This guys a racist dipshit & his cronies are dumber then the turds his cows shit out eating free grass… looks like natural selection failed…
[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
This guys a racist dipshit & his cronies are dumber then the turds his cows shit out eating free grass… looks like natural selection failed…
[/quote]
Sigh
So…
What’s going on here?
If you ask me it’s a bunch of bullshit.
You get right wing media bitching about what? Really, it seems to be about protecting a stereotype rancher whose arguably hurting nobody by doing what he’s doing, and the feds overexerting their power.
We got the left saying that the dudes breaking the law, bringing up simple facts like he is getting away with breaking the law and profiting off of land that isn’t his, he pays no grazing fees that others are subject to.
Turns out the rancher is a big racist, so now the left is going to turn this into something that it really isn’t about, off of a topic where the rancher was wrong anyhow…
The right is going to argue whatever it wants to defend this idiot, but end of the day it seems everyones in the wrong, the old racist rancher for continually breaking the law after having been warned about it for years. And also the government for the way, and level of force they responded with…
It’s STUPID to pick which laws to follow and which ones not to without considering, and expecting to pay the consequences if we are caught. If we have a problem with the laws then we can go about changing them by normal means, if you feel that strongly about the laws being unjust then you should protest the best way you know how an go to jail if need be for your beliefs. The rancher is clearly wrong legally, and the gov is wrong with the level of force they decided to respond with…
But, this is turning into something completely different… There will be people defending the dude based on what? Then there will be people attacking the dude based on him being racist rather than him willfully breaking the law for what, half a century?
I don’t even know where to begin with the people trying to guard this guy. Seems like they are pretty much just misguided reactionary folk who like their guns and 2nd amendment.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The right is going to argue whatever it wants to defend this idiot…
[/quote]
Can you name a single person who has expressed support for Bundy’s statements? Dean Heller, Greg Abbott, Michele Fiore, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have condemned his remarks and scrambled to distance themselves from Bundy.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The right is going to argue whatever it wants to defend this idiot…
[/quote]
Can you name a single person who has expressed support for Bundy’s statements? Dean Heller, Greg Abbott, Michele Fiore, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have condemned his remarks and scrambled to distance themselves from Bundy.[/quote]
That’s part of whats wrong though you see.
If it’s supposed to be about a problem with the law, and the government overstepping it’s bounds and that’s the specific issue at hand. If that is what you believe in, then what difference does it make that this old dude is racist?
If the left gets distracted by his racism and there really is a problem with government overstepping. If there is proof the government did things like say they were confiscating cows to pay his debt, and then shot the cows and buried them then we need to keep our attention on this. If not then that means we are all a bunch of fucking morons.
If there were cows killed by the same government that said they were going to use them for payment, then that to me is proof that there is more to this, and that there is something to the government overstepping it’s bounds…
But since this whole thing has turned into an argument as to whether or not the dude is racist I’m guessing the whole thing about cows being killed and buried by agents was probably a lie… THAT, is what we need to focus on. Not whether this geezer is racist or not.
Also, if it ends up being that this is what it is, then that means Hannity and the R media are a bunch of trolls. It’s one or the other.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
So…
What’s going on here?
If you ask me it’s a bunch of bullshit.
You get right wing media bitching about what? Really, it seems to be about protecting a stereotype rancher whose arguably hurting nobody by doing what he’s doing, and the feds overexerting their power.
We got the left saying that the dudes breaking the law, bringing up simple facts like he is getting away with breaking the law and profiting off of land that isn’t his, he pays no grazing fees that others are subject to.
Turns out the rancher is a big racist, so now the left is going to turn this into something that it really isn’t about, off of a topic where the rancher was wrong anyhow…
The right is going to argue whatever it wants to defend this idiot, but end of the day it seems everyones in the wrong, the old racist rancher for continually breaking the law after having been warned about it for years. And also the government for the way, and level of force they responded with…
It’s STUPID to pick which laws to follow and which ones not to without considering, and expecting to pay the consequences if we are caught. If we have a problem with the laws then we can go about changing them by normal means, if you feel that strongly about the laws being unjust then you should protest the best way you know how an go to jail if need be for your beliefs. The rancher is clearly wrong legally, and the gov is wrong with the level of force they decided to respond with…
But, this is turning into something completely different… There will be people defending the dude based on what? Then there will be people attacking the dude based on him being racist rather than him willfully breaking the law for what, half a century?
I don’t even know where to begin with the people trying to guard this guy. Seems like they are pretty much just misguided reactionary folk who like their guns and 2nd amendment.
[/quote]
I agree with most of this post. But, I am not on Bundy’s side here and I love my guns and 2nd amendment rights.
Severiano,
There are tons of people who break the laws, and don’t pay their “fees.” Rich people, middle class people, Conservatives, Liberals, and all the shit in between.
Shit, after learning the IRS employees don’t even pay their own taxes, I am wondering why any of us do.
I think those who try to defend Bundy do so because he is not doing anything new that others from the other side of the political aisle are not, or have not done for years.
People bitching and moaning about an old white man breaking the law, but my city spends $2 Billion on illegal alien healthcare, and no one has shit to say about that.
I love guns.
I also understand that the true spirit of the 2nd amendment is to enable a militia to create a standing army to face our own forces if they were to become tyrannical. Problem is in order to do that we need to allow civilians to have things like M2’s, Abrams tanks, and tactical nukes if we are ever to have the sort of firepower to defeat our own military in a standing war. Otherwise we would need to fight the exact same way our enemies fight, via guerrilla tactics, hostages, etc.
People talk 2nd amendment all the time but don’t really consider things very carefully, like whether they want their crazy uncle Joe to have a 50 cal, or consider what he would do with it when he was drunk. Or some unstable rich asshole with a nuke. Forget that noise… I’m not with most of my Marine Corps brothers on this because I just have a different understanding of weapons and death.
I’d love to own my own m2, I love that weapon dearly… But I also love my country and understand it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one that could afford, and wanted one.
Sounds to me like the guy is just an old crank who refused to pay a tax that the Reagan administration enacted, has tied up the federal court system for the better part of two decades, lost literally every single appeal, and still refuses to pay. I thought this article said it better than I could have.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/uncivil-disobedience_787040.html
Mods, get ready to change the title of this thread to “Gun Control IV”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.
I also understand that the true spirit of the 2nd amendment is to enable a militia to create a standing army to face our own forces if they were to become tyrannical. Problem is in order to do that we need to allow civilians to have things like M2’s, Abrams tanks, and tactical nukes if we are ever to have the sort of firepower to defeat our own military in a standing war. Otherwise we would need to fight the exact same way our enemies fight, via guerrilla tactics, hostages, etc.
People talk 2nd amendment all the time but don’t really consider things very carefully, like whether they want their crazy uncle Joe to have a 50 cal, or consider what he would do with it when he was drunk. Or some unstable rich asshole with a nuke. Forget that noise… I’m not with most of my Marine Corps brothers on this because I just have a different understanding of weapons and death.
I’d love to own my own m2, I love that weapon dearly… But I also love my country and understand it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one that could afford, and wanted one. [/quote]
Much is wrong with this post but I am typing on a smartphone and cannot address it now.[/quote]
His paragraph regarding the true intent of the Second Amendment is spot on(except for the “problem is” phrase), though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.
I also understand …blab…blab…blab…
[/quote]
Same ol’ story. “I love guns but…”
The Second Amendment debate has nothing to do with your emotional attachment to a piece of steel.
[/quote]
“So much is wrong with his post”, and this is what you come up with?
Get ready folks, pushy is gonna take everyone to school here.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
hope you are in favor of Gay Marriage
[/quote]
Marriage is a religious issue, not a legal issue. The law should no more distinguish a married person or persons from a baptized person or a Bar Mitzvahed person. Those are religious rites, between that person and G-d.
So, if two sodomites wish to pretend to be married, I won’t stand in their way and nor should the government. In short, I “tolerate” them.
Similarly, I should be free to ignore their abomination and not interact with them if I so choose. In short, I do not “accept” them.
It is this second point – “acceptance” – that sodomites wish to force upon other people. Such forced acceptance is contrary to a free society. Homosexual sex is abhorred in Judaism. I should not be forced to change my religious beliefs.[/quote]
Hear, Hear!
[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
This guys a racist dipshit & his cronies are dumber then the turds his cows shit out eating free grass… looks like natural selection failed…
[/quote]
Then you agree that LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling should be seen the same way after his racist comments ?
He is also a donor to the Democratic Party.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.
I also understand that the true spirit of the 2nd amendment is to enable a militia to create a standing army to face our own forces if they were to become tyrannical. Problem is in order to do that we need to allow civilians to have things like M2’s, Abrams tanks, and tactical nukes if we are ever to have the sort of firepower to defeat our own military in a standing war. Otherwise we would need to fight the exact same way our enemies fight, via guerrilla tactics, hostages, etc.
People talk 2nd amendment all the time but don’t really consider things very carefully, like whether they want their crazy uncle Joe to have a 50 cal, or consider what he would do with it when he was drunk. Or some unstable rich asshole with a nuke. Forget that noise… I’m not with most of my Marine Corps brothers on this because I just have a different understanding of weapons and death.
I’d love to own my own m2, I love that weapon dearly… But I also love my country and understand it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one that could afford, and wanted one. [/quote]
Much is wrong with this post but I am typing on a smartphone and cannot address it now.[/quote]
His paragraph regarding the true intent of the Second Amendment is spot on(except for the “problem is” phrase), though.[/quote]
Correct. But like many who toe the “I love guns but BUT” line he instantly veers off course with, “it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one.” (I emphasized the key word)
One reveals their statist core when they implicitly state the government is in the “allowing” business and not the other way around, i.e., the people “allow” their government (certain things).
He also errs by conflating his love for his M2 and his country and how one must consequently supersede the other, his only “noble” choice being to subjugate his gun love to his country love. We can infer from his statements that we too, if we are to be true patriots like him, that we must beat our swords into plowshares and humble ourselves before our almighty earthly god – the collective will of our brethren and their chosen rulers – The Government.[/quote]
Haha! So you got all the answers don’t you?
My understanding of his post, was that times have changed since our forefathers added the 2nd amendment. That we should be able to keep our guns, but the Government now has weapons that are far more dangerous than bullets and it would be foolish for the people to think it would be smart to let citizens have weapons of mass destruction in their possession.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.
I also understand that the true spirit of the 2nd amendment is to enable a militia to create a standing army to face our own forces if they were to become tyrannical. Problem is in order to do that we need to allow civilians to have things like M2’s, Abrams tanks, and tactical nukes if we are ever to have the sort of firepower to defeat our own military in a standing war. Otherwise we would need to fight the exact same way our enemies fight, via guerrilla tactics, hostages, etc.
People talk 2nd amendment all the time but don’t really consider things very carefully, like whether they want their crazy uncle Joe to have a 50 cal, or consider what he would do with it when he was drunk. Or some unstable rich asshole with a nuke. Forget that noise… I’m not with most of my Marine Corps brothers on this because I just have a different understanding of weapons and death.
I’d love to own my own m2, I love that weapon dearly… But I also love my country and understand it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one that could afford, and wanted one. [/quote]
Much is wrong with this post but I am typing on a smartphone and cannot address it now.[/quote]
His paragraph regarding the true intent of the Second Amendment is spot on(except for the “problem is” phrase), though.[/quote]
Correct. But like many who toe the “I love guns but BUT” line he instantly veers off course with, “it’s pretty insane to expect things to be safe if we were to allow everyone to have one.” (I emphasized the key word)
One reveals their statist core when they implicitly state the government is in the “allowing” business and not the other way around, i.e., the people “allow” their government (certain things).
He also errs by conflating his love for his M2 and his country and how one must consequently supersede the other, his only “noble” choice being to subjugate his gun love to his country love. We can infer from his statements that we too, if we are to be true patriots like him, that we must beat our swords into plowshares and humble ourselves before our almighty earthly god – the collective will of our brethren and their chosen rulers – The Government.[/quote]
Heck, the biggest problem with his post is the inference that the state keeps weapons out of the hands of unstable, rich assholes. The state IS unstable, rich assholes, who have a near monopoly on the right to own the weapons he talks about. Then, there seems to be the insane reasoning that says, “We can’t trust people to own X, Y, and Z, but we CAN trust people to vote on who is allowed to own X, Y, and Z.”
That seems to be the same type of reasoning behind the idea that, “We should retain the right to own guns because they keep our government from becoming tyrannical, but we can’t be trusted to defend ourselves from OTHER countries, so we need a military powerful enough to defend us from other countries, while our guns keep our military and government from becoming tyrannical, and around, and around, and around.”
The reason for the military is the same as that of UPS and FedEx. The people(at least the people of a nation that is sufficiently powerful-the creation of a state does nothing to change that) could defend themselves from other countries, but they would have to give up on the things that better society to do so. People could certainly deliver their own shipments across the country, but they would have to give up things to do so. It’s all about division of labor. This empire’s(and all great empires) worship of all things military skews that truth.