's an economics student, for crying out loud!  Not only that, but he's skeptical.

Well, I'm skeptical, too.  Of him, for starters.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/6/2016 at 11:27 PM, Darren10 said:

.....................................................  

Ultimately I am comfortable with the armed protest, more important to this thread, I do not see their being armed as inherently unpeaceful. If the protest turns as it did in Ferguson then I'll feel uncomfortable. Note the difference however, in the nature of the two protests. One has been very peaceful however aggressive and the other highly violent. I'll let you decide which is which. 

So the armed but peaceful takeover of the Crimea by Russia recently is perfectly O.K.?  Doesn't bother you at all?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/6/2016 at 11:34 PM, Darren10 said:

The Hammond family was arrested under federal regulations prohibiting setting fire on federal land. The Hammonds set fire on their own ranch and have done so n the past to control potentially large, out of control fires in the future and to get rid of certain pests which could damage their livelihood. Since their property is on federal land they were charged for violating the federal regulations.

 

Does the federal government have respect for laws of private property? That's what the Bundys are fighting against and citing scripture against. I agree prison time would be justified but there's a question of when has the federal government "overdone it". When it comes to seizing land, don't count on the federal government to check the federal government. yes, the US Constitution does allow for the government to take land for public use. The sticking point is what of private ranches that have already been on that land before the federal government took it?

All these issues are actionable in a courtroom, something liars, cheats, and thieves have no time for -- they already know that they'll lose.

Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Chairman Mao Tse Tung,  "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, II:224.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to defend the state, fight off aggressors (mostly natives at the time), and prevent oppression.

You say that these idiots aren't being oppressed, and I agree.  But someone is going to argue that the second amendment was not intended to help the citizens to protect themselves from their own government.  And I am going to pre-empt this nonsense as follows:

James Madison enjoys the sobriquet "The Father of the Constitution", and it can be said nobody understood better the meaning of it.  In Federalist Paper No. 46 he wrote the following:

Quote

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. 

He clearly anticipates here the possibility that the citizens could find it necessary to defend themselves against an oppressive government.  

Noah Webster agrees:

Quote

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. 
         ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

During the ratification debates over the original constitution were occurring in Virginia in 1788, there were a number of delegates who didn't want to ratify it without a Bill of Rights.  One opponent of having a Bill of Rights (which would have included an enumerated right to keep and bear arms) was Edmund Pendleton.  He made the weak argument that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

Quote

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

and

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

At the same convention, George Mason (who was considered the Father of the Bill of Rights) said on this subject:

Quote

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... 

The fact that the Founding Fathers considered the militia to be the whole people, means that YOU are a member of the militia (assuming you're a US citizen).  Surprised?  When the 2nd Amendment is speaking of the militia, it is speaking of YOU.  Don't believe me?  Check 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes 

Quote

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

That's just the Federal militia.  Each state has its own militia statutes.  For example, in my state of Washington

Quote

RCW 38.04.030
Composition of the militia.
The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

Your state will have a similar law.

So, Mr. or Ms. Member of the Militia, may I ask you where your weapon is?  You better believe that the state armory doesn't have enough weapons to arm but a small number of members of the militia, should your governor call you up.  Or are you supposed to show up carrying a musket, as some of our politicians seem to think?

From United States v Miller, 307 US 174

Quote

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

In other words, when you are called up you are expected bring your M16 with you.  Or maybe an AR-15 will suffice.

So, got gun?  

OK, I've derailed the thread enough now.  And the idiots in Oregon do NOT have any justification for what they are doing.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Stargazer

[longview]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

- - -

Or are you suggesting that there are only two options, do nothing or an armed insurrection?  If you didn't notice, my claim was there are a number of other options of response now that do not require guns and I was not considering do nothing as one of them.

I agree that we can have many levels of responses that we should avail ourselves to.  Keep in mind that the amount taxes we have to pay (local, county, state, fed) correlate closely to the amount of freedom we have.  The more taxes we pay, the bigger government gets, more bloated the bureaucracy becomes, more tyrannical and brazen office holders become, the more intolerant the overall government becomes of individual initiatives and creativity . . . etc, etc . . .

[stemelbow]

Quote

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land.

It's a mistake for the Church to comment on this at all.  It's wrong for the church to suggest there is "no way" to justify this groups actions from scripture.  The Church should encourage individual interpretation while continuing to acknowledge scripture is not inerrant.  Scripture is pretty big and not all of it is useful.  We don't base all of our teachings and actions on scripture.  Why would it matter if another is trying to? 

[longview]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

You would be wrong. Federal tax rates are easy to look up. Taxes have gone up very slightly under Obama in the highest tax brackets but tax rates are still historically low. For most of Reagan's administration the highest marginal tax rate was 50%. It is currently just under 40%.

In the 70s it was 70%. In the 50s and 60s it hung around 90%.

In the Roaring 20s it went down to 25% putting the lie to Reagan's being the lowest.

I do not understand how conservative blowhards get away with these outright lies when a single Google search disproves them.

Do you understand that ACA has a whole raft of hidden taxes?  Many are levied on suppliers, institutions, and care givers forcing costs to be passed on to "consumers" (this is called an indirect tax).  Much of ACA has VERY little to do with improving health care but a LOT to do with imposing enormous constraints on the people.  This is what "government subversives" desire:  to excercise greater control over the lives of the people.  There is a tremendous amount of rationing occurring in the Canadian system, the British system, and in all the socialist nations of Europe.

[The Nehor]

In response to Stargazer I agree that the Founding Fathers intended that the right to have militias was to protect against oppression but I would also add that that purpose is mostly obsolescent. Having a gun gives you no real power to resist an oppressive government now. We live in an era where there are literally death robots flying through the sky. In the 1700s and 1800s a civilian militia with basic organization could challenge a detachment of the US military and possibly win (especially when you look at how small the federal army was at the time). Now a gun might help you resist the police but not much more. It is ironic to me that conservatives who imagine their firearms will protect them are also big proponents of a massive military that could squash them and their gun collection like a bug.