tvbcof - Your opinions are poisonous. You've stated enough of your perspective that any sane or logical person would take offense at your intentions. This is a summary of what I've read from you above:
- You're a gun owner yet you disagree with the Second Amendment. You claim to support "your Second Amendment rights" but you disagree completely with its fundamental purpose and with any civil intervention.
I consider the 2nd to be not some forum post typo, but a clear indication of the author's posture that private citizens should have a means of violent resistance to provide strategic pressures offsetting the power that the Federal government may amass if they abuse it sufficiently. And I believe that the 2nd remains valid to this day on that basis.
If you want to say that by not supporting people who brandish weapons in support of Bundy's illegal theft from the public is somehow not supporting the 2nd, go ahead. It's a stupid argument.
- You've acknowledged that you'll be willing to relinquish your "right" once the government tells you to, you've also shown that you will blame the "militia" when that day comes.
None of us knows what we would do in any given hypothetical situation. If you know for sure what you would do, then you are probably wrong about it.
I am confident that I would indeed give up my constitutional 2nd amendment rights in some circumstances. The most likely of these would be that if the 2nd is being abused by lunatics like the militia clowns and is causing unacceptable troubles for the nation at large.
I guess I don't have some psychological need to stroke my ego by being some sort of internet tough-guy or armchair warrior. To each his own though.
- You claim that certain government officials are directly responsible for 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, yet you support the idea of government issued terrorism perpetrated against its own people.
I support the government's specific efforts in areas where I think they are doing the right thing, and I believe that most of the things they do are perfectly fine. 'Terrorizing' the population is not one of these, and I speak against it all the time. This to call attention to it which is a the most logical first step in making the problem get better.
If you try to do likewise and inform people of the problems you see and your arguments fail then that should tell you something. If it tells you that you are right and great and everyone else is wrong and stupid, you should take a step back and analyze the situation. Among those who marched ahead anyway one can count the Islamic fundimentalists under
Zawahiri and countless others like them through history. Also people like
Kaczynski and
Stack.
- You've asserted that the money of which Bundy refused to pay for grazing fees come at the expense of you and "the tax payer"; you're as wrong as can be here. These aren't taxes, they're "fees" and they aren't even close to being the same thing.
This is just a setup for further word-salad bullshit. It's financial support of the government's (and thus the people's) efforts. Fact is that ranchers who use public lands for private gain don't even come close to paying the costs of management and thus are highly subsidized. I don't even mind that that much since I think that maintaining a not insignificant portion of the vast public land holding for ranching and grazing is an appropriate use.
- You seem intelligent enough to put pieces together yet very sinister. Your reactions toward these conclusions you draw is indicative of sociopathy. You obviously prefer pain and suffering over peaceful cohabitation. You probably don't understand why you feel this way but you would likely feel "at peace" in the event of nuclear war.
Oh, OK. Someone who is wetting themselves for a bloody confrontation between citizens and the government on BLM range land is all about 'peaceful cohabitation'. Whatever.
- You speak ill of entitlements and yet assert that an injustice has occurred which adversely affects you. You're no party to any injustice here and your assertion that he pay these fees because "it hurts you and the other tax payers" is your own feeling of entitlement over what he spends his money on. His choice to pay the fees doesn't affect you at all. You can't look at this situation objectively because you feel entitled (or at least you convey the sentiments of entitlement in your word choices).
I'm fine with people doing more or less whatever they like on their own land. Nobody has convinced me yet that anyone in the U.S. should have some sort of dynastic entitlement to almost anything, and certainly not the likes of Cliven Bundy.
Since I am part owner of public lands, I've got an entitlement to it. But since I am part owner, I don't get to use a disproportionate amount of it for private gain. Nor does Bundy who has no more entitlement to it than I.
I believe are country will be stronger and more unified and just all around better if we do have some amount of social support to act as a safety net and backstop. From an economies-of-scale perspective it is efficient to implement a lot of things in this way. It should be designed, however, that it is not useful as a permanent fixture but something to be leveraged only in times of need. Cliven Bundy is a very wealthy man asking for and receiving an enduring handout from the public. I'm not at all in favor of this kind of support (though I would tolerate it on a modest scale and don't really mind some subsidy of open range leasing simply because I feel that land use diversity is a healthy thing.)
Just a quote for posterity... This is sickening.
Prior to the Bundy incident, ...
...
Thanks for preserving that. I am particularly proud of it and stand by every word of it.
My honest opinion is that you need help...
My honest opinion is that you need help. So I guess we are even.
BTW, don't rule out the possibility that you are being led around by the nose by the 'Oathkeepers' or just about any other such group.