What can we learn from the Bundy ranch situation?

[fd15k]

The funny part is Bundy may be a racist... but his "taxation without representation" isn't effected by his racism.

That's right. Because it's taking place in a different jurisdiction altogether

 

[CLT65]

Talking bubblegum about people of other ethnicities and/or skin color is not racist as long as you're not hateful ?

I didn't say it wasn't racist. My grandfather may have been racist to one degree or another whether he realized it or not, but he wasn't hateful towards other races. He just didn't understand their perspectives and said offensive things without knowing why they were offensive.

I do think that when we talk about race and racism what we're actually talking about is culture. If your next door neighbor was an opposite race as you, but lived the same way you live, talked the same way, liked the same sports and had the same hobbies, would you like him? You would probably be best buddies, and you are not a racist. That was my grandfather. A true racist would hate the guy no matter what.

On the other hand, if your neighbor is a different race, talks a different language (or a different version of your language), does odd things and thinks in a way that you just can't understand; there's your cultural barrier. You might think it's about race but it's not. It's all about culture.

Personally I would love to live in a truly "colorblind" society; one where the content of your character was really more important than the color of your skin. That is certainly not the world we live in, on the right, left, white or black side. It would be nice to be able to discuss these things without knee-jerk reactions and panicked cries of "Racism!"

 

[fd15k]

Says the man defending the slave makers and slave owners.

When I said Republicans were pushing gun control up until last 30 years, you said it's okay, politics changes and there is nothing to be ashamed of. Now you bring an example from 160 years ago, with the people behind the label no longer around and definitely not being in the same boat as the people behind the same label today. Yoda would say "interesting take on consistency you have".

 

[fd15k]

Stole from who? The same government that stole from him?

From the people that government is intended to represent, that is from you and me. I specifically say "intended" to account for any doubt you may have that you are being represented.

 

[PiratePast40]

From the people that government is intended to represent, that is from you and me. I specifically say "intended" to account for any doubt you may have that you are being represented.

OK - that's it, you and your buddies are outside the 1st amendment box. The snipers have you in their sights. Another peep out of you and it's time to open fire!

This is what you believe in isn't it?

 

[Stomper]

Screw that, where's my vicious German Shepard and taser... I KNOW there are some old liberal/progressive women to push down to the asphalt too... C'MON!! (Sarcasm)

 

[fd15k]

OK - that's it, you and your buddies are outside the 1st amendment box. The snipers have you in their sights. Another peep out of you and it's time to open fire!

This is what you believe in isn't it?

No, but I have a feeling you would rather make up what I may believe in as opposed to learn it from me.

 

[waglockfan]

I could give two poops about a million bucks supposedly owed to a government that represents banks and big business.

I am more concerned with the 17 Trillion the gubberment has stolen from us, the people they are supposed to represent, and expect us to pay to them to settle our "debt". Like we should be thankful for a gubberment that acts as our saviors by enslaving us and showing up pointing guns at us from improvised bunkers and helicopters.

It was his land before any gubberment turd "cared" about turtles, and it is still his in my book.

 

[cookie]

We need to learn what the constitution of the United States means and why so many people have taken an oath to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic yet most don't , yet seem to collect some taxpayer benefit for not holding to their oath . Thanks for what service ???

 

[Caveman Jim]

Awesome, found some more ignoramus people to add to the ignore list. My it sure is growing..

 

[Jamie6.5]

When I said Republicans were pushing gun control up until last 30 years, you said it's okay, politics changes and there is nothing to be ashamed of. Now you bring an example from 160 years ago, with the people behind the label no longer around and definitely not being in the same boat as the people behind the same label today. Yoda would say "interesting take on consistency you have".

Wow, another quote out of context. You guys live for this crap don'tcha?!?
I didn't say it was "nothing to be ashamed of," I said it is no longer the case.
You need a history lesson more than anything else fd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Furthermore, you need to review who was president in 1968, and who controlled congress.
LBJ was in the WH, and your democrat buddies held the reins in both the house and the senate. The same situation we had for the first two years of the BHO admin.
That was when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.
It was the most sweeping gun reform(s) since the 1934 NFA. (also under a democrat controlled congress, and signed by a dem president) Curiously enough, 1934 was the same year the Taylor Grazing Act (land theft) passed congress and FDR, that great "humanitarian," signed it into law.
That musta been a dandy congress for you statist types.

A handful of republicans pushing for gun control 30+ years ago, but not passing any bills in congress is waaayy different from what we are discussing here.
Lyndon Johnson of

"we'll have them ni**ers votin' democrat for the next hundred years!"

fame is the prez who signed the current form of slavery into law. A bill passed by the 88th Congress, 50 years ago (not 160) this year by:
Drum roll please,.... You guessed it, the democrats controlled congress for that one too.

Thirty years ago Reagan had just been shot, and yes there was a push to control cheap handguns of the type used to shoot he and Brady. The the result however, was the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act that forbids the feds to conduct, keep, and/or even store a gun registry on federal property.
I know we lost the ability to have new MGs at the same time, based on a dem's last minute resolution in the bill (that was never voted on), but that's a discussion for another day.

So before you go attempting to slam anyone else about history, go find a source of non-revisionist history to study up on.

 

[timac]

You are out of you mind. They didn't show up out of the blue. He lost multiple injunctions. Time and Time again. Jfc.... He forced their hand because he stole, he is a thief. And your not 'in today's sense' arguement is beyond stupid. Keep trying to save face. He's an avowed (you guys love that word) racist by anyone's standards. This is why you lose.

 

[fd15k]

A handful of republicans pushing for gun control 30+ years ago, but not passing any bills in congress is waaayy different from what we are discussing here.

Thanks for taking the time to do that write-up.

 

[Stomper]

It was a be-u-tee-ful day under Mr. "Great Society" LBJ... (Not really)

 

[freestoneangler]

In answer to the thread title's question... that having desert toads on your property is not a good thing.

 

[fd15k]

Text of the 1998 injunction against Bundy, some might be interested in reading:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/217770195/Bundy-1998-DNv

 

[Martini_Up]

If Bundy needed arresting, they could have easily issued a warrant. Is there a warrant? There must be a warrant with all these years - no, decades of stealing, right? Haha! Idiots!!!

People went down to NV to face a tyrannical BLM, that's it!! No bending over for a racist thief, just doing what citizens should do and what very few have balls to do - stand up against a tyrannical bully, the US GOVERNMENT'S BLM!!

 

[fd15k]

If Bundy needed arresting, they could have easily issued a warrant. Is there a warrant? There must be a warrant with all these years - no, decades of stealing, right? Haha! Idiots!!!

People went down to NV to face a tyrannical BLM, that's it!! No bending over for a racist thief, just doing what citizens should do and what very few have balls to do - stand up against a tyrannical bully, the US GOVERNMENT'S BLM!!

It was not their goal to arrest Bundy, but to end cattle trespass to administered lands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Bureau_of_Land_Management_actions

As for tyranny, authority, and stuff, please read the document I have cited in the previous post. The court nicely explains why and how BLM has control over those lands, as well as the nature of the relationship between Mr. Bundy and BLM prior to the conflict.

 

[redmud]

It was not their goal to arrest Bundy, but to end cattle trespass to administered lands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Bureau_of_Land_Management_actions

As for tyranny, authority, and stuff, please read the document I have cited in the previous post. The court nicely explains why and how BLM has control over those lands, as well as the nature of the relationship between Mr. Bundy and BLM prior to the conflict.

I will reiterate my point by saying that the next time there is a "RESTRICTED FIRST AMENDMENT ZONE" please head over there with your multi media device and start a thread on NWFA for us telling us as such. I will be interested in the outcome.

 

[fd15k]

I will reiterate my point by saying that the next time there is a "RESTRICTED FIRST AMENDMENT ZONE" please head over there with your multi media device and start a thread on NWFA for us telling us as such. I will be interested in the outcome.

Where did you get "restricted first amendment zone" ? There is mention of "designated First Amendment areas", which is obviously a different thing. You've got to be very naive not to see a difference between a peaceful protest and interference with a government business. This is also a reminder that no right is unlimited, whether it is First or Second Amendment.