The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, saemo said: It is ours, and they act like it is their private property. It isn't. Well, I visit NWR, and I wouldn't visit one while it had been taken over by armed weirdos. What lands were federalized? I've heard this said since I was a teenager, starting with those Skousen seminars people would hold in their homes. Never once heard of it actually happening, outside of eminent domain for public projects such as highways or dams. I find it to be a myth. They are claiming the federal government will not let them graze and use federal land for their business. Basically they want to use land that is not theirs.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: I think you are incorrect. Without the Second Amendment the legislatures could ban weapons. There is no such thing as a natural right much less one to bear weapons. Guns are evil and government should not be set up to favor them, like abortion. People should be free to choose, but not encouraged. WOW! We need a law to tell us we can protect ourselves??? Amazing!!!
saemo Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 14 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Oh, I think it's quite arguable that private land owners can take care of a refugee far better than the government. Hunters are far and away the most conservationist people in the country and a private land owner has a high interest in maintaining his or land in pristine condition. Di you read about what the federal government is doing to force private homeowners in this wildlife refugee area to abandon their homes and sell to the government? Talk about environmental hazards. Really? From what I see when I'm out on public lands, every area that is maintained by private individuals is stripped of habitat, wildlife and any and all resources. What I envision when people say refuges or national parks need to be privatized are national treasures turned to wastelands. That land grab, has one interest: a few people making a lot of money. 1
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Darren10 said: What about burning a printing press. Would that count? Nope, that was a government action.
saemo Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: They are claiming the federal government will not let them graze and use federal land for their business. Basically they want to use land that is not theirs. They don't want to pay the leases for grazing. Just want a free handout.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 46 minutes ago, Stargazer said: No, it wasn't. Shay's Rebellion was intended at least partially to stop tax and other foreclosures that were occurring because there was a shortage of specie available to pay taxes and loans, not over taxation without representation. Farmers had produce, but couldn't sell them for legal tender, simply because there wasn't enough legal tender in circulation in Massachusetts. And to compound the problem, the legislature passed a law saying that taxes had to paid in legal tender, e.g. gold and silver. Where do you get the idea it was to protest taxation without representation? I had thought that due to geographic isolation it was difficult to near impossible to get their elected officials to Washington Is this incorrect?
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 minute ago, saemo said: Really? From what I see when I'm out on public lands, every area that is maintained by private individuals is stripped of habitat, wildlife and any and all resources. What I envision when people say refuges or national parks need to be privatized are national treasures turned to wastelands. That land grab, has one interest: a few people making a lot of money. This, the idea that private owners are largely land conservationists is laughable. The apostles have taken a strong stance on this issue. Some here seem to think they know better.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Calm said: The government coming in with guns is not making a protest. Correct, it's to kill the protestors if deemed necessary. Is the government's reaction thus far not peaceful? Edited January 8, 2016 by Darren10
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 50 minutes ago, Darren10 said: The 2nd amendment was for what now???? You're missing a key piece or two there. Why do you think that the founding Fathers were so confident in its citizenry to codify the right to bare arms; something no other nation in the world has done so far as I know. essentially it is to empower its citizenry to stop injustice; wherever it shows itself. Not being oppressed? I've no idea what narrative you're reading but it seems very naïve. "So far I am not impressed with any community considering these numbskulls a pillar of." - OK, not even the very court and prosecutors who achieved conviction against them? They are a pillar way before these protests began which the Hammonds, so far as I now, have no direct part of. "I begin to think they just want to fight and die because they listen to too much Hannity as opposed to have a cause." - (May the naivety ensue). "They are terrorists because they are attempting to use the threat of violence to coerce political change. They will fail but they are still terrorists". - OK, when do the citizenry rebel and not be considered terrorists by your standards? "Would you be defending them and calling the government oppressive in this situation or would you label them terrorists?" - In the exact same land dispute...ABSOLUTELY!!!! What land dispute? That the federal government is not allowing others to use government land? They have every right not to. They blabber on about supposed land seizures but will not give a concrete example of government grabbing their land. Instead they are demanding the right to live off of government property. Doesn't this make them welfare leeches?
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 32 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I find that many mandatory sentences for whatever crime are oppressive, or out-of-proportion. I find that civil forfeiture is oppressive, in general. But I don't find that these problems are worth engaging in armed rebellion over. Interesting, thanks.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 32 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Look Darren, if you are this hell-bent on defending them and see their cause as this just despite all evidence to the contrary shouldn't you go join them? I don't know. Why don't you go join a militia and stop these terrorists? While I have lots of empathy, I've no desire to join them. I'm not so sure that what they are doing is completely justified or good. But thus far it is indeed peaceful it is.
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Darren10 said: I don't know. Why don't you go join a militia and stop these terrorists? While I have lots of empathy, I've no desire to join them. I'm not so sure that what they are doing is completely justified or good. But thus far it is indeed peaceful it is. Because I am generally opposed to vigilantism. I hope this has a peaceful ending but if it turns violent I am probably blaming the gun-toting maniacs who forcibly occupied a government building and not the government that lawfully wants them evicted.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 26 minutes ago, saemo said: It is ours, and they act like it is their private property. It isn't. Well, I visit NWR, and I wouldn't visit one while it had been taken over by armed weirdos. What lands were federalized? I've heard this said since I was a teenager, starting with those Skousen seminars people would hold in their homes. Never once heard of it actually happening, outside of eminent domain for public projects such as highways or dams. I find it to be a myth. "It is ours..." THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! They seized it *only* to right wrongs by the federal government. They do not claim it is now their private property. If it were, the government only needs to flood it through water manipulation, these protestors would flee and then beg the feds to buy it. The feds would gladly agree and buy it for pennies on the dollar since it's, well, you know, flooded property. "Well, I visit NWR, and I wouldn't visit one while it had been taken over by armed weirdos." - you say this as if they are weirdos in significant part because they are doing this armed. I personally sleep better at night knowing my neighbors are armed. For get Cleon Skousen. The man was a nut (his son's a genius). Daniel Peterson "neither cheers nor condemns" what's going on in Oregon. I found the following links from him. The first I had already posted in this thread. It provides a great summary of the aggression the federal government has been carrying out against private ranchers in Oregon. The second is an overall view of federalized land in the country. All it takes is a presidential decree (a "pen and a phone" and Obama terms) land as federalized. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/files/2016/01/800px-US_federal_land.agencies.svg_.png
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 27 minutes ago, saemo said: Really? From what I see when I'm out on public lands, every area that is maintained by private individuals is stripped of habitat, wildlife and any and all resources. What I envision when people say refuges or national parks need to be privatized are national treasures turned to wastelands. That land grab, has one interest: a few people making a lot of money. Spare me the greedy money making scenarios. While in the minority, there are wildlife management areas under private control and are ran extremely well. http://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/private/wildlife/ And don't forget Uncle Ted! http://www.skinnymoose.com/hogblog/2011/07/28/hunt-with-ted-nugent-on-his-texas-ranch/
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 37 minutes ago, The Nehor said: They are claiming the federal government will not let them graze and use federal land for their business. Basically they want to use land that is not theirs. They are claiming, "with video proof" that the federal government's management of lands is detrimental to the well being of private lands. That the federal government uses coercive action to force private landowners into selling their land to the government.
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 Terrorism is the threat or use of violence to achieve a political end. The Bundy fools are just terrorist. I hope that this will be resolved without bloodshed. But a very long stay in Federal Prison is in order. Anyone or any group that supports the Bundy's are terrorist sympathizers.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 38 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Nope, that was a government action. I betchya Joseph Smith would have lost a civil suite in court.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said: Terrorism is the threat or use of violence to achieve a political end. The Bundy fools are just terrorist. I hope that this will be resolved without bloodshed. But a very long stay in Federal Prison is in order. Anyone or any group that supports the Bundy's are terrorist sympathizers. I sympathize with the Bundys and hope they serve time. Where does that place me?
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 37 minutes ago, saemo said: They don't want to pay the leases for grazing. Just want a free handout. They don't want their land taken.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 36 minutes ago, The Nehor said: This, the idea that private owners are largely land conservationists is laughable. The apostles have taken a strong stance on this issue. Some here seem to think they know better. Bwahahahahaha! hunters are far and away the most conservationistic people in the country.
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 34 minutes ago, The Nehor said: What land dispute? That the federal government is not allowing others to use government land? They have every right not to. They blabber on about supposed land seizures but will not give a concrete example of government grabbing their land. Instead they are demanding the right to live off of government property. Doesn't this make them welfare leeches? I HAVE PROVIDED AN ARTICLE DETAILING THE GOVERNMENTAL LAND GRAB!!!!!!
Darren10 Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 27 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Because I am generally opposed to vigilantism. I hope this has a peaceful ending but if it turns violent I am probably blaming the gun-toting maniacs who forcibly occupied a government building and not the government that lawfully wants them evicted. You won't join a militia group to stop terrorists in the name of anti vigilantism? Stopping terrorists is being a vigilante? Only law enforcement can stop them?
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Darren10 said: They don't want their land taken. There was no effort to take their land by the government. They used Federal Land without permission for their own personal advantage. IOW Stealing.
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, Darren10 said: I sympathize with the Bundys and hope they serve time. Where does that place me? The Bundy's deliberately stole from others. I guess you can feel sorry for armed thieves for the predicament they put themselves into if you want to. I'm not that nice.
Calm Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Darren10 said: You won't join a militia group to stop terrorists in the name of anti vigilantism? Stopping terrorists is being a vigilante? Only law enforcement can stop them? If there was not a law enforcement group around, possibly. The people on the plane that acted on their own to stop the plane and gave their lives to do it were heros. But there was no one else they knew who were acting. If there is, at most go volunteer to help them; otherwise having multiple groups act with multiple agendas and all with less training and getting in the way of the one group that might have decent training means more deaths and damage, possibly of innocents. We have a number of people in our neighbourhood who do volunteer firefighting, rescue work, etc. but they all do it under direction of the trained professionals because that means less dead and more saved at the end of the day, including themselves. Edited January 8, 2016 by Calm
Recommended Posts