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.
The Federal government is stealing from all of us everyday. It is a huge corruption that lines the pockets of the elite at the expense of all of us.
Bundy has said he is willing to pay the grazing fees to the local county.
In short, this is a proxy for our collective angst against the growth of the government from 12% in 1930 to
over 75% of GDP (once compliance with all regulations is factored in).
You have proposed no solution to this. You propose we lay down like chattel.
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.
The unacceptable trouble is an elephant that is exacerbated by traitors like you who help sustain the elephant in the room and then deny it exists.
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 stroke your ego by ignoring Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye.
6 Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Ask, Seek, Knock
7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
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.
Thanks for confirming you support the insane growth of the elephant in the room. You've just admitted you love massive corruption.
'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.
Speaking out of both sides of your mouth, doing nothing, proposing nothing viable, and all the while saying you support most of the massive corruption. The government doesn't get to 75% of GDP without massive corruption.
Don't worry, you will soon die from this, as all good Communists do. My popcorn is ready. I'll be watching it on CNN.
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.
I am perfectly happy if the Federal government stops maintaining anything and lets the land return to wild unkept form. Then let ranchers pay their own way. This will be ultimate outcome any way, because uneconomic activities eventually cease. Given our Federal government's power to steal from us massively and a Central Bank to help them, this ongoing default takes a while and it will be horrific when this shit finally hits the fan.
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.
Who should work that land then? The whole point is we want that land returned back to the local governments and then the local people decide what to do with their land. They can auction it off or whatever. Many competing locales, means the best practices eventually get copied and adopted. The others fail and default.
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.
Bundy has paid his dues. He has worked that land and made it productive for a long time. This is form of ownership. You should study homesteading law sometime.
None of us have a problem with that land being reclassified such that it has to be auctioned and owned. But Bundy has investments already there, that have to be honored (fences, structures, etc).
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.
Communists are clueless this way. And you still haven't learned how simulated annealing and degrees-of-freedom applies to economics.
Any way, there is no way to teach a Communist. We have to opt-out of their morass and let them kill themselves. All examples in history prove this is the case.
It should be designed, however, that it is not useful as a permanent fixture but something to be leveraged only in times of need.
Keynes actually proposed this. But government can never limit itself to "times of need".