Nevada Cattle Ranch

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

And it can also be argued (and even you could and would do an outstanding job were you so inclined to do so) the Letters of Marque and Reprisals angle clearly breaks the back of the “arms that can be borne” theory.

I have presented evidence before that cannons – even those used by the militias of yesteryear – were legitimately privately owned. Yet cannons cannot “be borne.”

Privateering warships cannot be borne. Yet clearly they were legal and prevalent and needed no authorization for their private ownership. They only needed authorization to engage the enemy in the name of the state.
[/quote]

But you’re trampling over a subtle line in the sand: There is a difference between a common practice in Constitutional times and a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Put a better way, if the 2A protects only arms which can be borne, then it does not follow that arms which cannot be borne–cannons, schooners–are automatically banned. Rather, it follows only that the banning of such would not constitute a violation of the Bill of Rights.

I.e., that private citizens owned cannons does not necessarily imply that those cannons were specifically protected by the 2A.

[H_factor]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You wanna talk lifting, Harold?

You wanna talk women, Harold?

You wanna talk people, places and things, Harold?

You wanna talk raising kids, Harold?

You wanna talk love and loss, Harold?

You wanna talk working jobs from Alaska to Key West and from Pennsylvania to L.A, Harold?

You wanna talk starting and running your own business, Harold?

Do you? Lemme know.

You’ve walked inches to my miles in this life, boy.

[/quote]

I’m not questioning that you haven’t “done things in life.” In fact your post has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. The difference in us is that I think I’ve got a lot to learn and you think you have nothing. The difference is you’ve “walked all these miles” yet feel as if other people have nothing to add to you. You’re on a DISCUSSION board and yet rarely listen to other people. And you always feel better than the person who is posting. You argue by assertion and by belittlement. It makes you happy and feel witty, but most of us can see right through you.

Make fun of them? Yes. Bait them? Yes. Ignore what is in their post? Yes.

Talk to them? No.

It’s why you have so many issues with so many different people on here. You think the issue is with everyone else Push. It’s actually your lack of respect for the opinions of people and your rush to insult anyone with a difference of opinion than you. You’ve walked a lot of miles, but you haven’t learned some of the basics. I think a lot of us on here are hoping it isn’t too late for you.

You call me a boy, but I hope when I’m your age I act more like the man I am today than the “boy” you come across as on here.

[Aragorn]

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Bundy on “the Negro”:

“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nevada-rancher-bundy-condemned-racist-remarks-23457303[/quote]

So the guy is a wacko. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that.

Doesn’t mean it’s OK to send in the 7th Cavalry to enforce a civil judgment at the behest of Harry Reid.[/quote]

Yeah I’m ok with this. He’s clearly a crazy and he now has his 15 minutes of fame and wants to hang on to it.

[mbdix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

Now I’ll ask you a couple questions (that you don’t have to answer seeing how I didn’t answer yours directly):

Do you feel you have the Constitutional right to purchase or build any weapon at all? If so, what is the limit and why?

I believe it is my Constitutional Right to build or purchase a weapon that I could use to protect family, property, and myself or brother from another mother. Rifles, handguns, machine guns. Without the risk of taking out an entire city or starting a nuclear apocalypse. I believe our Nation has enough weapons technology to protect the United States of America without the need for me to have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[/quote]

I happen to agree with you but tell me WHY you take that stance.

Then tell me why the constitution and our national, state and local history forbids us from owning anything beyond a rifle, handgun, and machine gun.

For instance, do you (provided you aren’t a convicted felon) think it is constitutional for a federal, state or local government (but especially the federal govt) to forbid you from owning a hand grenade or a tank or a mortar? If so, give me something concrete to reinforce your view (feelings are not concrete). If you direct me to the Firearms Control Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968 you will get cut down in a blaze of bullets, believe you me.[/quote]

I admit that the Constitution or 2nd Amendment doesn’t say there is an actual limit on what types of arms can be possessed. It also doesn’t state that there is a minimum amount of arms that a person is entitled to.

There is no concrete answer to what the constitution says about an individual’s rights to the types of firearms possessed. It is worded in a way that in can be interpreted different ways.

[jjackkrash]

Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction

It seems to me that the real question should be why the State–or any state–is allowed by the world’s population to possess the power to bring about species extinction with the mere push of a button. Granting this power to any individual or group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned they are or purport to be, is, frankly, completely insane. Yet that is the state of things and we just roll along like it is a normal and acceptable condition of modern existence.

[Severiano]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

The point of the 2nd is to set up citizens to fight an overzealous government. Think about how much money our government spend on weapons, war, defense… Now think about how much it would cost to counter such a military with a standing army within the nation. We would essentially be spending enough money privately and via tax dollar to field a military more than twice as powerful as what we already have, essentially two armies… One for our government, and one to protect our own rights. Has anyone ever thought about who could afford to field a standing army outside of the government itself? It would have to be a collection of corporations… Corporations are people now, which is another thing I don’t believe our forefathers would have envisioned.

The ones who have the most to gain from the idea of another standing army in this country would be the NRA and weapons manufacturers.

I think our forefathers may have not even imagined us populating the entirety of the United States, what it is today. I think their vision was much more short term. They may have imagined a bunch of families owning properties and much less urban. Rifling hadn’t been invented so they probably envisioned families already owning Muskets for managing their homes, possibly they owned a couple muskets? Maybe someone owned the means and tech to forge cannons?

I don’t think our forefathers envisioned trailer parks and town houses coupled with artillery pieces and .50 m2 machine guns is what I’m saying. They never imagined liberty past us running out of land to exploit.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The point of the 2nd is to set up citizens to fight an overzealous government. Think about how much money our government spend on weapons, war, defense… Now think about how much it would cost to counter such a military with a standing army within the nation. We would essentially be spending enough money privately and via tax dollar to field a military more than twice as powerful as what we already have, essentially two armies… One for our government, and one to protect our own rights. Has anyone ever thought about who could afford to field a standing army outside of the government itself? It would have to be a collection of corporations… Corporations are people now, which is another thing I don’t believe our forefathers would have envisioned.

[/quote]

As someone has already stated the idea would be to use guerrilla forces to disrupt lines of communications, destroy/capture supplies, create chaos/confusion in the enemy’s rear and possibly hold and control strategic locations.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The point of the 2nd is to set up citizens to fight an overzealous government. Think about how much money our government spend on weapons, war, defense… Now think about how much it would cost to counter such a military with a standing army within the nation. We would essentially be spending enough money privately and via tax dollar to field a military more than twice as powerful as what we already have, essentially two armies… One for our government, and one to protect our own rights. Has anyone ever thought about who could afford to field a standing army outside of the government itself? It would have to be a collection of corporations… Corporations are people now, which is another thing I don’t believe our forefathers would have envisioned.

[/quote]

As someone has already stated the idea would be to use guerrilla forces to disrupt lines of communications, destroy/capture supplies, create chaos/confusion in the enemy’s rear and possibly hold and control strategic locations.
[/quote]

I’m not sure that’s what our forefathers envisioned. What we learned from the Civil War is that likely other nations will be involved.

In the World as we know it today, how do you think that would go down? What country would be strong enough to fight our government, and what would they want in return?

Keep in mind, it would probably involve doing things like hitting the U.S. at home while we are overextended in a war somewhere else, essentially hurting key parts of our infrastructure in order to severely hurt our logistics. If you think about that situation you have to think about how many of our own troops would be killed because of such actions. This is just a hypothetical but it’s a likely one.

Another possibility is using our military itself, but who does that set up to be in control other than some General, or the sponsor of that General?

What are the scenario’s in which we would have a revolution in which the government is successfully overthrown? Do you think those specific gun rights groups are going to have the backing of the people? When the people are so stratified already?

I see gun rights groups as already having political leanings towards the right in most cases. We don’t need a republican revolution, with what I’ve seen out of the sort, I’d probably be the first one to sign up and fight against them. I only see NRA and Koch brother backers with those sorts of interests, I don’t want my country turning into that.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The point of the 2nd is to set up citizens to fight an overzealous government. Think about how much money our government spend on weapons, war, defense… Now think about how much it would cost to counter such a military with a standing army within the nation. We would essentially be spending enough money privately and via tax dollar to field a military more than twice as powerful as what we already have, essentially two armies… One for our government, and one to protect our own rights. Has anyone ever thought about who could afford to field a standing army outside of the government itself? It would have to be a collection of corporations… Corporations are people now, which is another thing I don’t believe our forefathers would have envisioned.

[/quote]

As someone has already stated the idea would be to use guerrilla forces to disrupt lines of communications, destroy/capture supplies, create chaos/confusion in the enemy’s rear and possibly hold and control strategic locations.
[/quote]

I’m not sure that’s what our forefathers envisioned. What we learned from the Civil War is that likely other nations will be involved.

In the World as we know it today, how do you think that would go down? What country would be strong enough to fight our government, and what would they want in return?

Keep in mind, it would probably involve doing things like hitting the U.S. at home while we are overextended in a war somewhere else, essentially hurting key parts of our infrastructure in order to severely hurt our logistics. If you think about that situation you have to think about how many of our own troops would be killed because of such actions. This is just a hypothetical but it’s a likely one.

Another possibility is using our military itself, but who does that set up to be in control other than some General, or the sponsor of that General?

What are the scenario’s in which we would have a revolution in which the government is successfully overthrown? Do you think those specific gun rights groups are going to have the backing of the people? When the people are so stratified already?

I see gun rights groups as already having political leanings towards the right in most cases. We don’t need a republican revolution, with what I’ve seen out of the sort, I’d probably be the first one to sign up and fight against them. I only see NRA and Koch brother backers with those sorts of interests, I don’t want my country turning into that. [/quote]

I’m not going to speculate about how a civil war might play out, but I’m pretty confident that it wouldn’t involve the Koch brothers.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The point of the 2nd is to set up citizens to fight an overzealous government. Think about how much money our government spend on weapons, war, defense… Now think about how much it would cost to counter such a military with a standing army within the nation. We would essentially be spending enough money privately and via tax dollar to field a military more than twice as powerful as what we already have, essentially two armies… One for our government, and one to protect our own rights. Has anyone ever thought about who could afford to field a standing army outside of the government itself? It would have to be a collection of corporations… Corporations are people now, which is another thing I don’t believe our forefathers would have envisioned.

[/quote]

As someone has already stated the idea would be to use guerrilla forces to disrupt lines of communications, destroy/capture supplies, create chaos/confusion in the enemy’s rear and possibly hold and control strategic locations.
[/quote]

I’m not sure that’s what our forefathers envisioned. What we learned from the Civil War is that likely other nations will be involved.

In the World as we know it today, how do you think that would go down? What country would be strong enough to fight our government, and what would they want in return?

Keep in mind, it would probably involve doing things like hitting the U.S. at home while we are overextended in a war somewhere else, essentially hurting key parts of our infrastructure in order to severely hurt our logistics. If you think about that situation you have to think about how many of our own troops would be killed because of such actions. This is just a hypothetical but it’s a likely one.

Another possibility is using our military itself, but who does that set up to be in control other than some General, or the sponsor of that General?

What are the scenario’s in which we would have a revolution in which the government is successfully overthrown? Do you think those specific gun rights groups are going to have the backing of the people? When the people are so stratified already?

I see gun rights groups as already having political leanings towards the right in most cases. We don’t need a republican revolution, with what I’ve seen out of the sort, I’d probably be the first one to sign up and fight against them. I only see NRA and Koch brother backers with those sorts of interests, I don’t want my country turning into that. [/quote]

I’m not going to speculate about how a civil war might play out, but I’m pretty confident that it wouldn’t involve the Koch brothers.

[/quote]

Here’s the thing though. It would have to be popular enough for civilians to want to join, and at the same time popular enough for civilians to not want to undermine it.

If the U.S. were going through, or about to go through some sort of revolution the way you guys seem to imagine it, it would have to be on a large, large scale with masses.

I think we actually must consider the possibilities in which a revolution could occur.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Here’s the thing though. It would have to be popular enough for civilians to want to join, and at the same time popular enough for civilians to not want to undermine it.

If the U.S. were going through, or about to go through some sort of revolution the way you guys seem to imagine it, it would have to be on a large, large scale with masses.

[/quote]

I disagree. The minority Sunnis in Iraq waged a devastating insurgency that continued even after many Sunnis turned against them.

I think we actually must consider the possibilities in which a revolution could occur.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California are overrun with tens of millions of Hispanics. The government refuses to respond. Municipal governments fall and large areas are taken over by gangs. People flee and lose their properties. Militias launch attacks against the gangs. The federal government declares martial law and orders the army to disarm civilians. 20% of the army defects to the militias. Conflict breaks out between the army and militias.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Here’s the thing though. It would have to be popular enough for civilians to want to join, and at the same time popular enough for civilians to not want to undermine it.

If the U.S. were going through, or about to go through some sort of revolution the way you guys seem to imagine it, it would have to be on a large, large scale with masses.

[/quote]

I disagree. The minority Sunnis in Iraq waged a devastating insurgency that continued even after many Sunnis turned against them.

I think we actually must consider the possibilities in which a revolution could occur.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California are overrun with tens of millions of Hispanics. The government refuses to respond. Municipal governments fall and large areas are taken over by gangs. People flee and lose their properties. Militias launch attacks against the gangs. The federal government declares martial law and orders the army to disarm civilians. 20% of the army defects to the militias. Conflict breaks out between the army and militias.

[/quote]

I think something from the 2nd has to do with situations where we see the Majority of Americans not being represented and feeling manipulated enough to revolt. It seems a little different for a small fringe group to take over as the Sunni example.

The 2nd example is a good one, it applies to todays politics and perceptions of the roll of illegal immigrants to this nation is what I’m assuming. This is a good example of what I’m talking about because it may seem like a popular thing for you to get behind, but to someone like me the politics of the border are far more complex. You might point the finger at, “illegal immigrants” while I at the same time point my finger at big business who have lured immigrants here for over 100 years to pick crops, butcher animals, etc only to turn around and call them wetbacks, beaners and deportation. After the crops are picked the promises are broken.

Just the example, because whose to say that another militia doesn’t break out to defend or fight for the very people you might be fighting against in that situation? The freedom of arms thing is just as likely to further stratify the country as it is to bring us back together if we are ever to fragment. We all sort of need some common enemy along with the enemy of government itself. If you ask me, the only thing we can come together on is recognizing big corporate is controlling big government. It would essentially boil down to every other revolution that ever took place in the world, with the poor overtaking the rich and turning the nation upside down.

Problem is, who has the most to lose from OUR economy and OUR markets crashing? Its in the interest of the entire western world to keep things for the most part as they are. Who would benefit from our destruction, and what side would that put you on?

[killerDIRK]

the 3 Stooges : Clive Bundy, Al Bundy and Ted Bundy …

posted by an Atheistic Educated Transgendered psycho - sociopath ; )

thanks PushHarder …

[MaximusB]

Al Bundy is one of the greatest Americans to ever live, let’s get that shit straight.

Polk High baby.

[mbdix]

I admit that the Constitution or 2nd Amendment doesn’t say there is an actual limit on what types of arms can be possessed.

Yep. “Shall not be infringed.”

“A well regulated Militia” Who does this regulating? Why are controls needed for a militia? Who is in charge of this militia?

It also doesn’t state that there is a minimum amount of arms that a person is entitled to.

Why would it? The First Amendment similarly doesn’t state there is a minimum amount of speech that a person is entitled to.

A person can speak/type words that can send them to prison.

There is no concrete answer to what the constitution says about an individual’s rights to the types of firearms possessed. It is worded in a way that in can be interpreted different ways.

And what are those ways?

[mbdix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

“A well regulated Militia” Who does this regulating? Why are controls needed for a militia? Who is in charge of this militia?

[/quote]

Seriously, do some study on what was meant by “well regulated” in the 18th century. It’s not exactly the way we understand the term today. I don’t have the time to explain right now but it is a good question.

I’m not yanking your chain.

A person can speak/type words that can send them to prison.

Yes, and a person can bear arms in a way that will send them to prison. That’s not the point.

You right to free speech is not limited, or to be licensed, or infringed UNTIL you cross the bounds, such as libel and slander.

Likewise, your right to bear arms is not limited, or to be licensed, or infringed UNTIL you cross the bounds such as armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon.

Savvy?

And what are those ways?

Did you forget to answer this question ^?
[/quote]

No, I was not exactly sure what you were asking? How can it be interpreted differently?

Some could say it means “arms” defined as firearms and not all weapons in existence.

Others might think it means all weapons in existence.

Those are just two ways