What can we learn from the Bundy ranch situation?

[oknow]

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.

If you are only allowed a specific area for a 1st A zone then everything outside that area is a restricted area

 

[Stomper]

Your Constitutional rights are restricted only by magazine capacity. ;-)

 

[fd15k]

If you are only allowed a specific area for a 1st A zone then everything outside that area is a restricted area

That is not exactly true. There is actually a whole legal framework around it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment_zone

I am also wondering, say government is conducting nuclear testing somewhere in Nevada or New Mexico. Do you think tree huggers should be allowed to go and protest in there without restrictions ? Hold on, I know your answer Replace tree huggers with Ron Paul followers (my kind of people), is it a good idea to let us go there and protest ?

 

[Stomper]

Imagine... Tree huggers being converted into glowing, green chem-lights! ;-)

 

[redmud]

http://www.infowars.com/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle/

If you are engaging in free speech, but not in a designated spot, the Feds can have their snipers engage you ?

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/06/one-of-bundy’s-sons-arrested-in-roundup-incident/
I don't care if this guy is in the wrong and the Feds have the right to take his property or not. The issue is having armed agents preventing the Press from doing their job. This congress already wants to restrict the citizen from reporting (on places such as NWFA) and control who is the press. But the Department of the Interior seems to have decided they can choose to ignore the constitution.


Here you go quoted from an earlier post by RicInOr

 

[fd15k]

http://www.infowars.com/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle/

If you are engaging in free speech, but not in a designated spot, the Feds can have their snipers engage you ?

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/06/one-of-bundy’s-sons-arrested-in-roundup-incident/
I don't care if this guy is in the wrong and the Feds have the right to take his property or not. The issue is having armed agents preventing the Press from doing their job. This congress already wants to restrict the citizen from reporting (on places such as NWFA) and control who is the press. But the Department of the Interior seems to have decided they can choose to ignore the constitution.


Here you go

Can't comment on the first link, since Infowars is a trash resource and I won't open it. As for the second link, this is the first time I've heard of that arrest and did some googling. I came up with this :

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25184886/nevada-ranchers-son-freed-blm-collecting-cattle

Basically he was ordered to leave, and he refused. Whether that order was lawful or not can be disputed, especially since he got arrested and can claim damages. Normally, I would advise anyone to comply with
the orders of a Law Enforcement Officer, local or federal, and dispute the orders later through appropriate channels. I don't think there is any particular point you can score on this one.

 

[redmud]

That is the difference between people like you and me I am not playing a game to score points. I am just standing by what I believe to be just treatment of the American people.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

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.

with respect the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with restricting rights but has everything to do with saying who has the authority to deny, restrict, or limit rights the fathers felt was rudimentary and basic. The Fed should be powerless to define said rights. It goes against the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was purposely crafted to encompass general ideas that ought not be denied to a citizenry. Telling supporters that to express their opinions they must be in a specific location and in a spesific manner simply because BLM has jurisdiction over said area is a horrific conflict of interest and Is grossly inappropriate.
That is the very kind of "restriction" the fathers had in mind when they penned the Bill of Rights. That is the very "authority to regulate" the fathers intended to eliminate by making the Bill of Rights. A Federal entity must not suppress the cries of the public. In fact the 2nd Amendment was penned for the purposes of keeping the Fed from doing just that.

Eagle

 

[Martini_Up]

That is not exactly true. There is actually a whole legal framework around it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment_zone

You won't open an infowars website as you think it's trash and then you reference wikipedia for a 'whole legal framework' argument to refute that a 1st amendment zone ins't tyrannical in it's very essence and freedom ins't absolute, blah, blah..... hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

 

[fd15k]

You won't open an infowars website as you think it's trash and then you reference wikipedia for a 'whole legal framework' argument to refute that a 1st amendment zone ins't tyrannical in it's very essence and freedom ins't absolute, blah, blah..... hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

In the 21st Century it's called a "citation".

 

[fd15k]

with respect the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with restricting rights but has everything to do with saying who has the authority to deny, restrict, or limit rights the fathers felt was rudimentary and basic. The Fed should be powerless to define said rights. It goes against the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was purposely crafted to encompass general ideas that ought not be denied to a citizenry. Telling supporters that to express their opinions they must be in a specific location and in a spesific manner simply because BLM has jurisdiction over said area is a horrific conflict of interest and Is grossly inappropriate.
That is the very kind of "restriction" the fathers had in mind when they penned the Bill of Rights. That is the very "authority to regulate" the fathers intended to eliminate by making the Bill of Rights. A Federal entity must not suppress the cries of the public. In fact the 2nd Amendment was penned for the purposes of keeping the Fed from doing just that.

Eagle

Your post mostly revolves around denial of the 200+ years of the Constitutional law. Basically you're in the same boat with Bundy. Now you might be interested in learning about Whiskey Rebellion, since it gives an idea about character of the "fathers" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#Federal_response

 

[Stomper]

The best way for tyranny to tame a rebellious colony is to subtly win their hearts and minds, then they will do ANYTHING you tell them... a tyranny that thrives on stilted principals and skewed morals

 

[redmud]

Your post mostly revolves around denial of the 200+ years of the Constitutional law. Basically you're in the same boat with Bundy. Now you might be interested in learning about Whiskey Rebellion, since it gives an idea about character of the "fathers" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#Federal_response

So what is your point. My point is that the original documents giving the power to the people has slowly been stripped away with "200+ years of Constitutional law" some of it unintentional and some intentional and you accept it through conditioning.

 

[fd15k]

So what is your point. My point is that the original documents giving the power to the people has slowly been stripped away with "200+ years of Constitutional law" some of it unintentional and some intentional and you accept it through conditioning.

Well, that's what Bundy would say If you read his replies in the lawsuit, you will see that he doesn't care how he arrives at the result, as long as it is the same - he doesn't pay the bills. He made all kinds of claims there that not only are ridiculous (for example: "I am not a citizen of the United States territory"), but also have no supporting evidence and are from multiple contexts. People who support him and his actions seem to be attracted to the situation based on some sentiments that they share with him, but not only many of these sentiments don't survive legal analysis, but they are also unreasonable due to the reality of the world changing.

But yeah, it has been very entertaining. I will STFU now.

 

[oknow]

That is not exactly true. There is actually a whole legal framework around it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment_zone

I am also wondering, say government is conducting nuclear testing somewhere in Nevada or New Mexico. Do you think tree huggers should be allowed to go and protest in there without restrictions ? Hold on, I know your answer Replace tree huggers with Ron Paul followers (my kind of people), is it a good idea to let us go there and protest ?

As far as the tree huggers go, allowed No. Required Yes.

But for safety reasons I can see where they can make a area off limits. There was no reason to have an area roped off for free speech (x2 and only 25 people per area also only one group could speak at a time..... Not covered by msm )for their safety unless ther could not control their people and in which case they should get rid of their people if they can not control them.

 

[Stomper]

Well, that's what Bundy would say If you read his replies in the lawsuit, you will see that he doesn't care how he arrives at the result, as long as it is the same - he doesn't pay the bills. He made all kinds of claims there that not only are ridiculous (for example: "I am not a citizen of the United States territory"), but also have no supporting evidence and are from multiple contexts. People who support him and his actions seem to be attracted to the situation based on some sentiments that they share with him, but not only many of these sentiments don't survive legal analysis, but they are also unreasonable due to the reality of the world changing.

But yeah, it has been very entertaining. I will STFU now.

As you are well aware, being "legal" doesn't always mean "what's right" (slavery was legal at one point in time). All of this could have been handled by two conventionally equipped sheriff's deputies (aka PEACE OFFICERS) with a warrant on Bundy for contempt of a court order, and a lien filed (with intrest) on his property for as long as the cattle remained on the land in question... Not a frakkin' tactical assault squad being unleashed on (albeit disagreeable) citizens.

That's where most of his "supporters" share the "sentimentality" you mentioned. That right there is a reality too, in a "changing world".

On both sides of this conflict, one merely has to follow the money trail. On Bundy's side you have a narrow footpath of a money trail, on the government's side you have a 6-lane super-highway of a money trail.

The more things "change", the more they stay the same.

 

[Stomper]

To all you statist loving drones:

When self-professed liberals like The Yankee Marshall tell it like it is, you are no longer in control the narrative to twist events to your own deluded purposes...The genie is out of the bottle, you are obsolete.

 

[JRuby]

I agree with the majority of that video except that Bundy is not a law abiding citizen and is in the wrong. If these defenders of our rights stood up for someone that was in the right I would agree but after 21 years of losing in a federal court - all of these derfenders of our freedoms did was support a criminals right to free load even longer.

 

[Gator Monroe]

Some folks think Elian Gonzalez needed to be returned to Cuba too ... Go Figure

 

[JRuby]

Some folks think Elian Gonzalez needed to be returned to Cuba too ... Go Figure

If you are going to side track the conversation -

González's mother drowned in November 1999 while attempting to leave Cuba with her son and her boyfriend to get to the United States.[1][2] The U.S. <broken link removed> (INS) initially placed González with paternal relatives in Miami, who sought to keep him in the United States against his father's demands that González be returned to Cuba. A <broken link removed> 's ruling that only González's father, and not his extended relatives, could petition for <broken link removed> on the boy's behalf was upheld by the <broken link removed> . After the <broken link removed> declined to hear the case, federal agents seized González from his relatives and returned him to Cuba in June 2000.

He went home to live with his surviving parent - whats wrong with that? He was an illegal - I thought that the conservatives did not want illegals in this country. Kind of confused.