It's Happening?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
https://www.rt.com/usa/327762-armed-bundy-militia-oregon-ranchers/
150+ militiamen done did a thing.
>>28407095
>rt
Find an actual news source or summarize faggot
>>28407113
>RT
>Not a news source
What?
>>28407095
>next article
>>28407113
This tbqh
>>28407095
MCNIG???
Totally not a false flag to label "Militias" as domestic terrorists
>>28407159
Everything is a false flag if you're a brain damaged conspiracy theorist who can't comprehend that yes, people are that stupid.
>>28407132
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html#incart_big-photo
>>28407175
>Executive order in the works
>Laws written into bills at the midnight hour
>This 'happens'
Not weird at all
What would happen if a bunch of guys from Arizona came with their Nfa toys?
>>28407181
>Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 150 supporters with them. The refuge was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.
>>28407184
I'll bet you think sandy hook, the moon landings and JFK are all fake too
>>28407240
There's a difference between thinking things are "fake" and being skeptical of the official story. For the record I believe the moon landing happened as described.
So why are they doing this? Why are the Hammonds being arrested
Are they of any relation to EV hammond?
Will V be attending ?
What I don't understand is that these people don't seem to actually have a event to warrant this. What exactly started this?
So some dudes burned Govt. land and are going to jail and now they're trying to make an area semi-autonomous??
>>28407184
So the Bundy's are in cahoots with Obama?
>>28407095
>stay for years
How are they going to keep 150 militiamen well fed and gassed up if the government just blocks the roads and spams LRAD's from helicopters daily?
>>28407270
>Why are the Hammonds being arrested
From what I gathered, they were burning off invasive plants on their leased grazing property from the government, they apparently burned way too much.
They got arrested, and father and son served a few months and a year in prison.
Now, the judges are ordering them back to prison for 4 years because they didn't serve enough time. And for some reason, they're being charged with antiterror laws.
You think McNiggerator would go to this ranch?
>>28407421
links to these sources please
>tfw live in Oregon
>tfw have plans for tomorrow now
>>28407421
>Now, the judges are ordering them back to prison for 4 years because they didn't serve enough time. And for some reason, they're being charged with antiterror laws.
The fuck?
>>28407473
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-ranchers-will-return-to-prison-angering-far-right-activists.html
>>28407132
RT is literally owned and operated directly by the Kremlin. It's just rebranded Pravda.
>>28407421
Now I'm no expert but isn't that basically double jeapordy? They served their sentence and got out so how can they be punished again legally.
Assuming everything said here is true, I'm sure there's more to it though
that guy's gear is so cringy and he's wearing all those gay patches fucking kill me I hate gear faggots who don't do it right
>>28407540
That's not the definition of double jeopardy.
>>28407421
If that's the case then the hammonds are having their 5th amendment rights violated. There's this thing often called "double jeopardy". Anyway link to source? Every article on this subject is being twisted around and fucked up. The only way to get an accurate assessment of the situation is to read what the official charges are and draw your own conclusions by thinking with your own brain. I just want to remind everyone of that.
>>28407144
>conspiracy theorist 'prove' Vladimir Putin is actually immortal
>>28407421
If its already been a couple years id like to know what the land looks like now?
6 years seems steep for burning some land that was being used for grazing but i could see how some jew (sorry) could get them on some terrorist shit for burning government land
>>28407630
well, I got most of the info from >>28407513, but if i had to guess, I'd wager the fire spread into non-grazing land most likely.
I mean, this was a few years ago. They went to do their time.
But like everyone here is saying. There HAS to be something more to this story than being that cut & dry.
>>28407540
No its not, the law is whatever the government says it is at any given time for any given person. This is how the law works.
>>28407657
The feds want to sieze the Hammond ranch property for refuge area
>>28407513
How the fuck do you commit arson by burning fucking plants on your own property?
If I owned a bit of land, and blew up a shed with tannerite would I be slammed with property damage?
>>28407703
that's what I figured, but I haven't found any sources saying such.
>>28407555
Its not? Its been a while since I've taken civics and law. Either way I'm pretty sure you can't serve two sentences for one crime
>>28407719
the wording is "leased grazing land from the government".
I don't know the laws surrounding how that works and I don't know where this patch of land is in relations to other areas and their status is.
>>28407703
What do you mean for refuge area? Who are the refugees
>>28407760
the animals and nature.
>>28407555
Lawyer fag here. It is double jeopardy. The sentence can no longer be increased the moment the defendant starts their term. Especially once they have been released. I don't know what the federal government is thinking but I applaud the patriots who are standing up to such blatant tyranny. It's a shame that the media will lead the masses to believe that those who stand up and defend freedom are "right wing terrorists"
>>28407781
when does a term officially start?
>>28407773
Oh. I can't hate on wildlife reserves, still fucked up about those guys. Im pretty sure I don't have the whole story
>>28407132
RT is fucking Russian propaganda only retarded redditors think its legitimate
Would Russia support them? : ^DD
>>28407852
There is Youtube covering the event.
Sound legit enough?
>>28407760
>refugees
Obama wants the land for housing Syrian muslims.
Good luck Oregon. You're about to be culturaly enriched.
>>28407819
When the judge signs off on the paper work that basically says "you are sentenced to this because your did this"
>>28407877
Links.
>>28407890
Links.
This is awesome.
Will we see fighting this time?
>>28407972
If by fighting then you mean man babies getting tear gassed, then yes.
>>28407240
JFK wasn't fake, that's crazy talk. Who the fuck did the gunman on the grassy knoll kill then, fuckface?
>>28407240
One of these is not like the others
>>28408259
one was in space and had no one 'die'?
>>28408259
The one that didn't happen in the 60's?
Isn't it awfully convenient that this is happening the day before Obama announces his EOs on guns.
According to the Oathkeepers website, the Hammond family does not want a standoff. From the Hammond family lawyer:
>Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone in his group/organization speaks for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond. In addition, I wish to report to you that, as recently ordered by the District Court, District of Oregon, Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond intend to voluntarily report to the designated federal facility on January 4, 2016, as required.
So if the Oathkeepers are saying no to a standoff, and telling their supporters not to have one, then who exactly is trying to push one?
>>28407630
>>28407657
They wern't doing a controlled burn you fuckwits. They literally burned down a piece of public hunting land to poach deer. When caught they claimed they were doing a controlled burn and it accidentally spread to the public land.
They got fucking convicted of arson. They are fucking liars. Although the terrorism/double jeopardy thing is bullshit these arn't fucking saints. They are poachers and arsonists and anybody defending what they did is no better than the BLM crowd defending Mike Brown robbing that shop owner then attacking Darren Wilson.
>>28408064
>man babies getting tear gassed
i would bet my left nut AT LEAST 25% of the militia are ex/current military or LEO, and know how to don a gas mask
>>28408425
>Bundy's made a deal with Obama to villinize guns and militias in exchange for unlimited trips to the best buffets in Vegas
This shit is diabolical.
>>28408499
I don't believe the government's story. I think they are liars. That's not to say every story the government tells is a lie, but this is too suspicious given their games around the BLM.
>>28407972
I'm afraid the time has come my dearest Marisa. I've spent the last decade of my life pursuing knowledge. The knowledge of not only common law, but of the supreme law if the land; our Constitution. I can't begin to tell you how hard those years where. Having to try and support myself working odd hours and trying to force my sleep deprived brain to understand the intricacies of the penal codes and precedent setting court cases and various other subject matter. It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but my thirst for promoting justice and liberty prevailed. I became a lawyer because I wanted to bring justice and constitutional understanding to what I saw as an unjust system. You see, I am a man of principle as principle are all we truly have in life as any wise man knows. I now realize that the system cannot be changed by a mere lawyer. Our government whom I sought to protect the liberties of the people from, has now encroached upon one of the most precious and inalienable rights of the people in such a blatant and and disregardful manner that I have been forced to lay down my notes and my pencils and suit and tie, and in their place take up an AR15, a plate carrier, and the willingness to die for the freedom of my countrymen. I've tried for years to approach this problem as a respectable and upright gentleman. There are simply no other options, now I will likely die but not before I take as many of these tyrants with me as I can. Why am I telling you all this you may be asking yourself? Because you are my favorite tripfriend, and I would love nothing more than to fight along side of you, to be defended by the powerful 5.7x28 round. As we speak I am loading up to help with the fight against tyranny. I will likely die, however my sacrifice will not be in vein. You see, this is the very early stage of a Great War between the people and tyranny. Tell /k/ of my bravery and let it inspire them to take up arms. See you in Valhalla my friend
>>28408499
They did their time and have every right to be pissed off about the governments about face.
>>28407113
How about the live-stream from the people who are currently occupying the Federal building?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPdxsOT9228
>>28408499
To be fair, I don't think the miltia's actions are in response to saints being treated meanly. Their position seems to be that (1) it's unconstitutional for them to be sentenced again after serving the first sentence and (2) it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own land for the purposes of animal sanctuaries or parklands
I don't really see how they're wrong on either count, though you might be right that the guys are cunts.
>>28408574
mmm fresh pasta
>>28408651
I disagree with your second point. I think the feds have a right to set up national parks and shit. If not the federal government it would fall to the state.
I'm all about nature and shit man
>>28408651
>(2) it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own land for the purposes of animal sanctuaries or parklands
Huh? Yellowstone is illegal?
Didn't Teddy Roosevelt set aside massive tracts of land as public wilderness preserves? If it's unconstitutional why wasn't it challenged then?
Or am I misunderstanding?
>>28408725
You're not wrong that Yellowstone exists and that Roosevelt made a bunch of parks, but that doesn't mean it's constitutional.
Show me where in the constitution it is authorized.
>>28408573
A jury of their peers convicted them. It's not like the govt. simply accused them. They got convicted, as in, the families story was bullshit that 12 random folks didn't believe.
Also, the BLM isn't trying to take their land like Bundy. A judge ordered them back to jail. The legality of that is questionable but they aren't about to lose their land.
>>28408616
My point is their liars and immoral idiots. Not a snowballs chance in hell I'd risk getting shot over somebody like that. They can be pissed all they want but you fight a judge in court not on the streets with guns. When the alphabet agencies do stupid shit and you need to show they aren't in charge of you thats one thing, but when a judge makes the decision just go to fucking court.
>>28408744
Not that guy, but doesn't that mean that anything not listed in the Constitution as constitutional is unconstitutional? I think this sets a very bad precedence...
>>28408770
I'm assuming you're trolling or foreign, but it's explicitly stated that that is how the constitution works. That's literally the entire point of the document.
>>28408757
>They can be pissed all they want but you fight a judge in court not on the streets with guns.
Yeah dog they should totally chill in prison, because this isn't jail and they won't be out on bail, and try maybe to get an appeal going as they chill in prison.
>>28407781
That's why the new charges have been piled on to avoid double jeopardy.
>>28408721
>I think the feds have a right to set up national parks and shit.
It's great you think that, but can you demonstrate it with a citation?
>If not the federal government it would fall to the state.
10th amendment agrees with you. Alternatively, the federal constitution could be amended to allow it.
>>28408788
Not trolling or foreign. But damn, when are they going to pass that amendment that allows We the People to own Cheez-Its? After all, it's not in the constitution. I also hope they allow us to own toilets soon, I've been cooking this here shit since 1789!
>>28408770
That's exactly what it used to mean.
>>28408651
Teddy Roosevelt got Congress to pass laws allowing national parks. It's not only legal but necessary. Unless SCOTUS rules it illegal then the feds have full authority here.
As for your first point, that is the ONLY part of this worth being upset over but thats for a lawyer to argue, not a bunch of armed /k/ommandos. You want more gun control? That's how you get more gun control.
>>28408770
"The powers of the government are specific and few, the powers of the state are numerous and indefinite." In other words, Any powers held by the federal government are specifically outlined in the constitution. The rest of everything else is left to the states to decide for themselves. This rule is not followed today and hasn't been for over a century. The federal government is such a massive entity however that at this point we just have to deal with it. Their excuse is " lol it's a living document which means i can change it's meaning to suit whatever the fuck I want"
>>28408804
>Angry that you have to obey the law and fight for your rights in court not in the streets
>2016
Keep fantasizing neckbeard.
Also, your argument essentially boils down to "hurrr, felons should stay out of jail until they go to court because jail and prison suck."
>>28408814
Ironically, the gamelands they burned down were State owned not Federal so this arguments pointless.
>>28408822
>It's not only legal but necessary
So are you arguing that if congress passed a law that outlawed every firearm and made it a crime punishable by death to have blue eyes that law would be constitutional until SCOTUS rules on it? Come on.
>You want more gun control? That's how you get more gun control.
I never said what they're doing is smart, I just said why they're doing it.
>>28408816
The Tenth Amendment:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You should really take a civics course or at least read up on wikipedia.
>>28408816
Limits on the federal govt. Not you, shithead. You get this in 11th grade civics.
>>28408816
The Constitution is a list of things the government is allowed to do, fuckwit.
>>28408816
Constitution is grants specific rights to the federal government, if it's not in there it is a state issue.
now stop being a dumbass
>>28408859
You should be out on bail, barring being a very real flight risk or danger to others, while you defend yourself. That's the system.
Magically upgrading the charges against you, throwing you back in prison when you already copped to something else and then telling them "if you don't like it cry in court" is not how the system is supposed to work. That's bullshit and you know it.
>>28408876
If that's true then that is odd. I thought the BLM was involved?
>>28408879
>passes a law that outlaws every firearm
Would require an Amendment. If Amended to the Constitution, yes, legal.
>Blue eyes=death
No, because numerous other parts of the Constitution protect from this.
Essentially, if it DOES NOT conflict with the Constitution or Constitutional rights and Congress passes it, it's legal. Does the Constitution guarantee the govt. can't make parks or public land? No? Then the law allowing it is legal.
>>28408757
>A jury of their peers convicted them
On questionable testimony by folks with an agenda. Courts can do a lot to get an innocent man in trouble. Like I said, I think the government are liars and I don't trust any of their actions in this case.
As for their land, they do stand a good chance of losing it. They were forced to sign statements to the effect that if they sell they have to offer to the BLM first.
>Not a snowballs chance in hell I'd risk getting shot over somebody like that.
And if you read upthread, they have asked for people not to occupy or fight or anything of the sort.
>>28408936
Enumerated powers
>>28408814
No, I can't really point out any particular part. I'm just assuming its the same sort of fuckery that got the federal reserve
>>28408936
>>28408936
>Would require an Amendment.
Why does that require an amendment but owning parkland doesn't? The federal gov doesn't have the power to own parklands under the constitution, just like it doesn't have the power to kill people based on their eye color.
>Does the Constitution guarantee the govt. can't make parks or public land? No? Then the law allowing it is legal
That's absolutely not how it works and you're an idiot.
Word is the hammonds burned the forest down to cover up poaching, and then retroactively claimed it was a controlled burn that had an accident.
>>28407331
There is plenty of shit to be angry about. They have probably been planning this for a very long time.
>>28408982
Other word is that the government lied through their fucking teeth and the Hammonds did nothing of the sort. See attached image.
>>28408982
Has this defense been tried in court?
>>28408964
>No, I can't really point out any particular part.
Then it's not constitutional.
>>28408982
What kind of poaching can you cover up with arson? Did he lose a buck he wounded, or forget where he put a trap? Were the ents going to rat him out?
>>28409045
Fair enough, I'll admit I lost this one. I'm still glad national and state parks are a thing.
>>28408935
Never mind. You are correct. BLM grazing land. However, they were doing it to poach.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/hammond_witness_describes_setting_fire_in_2001/
Also, they almost killed 1 guy. And did this multiple times between 2001 and 2006. These guys are scum.
>>28408909
How the fuck do you know they aren't a flight risk? Are you a judge?
>>28408959
>signing documents that could bite you in the ass later
What a smart decision. Good call. Then maybe they shouldn't sell their land.
>>28408981
Constitution doesn't give the Feds power fuckwit. You are failing to understand a key principle of it. The Constitution tells the Feds what they CAN'T do, not what they CAN do. In other words, if it doesn't say they CAN'T do it, and Congress passes a law thats Constitutional then they can do it. And SCOTUS ruled Feds>State so literally unless it infringes on your guaranteed rights, if it's passed into law it's allowed.
For example:
>A law passed by Congress giving the govt. power to set up public theme parks is legal
>A law restricting blacks from going to said theme parks is not due to the 14th Amendment
Why cant we ban jews yet?
>>28409033
Yep. They got convicted.
>>28409076
>I'm still glad national and state parks are a thing.
Me too, I just wish they were handled more appropriately. The kind thinking "I like X, therefore I won't get upset when X is legislated, even if it's not done properly" is exactly the kind of thinking that allows gun control, however.
>>28409096
>scum
See >>28409030
>What a smart decision
When a large and powerful entity is breathing down your neck you don't get much of a choice.
Fuck. You want to leave this shithole but something always happens.
Okay:
1) Cliven Bundy has absolutely nothing to do with this. He was not aware of the group's decision or actions on the Federal building. The media will try over and over again to paint him as some sort of mastermind or "Godfather" figure behind the whole ordeal, and I can assure you this is false.
2) There are a lot of names being either known or heavily suspected informants all over that entire operation, and I urge everyone to use extreme caution when deciding for yourself what to do.
3) I am not involved in the Oregon operation.
4) Everyone who has guns and friends with guns need to be on alert and proceed throughout their lives with extra caution . It's not an accident why this came about while the talk of an impending gun control action has been all over the news.
I don't care what your opinion is about the situation or what I'm saying about it, but all of you really need to choose your next moves carefully.
>>28409030
>"those laws are for the people, not for them"
fucking hell
tl;dr: the govt hates land owners
Revolution WHEN
>>28409096
>How the fuck do you know they aren't a flight risk? Are you a judge?
If I cop to man 2 and go to prison for five years for running someone over and a few months after I'm out the state goes "we've looked over the evidence and feel your connection to the victim warrants a murder 1 charge, report back to prison for another 15 years". That shit is obscene. You can't do that.
This is exactly what's happening with the arson / terrorism nonsense. They have already gone down for this incident, they have already served their sentence. This is double jeopardy and no state would ever, ever, get away with what the feds are trying to pull right now. It's immoral and should be illegal.
>>28409138
Sipsey Street Irregulars are saying basically the same thing as you are WRT informants. Is Sipsey Street reliable for information?
>>28409125
Damn, that's a good point. Im not too good at civics or I'd argue some more, sorry man.
I think it would be a wicked job managing a park. How are they mishandled in your opinion? I haven't really heard much about them in a couple of years
>>28409096
>These guys are scum.
I'm not debating that. I don't have any information about them as people.
>Constitution doesn't give the Feds power fuckwit.
You are inescapably wrong about this and you continue to be an idiot.
From wikipedia, a convenient source:
>The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authority of Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the Constitution expresses various other limitations on Congress, such as the one expressed by the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>>28409096
>Constitution doesn't give the Feds power fuckwit.
Enumerated powers. It literally spells out what they can do. All the things they can't do is everything not enumerated.
>>28408574
>>28407159
About half the households in the country own guns, if even 1% think it's a good idea to do shit like this, we would be seeing it a LOT more frequently. We don't.
Get your head out of the sand. Screaming "false flag" just makes you look even more stupid to the antis.
>>28409138
>It's not an accident why this came about while the talk of an impending gun control action has been all over the news
>>28409096
>The Constitution tells the Feds what they CAN'T do, not what they CAN do
This is bait. Nobody is actually that stupid.
>>28407852
>>28407522
> thinks mainstream media isn't propaganda
>>28407113
http://www.ktvz.com/news/harney-county-ranchers-arson-case-sparks-antigovt-sentiment/37227522
>>28409180
How do you differentiate between a false flag and a whole bunch of FBI informants trying to stir people up just enough to get them arrested?
(Which, by the way, is how a lot of the so-called terrorist arrests have been made lately)
>>28407852
>Russian Propaganda
What do the Russians have to gain writing falsehoods about a dispute between Americans?
>>28407719
>
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
"Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations."
It was an illegal fire, on BLM land, in an attempt to cover up hunting violations.
Good cause to hang your hat on, militia idiots.
>>28409162
>Im not too good at civics or I'd argue some more, sorry man.
It's all good. I just feel strongly people should know the rules of their government. If for no other reason then, like I said, wishful thinking can be used against you- gun control, for instance.
>How are they mishandled in your opinion?
I just meant that they're federal land, which I don't believe they should be under the constitution. In my perfect world all those parks would be privately held, as many are, but I would be happy if they were state holdings. I have a few friends that are rangers in some state parks. They love it. Seems like a cool gig for sure.
>>28407095
Related thread:
>>>/news/13427
>>28409198
I'd say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No, fucking infowars doesn't count as a source.
I do like that's what your response to "if even 1% of gun owners thought that this was a good idea we'd be seeing a lot more of it". Like, you friggin' KNOW that's true so instead you're concocting some unsupported bullshit story about FBI informants.
>>28409205
No.
>Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty's memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty's testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.
>>28409204
Shut up and blindly hate anything Russian
>>28409212
>I just meant that they're federal land, which I don't believe they should be under the constitution.
Ayyy, you're one of those "if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution the power doesn't exist", huh?
You better build a time machine and tell Tom Jefferson he was full of shit with the Louisiana Purchase, or George Washington he was breaking the rules enforcing the Northwest Ordinance.
>>28409186
That's not necessarily a confirmation of the Feds being behind it, though. It's totally possible they had been planning this and once Obama made his statement about EOs they decided to do it early.
I have absolutely NO doubt that the Feds will use this to their advantage now that it is a thing, though, and I have mixed feelings about that.
>>28409205
>Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness
>Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches
>Jurors were told
>>28409230
It's not that extraordinary:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots
Is the Guardian reliable enough for you?
I didn't care about the second part of your post, I wanted to talk about nonsense false-flag conspiracies (which there are too many of) versus actual events of FBI or other law enforcement and their behavior.
>>28409246
True. But that's very convenient timing, isn't it?
>>28409234
>several witnesses corroborate the Government story
>well obviously something just to go after salt of the earth ranchers, because there are never redneck rancher assholes who break laws, amirite?
>>28409245
>Ayyy, you're one of those "if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution the power doesn't exist", huh?
Ya, the tenth amendment is pretty retarded, huh?
>>28409251
I wonder if you would latch onto the "Jurors were told" if that was in reference to something the Defense said?
That was a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
>>28409138
Nig how is galilchan?
Why dont you go?
>>28409271
>the government has been pushing ranchers out of the land for years on flimsy pretexts
>evidence of governmental misdeeds during the trial and hiding of the truth from the jurors
>well, obviously the ranchers are criminals and the government is full of virtuous goodguys, amirite?
>>28409148
Except that isn't what happened here. What happened here is more like "I run over 1 guy, then another a bit later. I get convicted of killing guy 1 with manslaghter, after I'm out the government says I killed guy 2 with intent and charge me with murder. I tell them to fuck off"
>>28409134
Only pussies don't have a choice. These people owned 6,000 acres of property. I assure you they could afford to fight the BLM in court if they want.
>>28409166
United States v. Sprague and United States v. Darby Lumber would like a word with you.
>"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."
>>28409264
>I don't care that, statistically, this sort of shit is likely to happen. OBUMMER FALSE FLAG!
>>28409277
Good job ignoring the back half of the post. I guess George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, didn't know shit about Federal enumerated powers when he kept on supporting the management of Federal lands, huh?
You probably think that free speech on the Internet shouldn't exist because it wasn't mentioned by name in the Constitution, huh?
>>28408816
Wow, you don't even understand why we have a consitution. The sad thing is that your level of ignorance is becoming far more common as the country grows older.
>>28408935
What does the Black Lives Matter group have to do with game-lands in Oregon? Where the lands used to graze chickens for Colonel Sanders?
>>28409289
>"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted." McCulloch v. Maryland
I can quote SCOTUS too, faggot.
>"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison, Federalist 45
I can also quote the founders who wrote, debated, and signed it.
>>28409167
Necessary and Proper Clause. Obviously National Parks and Public Land to preserve wildlife is necessary and proper. So it's legal.
>>28409245
>>28409212
Commerce Clause. The land originally bought by the BLM was from am Indian Tribe. That's the land these retards burned down. Feds have full authority to negotiate with Indians and once they purchased the land were able to do as they wished with it.
>>28409138
1. Wrong, only partly though
http://news.yahoo.com/peaceful-protest-followed-oregon-wildlife-refuge-action-021853717.html
>>28409320
Bureau of land management silly
>>28409277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
Suck my dick.
>>28409313
As for the back half of your post, Jefferson said numerous times he thought it needed an amendment, but he did it because of time constraints. He even asked for Congress to forgive him and Congress passed a resolution basically saying "We cool, TJ, we cool."
But that doesn't matter. I could point to any number of gun control measures that are obviously unconstitutional. Does the fact that they were passed act as evidence that they were constitutional? You're an idiot.
>>28409340
It isn't legal to extend a sentence after time has been served though
>>28409320
My sweet child
It was only a year or so ago
Git out
>>28409292
>I don't want to see what's really happening so I'll just claim kooky conspiracy theory. TINFOIL HATTERS ALL AROUND!
>>28409340
>>28409351
>necessary and proper
Owning parklands is necessary and proper to which enumerated power exactly?
>>28409060
Something about they shot a bunch of illegal deer and set the fire to get rid of the carcasses.
"Allegedly"
>>28409340
More importantly, Article 4, Section three makes it pretty clear that it's assumed that the Feds can "own land".
But anyway, the guys who went tot he Sovereign Citizen School of Constitutional Law in this thread think they know more about the powers granted to the Feds than freakin' George Washington. Even minimalist presidents like Jefferson and Jackson believed that the Feds had power to own land. Otherwise Jackson, who was as imperial a president as any, would have dissolved stuff like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Land_Office
>>28409320
Lel.
>>28409289
>Only pussies don't have a choice.
Legal battles against the government are neither cheap nor easy. That's why winning at the ballot box is so important.
>>28409356
>As for the back half of your post, Jefferson said numerous times he thought it needed an amendment, but he did it because of time constraints. He even asked for Congress to forgive him and Congress passed a resolution basically saying "We cool, TJ, we cool."
Let's see a quote on that. He didn't oppose Federal land -ownership-, he was referencing the act of -buying- claims from the French. This is a big friggin' difference.
>But that doesn't matter. I could point to any number of gun control measures that are obviously unconstitutional
True, but that isn't what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about Federal Land ownership, something that the Founding Fathers, including Constitutional framers like Washington and Madison, were a-okay with.
>>28409339
Federalist Papers aren't a legal document.
>>28409359
New charges.
>>28409372
Interstate commerce. Tourism Industry and any cattle that were sold or transported outside the state. There's plenty of precedents to support this.
>>28409382
More like perhaps if the BLM would arm themselves and drop the non-violent bullshit their Jewish puppet masters tell them to go with, then they'd get some fucking respect.
>>28409402
>This is a big friggin' difference.
MEDIA IS GREAT GUISE. UNBIASED INFORMATION AND TRUTH EVERYWHERE.
>>28409410
>if the BLM would arm themselves
Then four of our tripfags would be dead instead of in the slammer for being morons.
>>28409410
When the Black Panthers did that it led to the modern anti-gun movement.
Funny, that.
>>28409320
I remember another anon here on /k/ saying that they thought Black Lives Matter might be a useful name to muddy the waters when people want to search Bureau of Land Management.
I thought it sounded a little nutty, but this poster makes me wonder/
>>28409369
Like I said, no one has been able to provide supporting evidence other than "muh feels" and "this one witness -may- be sketchy".
Do you think that car accidents don't happen because you personally are a good driver? How about car addicents where the person intentionally crashes into shit?
>No anon that never happens with at least half the country owning a car.
Do you not see how stupid that sounds? If even 1% of gun culture guys seriously thought this sort of thing was a Good Idea we'd be seeing it a lot more, but we don't. But when it does happen /k/ gets all /r/conspiracy about shit.
>>28409424
They'd deserve it from violating OPSEC.
Watched the first night live and knew those dumb sacks of shit would end up doing something stupid. Can't put your shit out in the public domain like that.
>>28409413
Where in that post did I ever mention "media"?
>>28409405
The new charges were added on after the fact. The judge ruled the initial sentence didn't meet federal guidelines.
>>28409405
>Interstate commerce.
>Tourism Industry
That logic could apply to literally anything, including culling fat people.
>any cattle that were sold or transported outside the state
And therefore the feds need to own land? What?
>There's plenty of precedents to support this.
You're not wrong, but I don't agree that that's a constitutional argument.
>>28409402
>True, but that isn't what we're talking about here, is it?
Ownership for what purpose is what we're talking about here. I'm not debating that the founders thought that the US could have territory, I'm debating that they didn't think the US should have territory for the express purpose of keeping it for the federal government in order, at face value, to protect some birds. Those are very different questions.
>>28409433
>Bin Laden Osama
>Barrack Hussien Obama
>Saddam Hussien
Cliven Bundys soens name is Ammon Bundy.
Oregon Ranchers name just happens to be Hammond
>Ammon
>Hammond
>>28409205
that's a .gov you fucking moron.
>>28408809
That's double jeopardy. They can't keep charging the same offense, especially after the original sentence has been served.
>>28409405
>Interstate commerce.
Has been used more than any other clause as a justification for expanding the powers of the federal government to the monstrosity it is today. The clause is a fucking joke, you can use it to defend virtually any law.
>>28409473
And now the "added sentence" will be dropped and the new charges will stick, resulting in a much longer sentence than any added time.
>>28409402
>>28409480
>he was referencing the act of -buying- claims from the French
And I should add, that is really the important part for a lot of parklands, since they weren't all initially federal lands turned into parks, which you could probably make a constitutional argument for. Much of the land, however, was bought from private individuals or from the states for the express purpose of making parks. That's the problem.
>>28409138
Exactly.
>>28409451
But like I said, no one has been able to support the government offered line without "muh feels" and "well, the witnesses obviously told the whole truth and there was no manipulation".
Do you think that the government tells the truth every single time because most of the time they do? How about the fact that the government is full of ordinary people with passions, beliefs and various levels of morality?
>No anon that never happens with several million government workers
Do you not see how stupid that sounds? If even 1% of government workers were personally corrupt we'd be seeing it
Oh, wait, we are seeing a lot of government corruption.
I don't know why you are harping on this 1% of gun culture shit. I do not give a fuck about it. Please try to stay on topic.
>>28409497
And it is in the Constitution.
You're now realizing that the Constitution was a betrayal of the Revolution.
>>28409512
Fuck. Meant>>28409500
>>28409480
>Ownership for what purpose is what we're talking about here. I'm not debating that the founders thought that the US could have territory, I'm debating that they didn't think the US should have territory for the express purpose of keeping it for the federal government in order, at face value, to protect some birds. Those are very different questions.
Most of the Federally owned land -isn't- to "protect birds", it's to do resource management. The BLM has fuck-all to do with wildlife protection, if it was they wouldn't let desert anons go out there and shoot on the land with no permit.
And I'm pretty sure people like Jefferson or Washington, both hunters, wouldn't actually be opposed to game preserves. Jefferson especially since Mr. Minimalist Government gave scientific and natural exploration a primary goal in the Lewis & Clark mission statement.
>>28409500
Well that's the case if it resolves the way the fed wants it to. But anything can happen. Lexington and Concord 2.0 could start at any moment. All it takes is one shot. Remember that.
>>28409484
So what? Apparently, it's the only way to post something since right now all the reports on the actual case are coming from Infowars or think progress.
>>28409517
>You're now realizing that the Constitution was a betrayal of the Revolution.
L. O. L.
>>28409289
>These people owned 6,000 acres of property.
This is western ranch country, anon, 6000 acres is shit tier holdings.
>>28409530
And it's a fucking stupid thing to fire that shot over. Which brings me back to my original point.
>>28409529
>And I'm pretty sure people like Jefferson or Washington, both hunters, wouldn't actually be opposed to game preserves.
Federal game preserves? I find it impossible to believe they would find it acceptable for the federal government to take virginian land and make it into permanent federal land for a game preserves. Maybe state ones, but seriously, you think that?
>Jefferson especially since Mr. Minimalist Government gave scientific and natural exploration a primary goal in the Lewis & Clark mission statement.
Well, in his personal opinion, but he realized he needed a better reason to give to congress, so he came up with all the "to look for good farmland" shit.
>Most of the Federally owned land -isn't- to "protect birds", it's to do resource management.
We're discussing a park run by the Fish and Wildlife service. As I said, I'm not opposed to the federal government owning any land whatsoever- it has to do with how they acquire it and for what purpose. See >>28409511
>>28409562
Your missing the principle. This is about the government over stepping it's bounds consistently just because "I SAY SO!" and damaging peoples lives in the process. It would be dumb to fire a shot over the government illegally extending someones sentence. But this is about something much bigger than just that.
>>28409514
>Do you not see how stupid that sounds? If even 1% of government workers were personally corrupt we'd be seeing it
I don't disagree. But there's a big damn gulf between giving a road paving contract to your brother in laws asphalt company and "let's convince militia to occupy a building at a wildlife refugee on a weekend when it's closed".
>I don't know why you are harping on this 1% of gun culture shit. I do not give a fuck about it. Please try to stay on topic.
It is on topic when the rocket surgeons on this board keep on going "it's a false flag! A bunch of dickheads with guns would NEVER think it's a good idea!".
Reporting in with the Militia.
>>28407113
>rt
Blatant anti-nato anti-poland "muh ussr" agenda, read a article about them throwing a bitchfit saying Poland taking down Soviet war memorials is an "outrage"
>cyka blyaat we r a superpower still >:-(
>>28409530
Yeah I'm sure that defending a bunch of arsonists and ranchers like Bundy who are jewing the American people out of gracing payments are EXACTLY the sort of people you should be starting a revolution over.
Surveillance state? Nope
Corporate America running the strings? Nope
CISPA? Nope
But hey, illegal hunters and illegal ranching operations? Let's do this!
>>28409622
It's not defending arsonists. It's defending an Americans right to a fair and just legal system. Extending a sentence after it has been served can not be legal anywhere in the US aside from commiefornia
>>28409605
Cascadia Strong
>>28409595
Ever read Edmund Burke? You should. He basically called the French a bunch of idiots for revolting simply because the govt. did shitty things and said revolting destroys the social contract. I happen to agree with him. You obviously do not.
>>28409596
If you read the Guardian's report and did some more searching, you'd see that "let's convince a -insert person here- to commit -illegal act-" is more common that you are implying.
That's not to say there aren't hotheads capable of doing something stupid on their own, but you are sorely underestimating the FBI's capability for "persuading" stupid people.
Look at the recent case of Emanuel L. Lutchman, where the FBI informants were driving around with him to help pick up supplies for his planned massacre. Another example is the ATF actions at Ruby Ridge.
There is a sore need for improved oversight in the upper reaches of government agencies, and stricter scrutiny of operations.
>>28409605
you posted this same pic over in /pol/ with a different file name.
got a time stamp there lad?
>>28409648
Your mom.
>>28409593
>Federal game preserves? I find it impossible to believe they would find it acceptable for the federal government to take virginian land and make it into permanent federal land for a game preserves. Maybe state ones, but seriously, you think that?
Sure, why not? Especially if it originated as Federal land or was gifted by the state to the Feds(as was the case with Shenandoah National Park and George Washington National Forest here in Virginia)
>Well, in his personal opinion, but he realized he needed a better reason to give to congress, so he came up with all the "to look for good farmland" shit.
And I think any one of those Congressmen who spent even 20 minutes with Jefferson would know he was full of shit anyway on the "looking for good farmland", especially once it came out that Lewis &Clark were suppose to look for Mammoths as well.
>We're discussing a park run by the Fish and Wildlife service. As I said, I'm not opposed to the federal government owning any land whatsoever- it has to do with how they acquire it and for what purpose.
It's ultimately a public good, and the reasoning is that the Feds are better positioned for bulk buying of goods and services than the states are for that.
>>28409517
Sam Adams was right when he "smelled a rat."
>>28409648
>revolting destroys the social contract
No shit. And if they win, they reestablish a new one more suited to societies needs.
You are un-American if you don't support revolts for the government doing shitty things.
>>28409605
sup fbi
>>28409648
THE GOVERNMENT IS TEARING UP THEIR END OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Even if you agree with Edmund Burke, there is no more contract, the government just voided it.
>>28409665
>originated as Federal land
nothing originated as federal land
>>28409640
>Better defend these arsonists by ocuup[ying and trashing a building owned by a government agency that has fuck all to do with the Justice department.
The Irony of occupying a Fish and Wildlife service building in order to "defend" illegal hunters is fantastic.
>>28409693
>>Better defend these arsonists by ocuup[ying and trashing a building owned by a government agency that has fuck all to do with the Justice department.
It gets a reaction and gets the federal government involved. You would be shot trying to occupy the Department of Justice, so find a smaller target and let them come to you. Also the illegal hunters thing is a claim that barely holds weight.
>>28409551
It's funny, I had a history professor in college say that the Constitutions was a "reactionary" document because it didn't end slavery or give rights to women. He called it a betrayal of the revolution just like this faggot did.
Same guy also later said that the problem with black poverty is nowhere near enough welfare and that racism was invented in 1700's America as a means by which capital could oppress labor, because apparently Africans from a completely different culture and tech level would have naturally sided with poor white people since they were both poor and thus equally oppressed by the rich.
Btw, this man makes over $100000 a year from the university teaching for a few hours a day, and we all had to buy his $80 book.
>>28409692
"you can't 'own' land, man!"
>>28409669
They re-establish a new one at the cost of culture, history, tradition, ect...Burke's point was you lose what makes you a society and end up changing it so much you lose your values. Whose to say the new govt. would have a Constitution or Judges or the 2nd Amendment? Wanna risk it NOT having those?
>>28409690
Burke's point was even if the govt. breaks it the people shouldn't because they have no idea what the final result will be? For a real world example see the US removing dictators and setting up new govt.'s. It removes one social contract and creates another but the US didn't foresee fucking insurgencies for years or ISIS rising. Similarly, you have zero way to know what destroying a social contract you are entered in will do.
>>28409732
The contract is already destroyed. Time to get a new one.
>>28409665
>Sure, why not? Especially if it originated as Federal land or was gifted by the state to the Feds(as was the case with Shenandoah National Park and George Washington National Forest here in Virginia)
If it was gifted, maybe. I have a hard time imagining that either of them would support a federal plan to buy up land in order to not develop it. State plan, I could see. Federal plan I can only think would be seen as the feds interfering in Virginia's affairs.
>And I think any one of those Congressmen who spent even 20 minutes with Jefferson would know he was full of shit anyway on the "looking for good farmland", especially once it came out that Lewis &Clark were suppose to look for Mammoths as well.
I would say though that there were numerous, obvious commercial and indians-relations reasons for the expedition too, beyond Jefferson's love of anything green or furry. I'm sure they rolled their eyes at the farmland idea, but probably nodded when he got to the all-water route or the mapping-where-indians-are-and-trying-to-get-them-to-not-slaughter-people bits.
>It's ultimately a public good
I think that's debatable, but I think you're right that that is the justification given. I'm an adherent to Madison in Federalist 41 as far as the General Welfare Clause is concerned, however. If it's not enumerated, it doesn't matter if it's a public good. I know that's not the position that has been taken for the last 200 years or so, but I'm of the belief that that is the position that was taken when it was signed, as evidenced by the people that wrote it when they were explaining it. We might have to agree to disagree on this though.
>>28409030
Holy Fucking Shit.
>>28407331
The dude did his time for letting the fire get out of control, now the state is just harassing him and trying to put him back in jail for no good reason. That seems like a good enough cause for me.
>>28409732
>Constitution or Judges
Yeah a Constitution that has been so blatantly abused in some parrts and completely ignored in others and left way too many grey areas for debate. Oh and Judges? Yeah you mean Judges who exist to serve the interests of the state and not the people? Face it. The government is no longer made up of the people, it is a self serving entity on a power trip. I live in WA and a judge in Seattle ruled guns can have an extra tax added even though our state law states in plain text that such a thing is illegal. Fuck the judges. We need a new Consitution, written in modern terms, that leaves no fucking room for personal interpretation.
>>28409745
No faggot. You completely missed the point. The point is even if the sovereign (govt.) breaks the contract then you should still keep that contract because the new one could be worse.
In other words, no, don't fucking get a new one. That's fucking retarded.
>>28409782
You do you but I disagree. Until I am severely oppressed I'm perfectly happy with the current social contract and have no interest in risking worse oppression under a new one.
>>28409721
>racism was invented in 1700's America as a means by which capital could oppress labor, because apparently Africans from a completely different culture and tech level would have naturally sided with poor white people since they were both poor and thus equally oppressed by the rich.
jesus pleasus
>>28409690
The government can do that. For however incompetent they are, the satisfied masses will require some real major push and pokes to actually get people acting.
But as long as X or Y action done by the government doesn't really affect these people, at least directly, they can care less.
And good luck trying to explain how some actions actually DOES affect everyone down the road. You have to realize that many people don't have the time/will/care/or even brains to look at a long game. And this is why we get shortsightedness and stupid laws the government can enact because they feed into people's "action now!" instead of actually trying to look into root causes and long term change.
>>28409801
>I am severely oppressed
>And then they came for me
>>28409801
>In other words, no, don't fucking get a new one. That's fucking retarded.
I'm not familiar with Burke, so I apologize if this is a strawman, but that's a pretty stupid position.
>Ya, I'm a slave, but who knows! If I revolt and try to get my freedom, maybe I'll get my hand cut off in the struggle and in the end STILL be a slave! I should probably just stay a slave and count my blessings.
>>28407421
One fire was claimed to be to remove invasive plants another later fire was a back burn to protect their winter feed from surrounding wild fires that also burned onto land owned by the BLM.
How exactly does the Federal government own and manage land outside of DC? Don't we have states to manage the land?
I will admit I don't know much about how the BLM has legal authority to own or manage land.
>>28409745
Burke's point is that it's a safer bet to keep a failed social contract than just revolting at any time. It isn't nice or fair when the government breaks a contract but just causing unrest isn't an answer.
>>28409556
yes but even at $250/ac that's still $1.5MM
Although, considering it's "family land" then it's entirely possible it was all bought at $1/ac or less many years ago.
>>28409828
Maybe if you are a coward. But legal options are exhausted. The government serves its own interests now. The sooner you realize that, the better. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH! Not Give me Liberty, or don't because I don't want to cause unrest.
>>28409801
How much worse does the oppression have to get for you to want a new social contract?
Or are you going to be sitting behind a barbed wire fence still wanting what you have?
I'm not saying you would end up in a prison camp any time soon if ever but just a hypothetical.
>>28409819
Freedom won't just arrive by a random revolution. See 1792 France and 1917 Russia. It would've been better for the populace to live under the tyranny of oppressive government than in a free-for-all.
>Stay a slave and count my blessings
Yes. Compared to death.
>>28409618
Well, they really are a superpower still when you take into account their political clout, military might, and nuclear capabilities.
Not disagreeing with you that RT is a Ruskie propaganda machine. Their videos on liveleak are bretty good though you have to admit.
>>28409875
They have some funny comedy videos too but it has blatant propaganda.
>>28409851
not him, but I'm sure during all the major revolutions in history, there has been sizable population who just want to stay out of it all. It's nothing unique.
Then of course you run into how everyone will live through the ensuring chaos. People who were ordinarily watching might actually jump into the fray if the fighting began to really affect them and their families.
>>28409869
Isn't this a question that should be answered on a case-by-case basis? Hasn't history shown there are successful revolutions and there are bloody, pointless revolutions? Isn't is retarded to give a single answer to every potential change in society?
Like I said, I'm not familiar with Burke, but I assume the response is that life itself is so dear that any possible danger to it isn't worth it, even if the odds are low and the rewards are high?
>>28409815
Le "and then they came for me" argument.
Howdy Reddit!
>>28409819
Whether it's stupid or not is a matter of opinion. I think Burke has a good point and as a Conservative hold tradition and values as dear to me. Destroying those and having a revolution is fucking retarded in my opinion. Also, slave revolts didn't work out for most slaves in history did they?
>>28409845
What legal option is exhausted? These people can go to court still.
>>28409851
Depends on the situation. Maybe If I was the Hammonds I'd feel differently but I'm not and this doesn't effect me.
>>28409913
>These people can go to court still.
Yeah and did you miss the part about judges serving the governments interests and not upholding the law CONSISTENTLY around the country
>>28409913
>Whether it's stupid or not is a matter of opinion.
Isn't that the counter-point though to his position? When life is intolerable is a question that can only be answered by the individual, not by him in a different land in a different time?
>>28409918
Appeals are still a thing buddy.
>>28409845
Government has served its own interests since its inception.
Whatever people like you replace the current one with will be just as bad. You have no idea what something radically different would look like. You have vague conceptions of a republic that never was, a simulacrum based on a lie, as treacherous and feeble as the very people you rail against.
Nobody - fucking lefties, m-muh values conservatives, nobody - has produced an alternative system. All of this is just fucking noise.
>>28409514
>If even 1% of government workers were personally corrupt we'd be seeing it
Anon, maybe things are different in the nicey nicey state you're from. But I work for the government (local) and I grew up in NY. The corruption is endemic and if you cannot see it you're either blind or not looking.
>>28409918
Are you referring to Obongo taking guns? You're aware that's just him being a faggot again, right? No court will uphold that.
>>28409933
Not really. He's speaking as a society. I just happen to agree with him, as in, it's my opinion he's correct.
>>28409934
Yeah and federal appellate courts are all left leaning fuckheads who blatantly ignore the law. What is it with you fucks? Day/k/are is creeping over to night /k/
>>28409935
No, it hasn't been this bad until recently
>>28409605
That pic came straight from the article and happens to be the only picture used by anyone claiming to be there. This is definitely a false flag for gun legislation.
>>28409935
Not every government has been as bad to live under as every other government. It is therefore stupid to argue that changing would necessarily be fruitless or bad.
You can argue that that time hasn't come yet, but you can't seriously be arguing that it never might come?
'tis happening indeed
>>28407687
>>28409956
>This is definitely a false flag for gun legislation.
What, do you get CC'd on all of the ATF's internal emails?
>>28409946
No, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm refering to the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court ruling against plain and clear text in the Constitution and also the Supreme Court refusing to take up important cases while worrying about gay fucking marriage
>>28409949
>left leaning
Most Courts are just barely left of center. It only appears that way to you based on your political stance. A lot of lefties genuinely believe we live in a Right Wing tyranny.
>>28409947
As an individual society, then, though?
That just seems demonstrably false, unless I misunderstand.
See >>28409908
Certainly there have been revolutions that have fucked over societies, but there have also been societies that have thrived after their revolution, no?
>>28409966
>Not every government has been as bad to live under as every other government.
You're right, there have been significantly worse ones in the past. Wilson created a police state that Bush and Obama couldn't get in their wildest wet dreams.
>>28409721
>Teaches off own book
With the exception of certain very focused fields and exceptional professors, this is ever the sign to abandon ship.
>>28409978
>9th Circuit
>Not left leaning
>>28409949
Getting fucked over by the system still isn't a reason to destroy the system.
If I'm playing football and getting my ass kicked by every team and the refs make a few bad calls I shouldn't burn the stadium down. That's stupid.
>>28409994
>Getting fucked over by the system still isn't a reason to destroy the system.
Bullshit. If the founding fathers thought that, we would be flying under a different flag.
>>28409994
>If I'm playing football and getting my ass kicked by every team and the refs make a few bad calls I shouldn't burn the stadium down. That's stupid.
Not even comparable.
>>28409138
glad to hear you're alright.
>>28409988
>Not only did he have to read it, he had to buy it.
>mfw this is how his teacher was paying the bills. The only people who would but it had to.
>>28409994
More like the ref keeps raping you and you report it to your supervisors and they tell you to fuck off an you report it to their supervisors but they wont even set you up with an appointment to hear your complaints
>>28409984
Burke's point is why risk being on the losing end. And I think you misunderstood my point about individuals and society. Burke spoke on society. I'm speaking as an individual.
>>28410008
It is comparable. And the Burke was after the American Revolution but he thought it was different than the French so it's not the same argument. He actually supported the American one oddly enough. However, his argument is perfectly valid today.
>>28409988
Even worse.
The fucker made us write our essays for the class based only on a supplement to the textbook, which contained around 40 primary sources that were just a few pages of excerpts each. Research consisted of looking up and citing ONLY these sources. Oh and most of these sources were of course "diverse" and "inclusive".
Even for a intro level history class it was fucking mind numbing, I had more freedom to think and write in high school for fucks sake.
These people are by definition a terrorist group. It's amazing that they're organizing over something so petty
>>28410054
Point
Your head
>>28410054
And so were the founding fathers.
>>28409994
>Getting fucked over by the system still isn't a reason to destroy the system.
It kind of is. What good is the system if all it does is fuck you over? What incentive do you have to tolerate it?
>>28410072
>Comparing Jefferson and Washington a bunch of assholes defending arsonists and poachers.
>>28410072
Uhhhh you really think this is the same? Some guy committed arson
>>28410043
>Burke spoke on society. I'm speaking as an individual.
My mistake. I'm using you to learn here, sorry. So is his point that there are no conditions so poor as to outweigh potential losses? If he's talking about society, I assume the potential losses aren't deaths, but traditions and cultural norms? Or what?
Or is he just saying that that bar is extremely high, not that there is never a case for it?
>>28410095
You just love ignoring the point. This is about government oppression. These people wouldn't be here if it was just for that. This is for something bigger.
>Defending a bunch of assholes throwing tea into a harbor and support tax evaders
>>28410107
Yeah and served his time, then the government added more time after he was released which is not legal
