Quote from: tvbcof on May 05, 2014, 03:12:43 AM

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.

My argument here is based on my own interpretation of your previous posts and nothing more. I'm not arguing for the validity of the Second Amendment; I'm insinuating that you're being hypocritical and unfair in your generalizations.

Quote from: tvbcof on May 05, 2014, 03:12:43 AM

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.

I disagree, some of us know exactly what we would do. Some of us already put our lives on the line every single day. There are millions of people who know precisely what they would do in such a situation; people who actually possess the resolve to follow through with whatever they've decided. Many would falter but many more would not.

Rights are things that aren't negotiable. Rights are protections, people should never give up those protections; especially in dangerous times. You may give up your rights for they belong to you. My rights belong to none-other than me and I will keep them. Rights are entitlements.

Quote from: tvbcof on May 05, 2014, 03:12:43 AM

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.

When a government attacks its own people it becomes illegitimate. The people have a right to a representative government. I'm not quite clear on your stance here because you seem to support the actions you believe were taken by the head of our government. I take it you disagree with the government killing innocent people just to create the illusion of "an enemy" for the people to focus on but you don't see anything wrong with it because it's a small part of a bigger picture?

I disagree. The government has no right to murder innocent people regardless of the agenda. If it were revealed that anybody in our government were responsible for this behavior then they deserve death. This is the highest form of treason against the people. When the government becomes illegitimate it becomes the burden and responsibility of the governed to reform or abolish it.

Quote from: tvbcof on May 05, 2014, 03:12:43 AM

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.

It's not "word-salad bullshit" as you called it. It's not the same thing... It's not financial support of the government either; the government agencies are paid by Congress. The fee was not to "support the government" as the government is "non-profit". That's where the difference comes in. Neither the BLM nor any other government agency can assess taxes as it would be unconstitutional, illegal, and unlawful. They can assess "fees" for specific purposes. When the BLM stopped applying the fees towards the specific purpose for which they were collected they no longer had the authority to charge those fees.

It's not word-salad; it's a breach of contract.

Quote from: tvbcof on May 05, 2014, 03:12:43 AM

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're the one who wants bloody confrontation. You've stated twice above that the government should clear them out... I've not once called for hostility. I've called for equilibrium through balance of power. The militia is necessary to have any chance of preventing bloodshed. This is a confrontation in which the government must stand down. There has been no criminal offense to cause this; only a civil claim by the government for unpaid "grazing fees". The government has no more rights than you or I with how civil matters are resolved. Just because somebody owes you money doesn't give you the right to go in and kill them; nor does it the government.

The government attempted intimidation; it didn't work. To escalate this further would be criminal on behalf of the government.

Quote from: tvbcof on May 05, 2014, 03:12:43 AM

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.)

Unless you live in Nevada then you are zero percent owner. Federal land is owned exclusively by the Federal Government; you have no right to enter a Federal facility, Military base, or District without consent of the Federal Government. I understand that 84% of the land in Nevada is "owned" by the Federal Government and the Nevada State Constitution provides for it; however, the State of Nevada has the right and a very good reason to assume possession of this land. The State of Nevada is entitled to all of the land within her borders...

This is a conflict between "what should be" and "what is" because the State of Nevada has rights to the land in which it hasn't acknowledged... If I were to choose not to acknowledge my own right to free speech, that wouldn't nullify the existence of that right.

Even where a State has acknowledged the land as "Federal Land" doesn't suppress the rights of that State within the United States of America. The land is State Land for as long as it is a "part of Nevada".

Quote from: tvbcof on May 05, 2014, 03:12:43 AM

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.

I wish I could understand your perspective. I just don't see where you're coming from...

I'm not being led around anywhere by anybody. I've simply made a choice between what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong and I base my beliefs on logic. In a world where everybody is born with free-will there is a necessity of government. The only governmental structure thus far which preserves free-will is that if a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people must be represented honestly and effectively. When Congress relinquished the control of our money supply they severed an artery between the representatives and the represented...