Author Topic: Nevada gun aholes face off with government  (Read 1433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:09:03 PM »
I've found other articles (I'll post them here later) covered the case of a rancher in nevada who has been illegally grazing on federal lands for 20 years.  As such, he owes over a million dollars in grazing fees.  Since he refuses to pay them (or even acknowledge the federal government exists) the department of land management impounded some of his cattle per a federal court order.

Enter Sean fcking Hannity and the neoconfederates.  He whipped the lunatic fringe into such a frenzy a hundred (or so) of them showed up in force with guns, threatening the government workers.  Rather than have a massacre, the feds backed down, wrongly in my opinion.

Were I president, I would have called in the national guard and if they tried shit, I'd have gunned down every last one of them and had Sean fcking Hannity arrested for sedition and then hanged.  The sht-heel rancher too.

The Rude Pundit reports:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-lesson-of-bundyblm-standoff.html


More links later.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6760
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2014, 09:22:09 PM »
screwtape, you mean to tell me that stuff like this picture of one of the gun nuts getting ready to snipe feds if necessary doesn't warm the cockles of your heart?



I hope we're not actually about to start shooting each other in this country. The environmentalists will complain about lead poisoning, the tea party will complain about not having enough targets, and it'll be whine, whine whine all the way back to the dark ages.



Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1216
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2014, 09:58:49 PM »
Apparently if you want to give the finger to the government just tell them you don't recognize their authority.  It has seemed to work for the guy in screwtape's article and the number 2 guy on this list. 
http://www.cracked.com/article_20671_7-wanted-criminals-who-made-mocking-police-into-art-form_p2.html
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2014, 09:07:22 AM »
Daily Kos has several links:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/16/1292484/-Even-after-BLM-stands-down-Hannity-pushes-talk-of-violent-conflict-in-cattle-grazing-fee-dispute?showAll=yes

It even has the photo PP posted with the sniper's name.  You can be sure Eric Parker from Idaho will be on a list at the Federal B-I.

Oh yeah, and the idiot in question - Cliven Bundy - he's a mormon.  Natch.

Charles Pierce has some commentary on the idea they put forth of putting their wimminfolk in the front.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/women-on-front-of-bundy-standoff-041514
Hiding behind women.  How patriotic.  Isn't that what the Taliban do?


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6760
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2014, 10:03:10 AM »
That Bundy guy is so obviously an a**hole in general that I wouldn't even care if he was right. Which of course he is not.

With idiots like the Idaho man-child sniper in America, I may not be quite as opposed to drone strikes on US soil as I previously thought.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2014, 11:31:58 AM »
10 things to know about Cliven Bundy (possibly related to Ted)
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-bureau-of-land-management-10-things-to-know-105735.html#ixzz2z5PgOJui

I know, I know, Politico.  take it with a grain of salt.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13051
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2014, 05:46:39 PM »
I've found other articles (I'll post them here later) covered the case of a rancher in nevada who has been illegally grazing on federal lands for 20 years.  As such, he owes over a million dollars in grazing fees.  Since he refuses to pay them (or even acknowledge the federal government exists) the department of land management impounded some of his cattle per a federal court order.

Enter Sean fcking Hannity and the neoconfederates.  He whipped the lunatic fringe into such a frenzy a hundred (or so) of them showed up in force with guns, threatening the government workers.  Rather than have a massacre, the feds backed down, wrongly in my opinion.

Were I president, I would have called in the national guard and if they tried shit, I'd have gunned down every last one of them and had Sean fcking Hannity arrested for sedition and then hanged.  The sht-heel rancher too.

The Rude Pundit reports:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-lesson-of-bundyblm-standoff.html


More links later.


I've been lurking here from time to time. I'll get my three replies in and then intro myself.

It's the vehemence in screwtape's post that motivated me to register. The stated willingness to murder those that oppose reads very similar to no pity - stone em outside the city.

What does it mean to "illegally" do anything, including grazing on "federal" lands? Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for refusal to comply.

My specific reason for making this post is: "Since he refuses to [...] even acknowledge the federal government exists" What's the problem in that?

As the post reads, it appears to me that screwtape has an issue with that "belief" of the non-existence of the federal government.

As to the grazing itself, I am aware of the tragedy of the commons

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2014, 08:41:02 PM »
What does it mean to "illegally" do anything, including grazing on "federal" lands?

   If a law is passed - let's say it has now become a crime to own slaves because the U.S. congress has passed a law.  Or it has become a crime to carry a loaded shotgun in an elementary school building.  Do you understand that, while there may be some that disagree with the law, if they live in an area under that law, they have no choice but to abide by that?

   It's fine to argue with a law we do not like, an even gather support to repeal that law, say to prohibit and then once again allow the sale of liquor, but unless we do change the laws through the system, we are bound by the laws of the state/nation where we live.  Why can a rancher in Nevada ignore a law he doesn't like, for instance, the law to pay taxes on federal grazing land, but support a law he does like, like, I don't know, supporting the law allowing farmers to drive a farm vehicle without  the need to inspect that vehicle because of farm status.  ( I'm just sayin - I do not know the laws in Nevada) Many times those that argue the most, as Mr. Bundy, end up as glaring hypocrites - against food stamps but willing to get as much as possible for free out of the federal government.

   People love to bash Washington, because it is so far, and so easy to pass the local buck, but we enjoy the freedoms the U.S. government protects -  or we enjoy the police departments, or roads we drive on, or a mail system, or a fire department, or safe natural gas, or predictable electricity, or safe drinking water, or safe food in grocery stores, or safe medicine, etc.

   There are plenty of places like, say Somalia, where folks that hate organized laws we must follow are free to move to.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2014, 08:32:14 AM »
As I stated, I've been lurking here on this forum off and on for awhile. I am quite impressed at how the regulars deal with the religious "believers". Thoughtful, analytical, and sticking to the topics. It is that base of logic that I hope to tap into while I'm here.

You ask:
Quote
Do you understand that, while there may be some that disagree with the law, if they live in an area under that law, they have no choice but to abide by that?

To which I ask: What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the law applies to me?

And I remind you of what I posted above: Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for refusal to comply. Do you deny this fact?

Hence the question: What does it mean to "illegally" do anything, [...]?

Quote
[...] we enjoy the freedoms the U.S. government protects
Apparently you are not familiar with the Kelo decision, amongst many other disproofs of that government protection. Familiarize yourself here.

Quote
There are plenty of places like, say Somalia, where folks that hate organized laws we must follow are free to move to.
Translation:
You don't share my religious belief in government so you can just leave.

newbie's post #2

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2014, 08:47:19 AM »
welcome to the forum, HED

I'm not really clear what your position is.  You could have been more explicit.  As such, I've not a whole lot to respond to other than to clear up a couple of misunderstandings.

The stated willingness to murder those that oppose

Firstly, it is not a willingness to murder.  Murder is unlawful killing. 

Secondly, I am not willing to see them dead simply because they oppose my personal view.  If they wanted to have a peaceful protest, I'd think they were idiots, but they are entitled to free speech.  That is not what they are doing, however.  They are an armed insurrection against the rule of law.

So, putting that together, my position is a willingness to quell a violent, armed uprising that seeks to usurp both the rule of law and the democratic process.  These people are no different than any other riot except they are well armed.


What does it mean to "illegally" do anything, including grazing on "federal" lands?

Assuming you actually do not understand what the concept of law is (sorry if that is patronizing, but you asked the question...), laws are formalized rules that a society creates to regulate the individuals' behavior so that the society may function.  They don't always get it right, because, you know, they're just people.  "Illegal" is an action in contradiction with those rules.

Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for refusal to comply.

If we lived in a monarchy or totalitarian regime, you might be right.  But as we have a system of government whereby we the people are free to elect our representatives, you are wrong.  They are not politicians commands.  They are agreed upon rules by the representatives of the people. If you do not like the laws, you are free to petition your representative to change positions or work to replace the representative.  Shoot the representative, you may not do.

If your counter-argument is that our political system is rigged and that the law makers are not a whole lot in touch with those they represent, you will get no argument from me there. But we get the government we deserve.  And unfortunately 90% of the public is stupid, undereducated or misinformed.


My specific reason for making this post is: "Since he refuses to [...] even acknowledge the federal government exists" What's the problem in that?

The problem is the federal government does exist.  Denial of reality is generally not a good policy.

As the post reads, it appears to me that screwtape has an issue with that "belief" of the non-existence of the federal government.

?  My issue is that selfish freeloader and crank has been stealing from the public for 20 years.  And after due process in court he has lost.  And rather than abiding by the laws everyone is expected to follow, he has whipped several hundred armed lunatics into a frenzy to violently resist the decision.

They may think they are simply exercising their 2nd amendment rights.  They are not.  They are terrorists no different than Timothy McVeigh.  This is not patriotism. This is violent rebellion and we decided 150 years ago how to deal with that.

Let me ask this, how do you think this situation would go if those yahoos were black or of Arab descent?

As to the grazing itself, I am aware of the tragedy of the commons

Thank you for that link.  good stuff.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2014, 10:31:45 AM »
Thank you for the welcome.

As Boots has for a sigfile tagline: Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

I'm here with an agenda. I'm planning on engaging the contra-religion logic and having it applied to another form of religion. The superstitious belief in "government". I expect the same logic and thought used to address the "religious" to be used with me.

If I've read the forum rules correctly, this being my third post, I can intro myself and start a topic. That way I can quit hijacking this thread.

You state:
Quote
Firstly, it is not a willingness to murder.
Compare that to this statement you made:
Quote
Were I president, I would have called in the national guard and if they tried shit, I'd have gunned down every last one of them

But then I expect you to bring this up:
Quote
Murder is unlawful killing.

Again, Law is a politician's command. Are you going to argue that it's okay to kill the protesters because the law allows it? Are you going to argue that it's not murder because it's done according to the law?

You state:
Quote
They are an armed insurrection against the rule of law.
Are you aware of the results of the Nuremberg trials? There are times when one has a duty to break the law. Are you aware that Jews and other undesirables were herded into concentration camps according to the rule of law?

Quote
So, putting that together, my position is a willingness to quell a violent, armed uprising that seeks to usurp both the rule of law and the democratic process.  These people are no different than any other riot except they are well armed.
It has been said that democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Also, please recite the Pledge of Allegiance with me: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the ???????? for which it stands...

Quote
[...] laws are formalized rules that a society creates to regulate the individuals' behavior so that the society may function.  [...]  "Illegal" is an action in contradiction with those rules.

Here is why I've enjoyed reading the discussions on this site... EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.

Doesn't the prosecution have the requirement of proving every element of the crime? What evidence do you or the prosecution rely upon to prove those laws apply to me?

And here Sir(?) is where we shall enter into some fun discussion (for me anyway):
Quote
If we lived in a monarchy or totalitarian regime, you might be right.  But as we have a system of government whereby we the people are free to elect our representatives, you are wrong.  They are not politicians commands.  They are agreed upon rules by the representatives of the people.

Are you stating that representatives are not politicians?
Are you stating the law is not backed by threat of force?
Are you stating that the law enforcers won't escalate force until there is compliance or the alleged offender is dead?

As to the representatives: What evidence do you rely upon to prove they represent me?

Quote
The problem is the federal government does exist.
 
By that same unexamined logic, Santa Clause does exist as well.

Quote
Denial of reality is generally not a good policy.
Agreed. That's why I'm here. I expect the fine people of this forum to hold to examining and determining just what reality is in the case of the superstitious belief in "government".

Quote
My issue is that selfish freeloader and crank has been stealing from the public for 20 years.  And after due process in court he has lost.  And rather than abiding by the laws everyone is expected to follow, he has whipped several hundred armed lunatics into a frenzy to violently resist the decision.

What exactly, has been stolen from the public?
Do you have a link to the transcripts of the court case?
(Judge's shenanigans are often not in full view of the public. Maybe later I'll link you to the transcripts of a specific case where the judge railroaded the defendant.)

Translation: And rather than abiding by the politician's commands everyone is expected to follow

Quote
They may think they are simply exercising their 2nd amendment rights.  They are not.  They are terrorists no different than Timothy McVeigh.  This is not patriotism. This is violent rebellion and we decided 150 years ago how to deal with that.

You were part of the suppression of the whiskey rebellion?
And what exactly was your part in deciding how to deal with "that"?

Quote
Let me ask this, how do you think this situation would go if those yahoos were black or of Arab descent?
Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how I think the situation would go if those yahoos were niggers or camel fuckers? Isn't the term "yahoo" just as demeaning?

Regardless of the particular situation that initiated the thread, it's the superstitious belief in government that caught my attention.

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2014, 10:49:36 AM »
I'm posting this reply although I may be a bit late.

To which I ask: What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the law applies to me?

Let me know if this applies to your argument.  Let's go with my law above that makes it illegal to carry a loaded shotgun in a school.  Let's say you are a hunter, and getting from one area of hunting to another, for some reason is easiest through a school hallway.   There is no evidence the law applies to you individually because you mean no harm - just passing through.

The principal stops you in the hallway and says, "Sir, we have a law against carrying a gun through the hallway, because of possible danger to students or teachers.  You reply -"Yes, but I am not a possible danger to the students, and there is no evidence that I am. " The principal replies, "yes, I see that now, but we have a need for that law because of what happens in schools sometimes, and a loaded shotgun really has no place in a school building anyway.  I wish there was a way to separate those that are a danger from those that are not, but it is the compromise that society makes with laws.  Do you understand why it is easier if we all obey them.  I hope you will not do this again."

It looks like Mr. Bundy has "met with the principal" many times over during the 20 year history of this action, since the endangered species act required Mr. Bundy to limit herd size or pay fines.
Here is a good article on the history of the situation:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch

And I remind you of what I posted above: Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for refusal to comply. Do you deny this fact?

No, not at all, although killing seems a bit extreme unless the lawbreaker is shooting at the politicians.  As far as the Kelo decision, eminent domain is the compromise that society makes, like the need for interstate highway construction to pay a land owner for the needed land.   It happens all the time.  We can only hope that all parties all treated fairly.  If you watch inner cities, the poor always get kicked around, based on the current whims of the wealthy as far as whether restaurants, shops, and clubs are in vogue for suburb or city.

*edit - this is where your point of view is necessary and correct in the US.  We need to hold the laws feet to the fire constantly to ensure it is a fair compromise for our collectively defined society's needs.

Quote
Quote
There are plenty of places like, say Somalia, where folks that hate organized laws we must follow are free to move to.
Translation:
You don't share my religious belief in government so you can just leave.

Wrong translation.  My fault for assuming you would follow through with the Somalia reference.  I am not saying leave - just looking for a country where laws are pretty much nonexistent, as an example of how society needs to operate - I chose Somalia after its decades of failed government.  Let's say Mr. Bundy does indeed go to Somalia, where he need not worry about endangered species acts or grazing rights, since no rights are guaranteed nor taken away.

 After enjoying his huge herd profits with current beef prices :), Mr. Bundy notices more and more cattle are disappearing, until one day he sees men loading up his cattle on trailers. He tries to complain to the police, but realizes there are none, so he gets in his truck, grabs his gun and follows the thieves.  Coming around the corner into the village, he sees the cattle being unloaded and fires a shot into the air, demanding his cattle back.  A 12 year old with a Uzi comes out of a hut and shoots Mr. Bundy dead, beside his truck.    Mr. Bundy's wife walks eight miles to the warlords compound to ask if anyone has seen her husband, and they invite her in for steak. 

« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 11:06:44 AM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1350
  • Darwins +454/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2014, 11:04:59 AM »
I'm here with an agenda. I'm planning on engaging the contra-religion logic and having it applied to another form of religion. The superstitious belief in "government". I expect the same logic and thought used to address the "religious" to be used with me.

Do you believe in "corporations?"  If not, does that mean you are free to walk into a "Wal-Mart" and take a "Dell" computer without paying for it?  If neither "Wal-Mart" nor "Dell" exist, there's nobody to pay for the computer, so it can't be stealing, right?

How about baseball or football teams?  Can't pour fifty milliliters of "New York Yankees" or "Green Bay Packers" into a beaker, so obviously "the New York Yankees" and "the Green Bay Packers" must be religious fictions.  So what are you cheering for/against when you watch a World Series or a Super Bowl?  Or are "the World Series" and "the Super Bowl" just more religious fictions?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12552
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2014, 11:27:32 AM »
Quote
The problem is the federal government does exist.
 
By that same unexamined logic, Santa Clause does exist as well.

No.  By the same logic, Christmas exists.  To which human individual purported to be a part of the federal government is "Santa Clause" supposed to be analogous?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2014, 12:39:56 PM »
To which I ask: What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the law applies to me?
The principal stops you in the hallway and says, "Sir, we have a law against carrying a gun through the hallway, because of possible danger to students or teachers.  You reply -"Yes, but I am not a possible danger to the students, and there is no evidence that I am. " The principal replies, "yes, I see that now, but we have a need for that law because of what happens in schools sometimes, and a loaded shotgun really has no place in a school building anyway.  I wish there was a way to separate those that are a danger from those that are not, but it is the compromise that society makes with laws.  Do you understand why it is easier if we all obey them.  I hope you will not do this again."

Unfortunately, you did not answer the question. I see no evidence in the above paragraph.

Returning to the prior paragraph:
Quote
Let me know if this applies to your argument.  Let's go with my law above that makes it illegal to carry a loaded shotgun in a school.  Let's say you are a hunter, and getting from one area of hunting to another, for some reason is easiest through a school hallway.   There is no evidence the law applies to you individually because you mean no harm - just passing through.
We don't have to use the hallway. Just being within 1,000 feet of the school suffices.[1]

Regardless, There is no evidence the law applies... Period. If I am incorrect on this, please present the evidence.

Quote
It looks like Mr. Bundy has "met with the principal" many times over during the 20 year history of this action, since the endangered species act required Mr. Bundy to limit herd size or pay fines.
Here is a good article on the history of the situation:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch

Thank you for the link. I only read a portion of it. I'll return to read it in its entirety later. In short, it seems the rancher is denying the authority of the feds.

The issue of what is authority, who has it, how did they get it, and who gave it to them will be central to my agenda of exposing belief in government as just as religious as a belief in "god".

Quote
Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for refusal to comply. Do you deny this fact?

No, not at all, although killing seems a bit extreme unless the lawbreaker is shooting at the politicians.
 1. http://www.usacarry.com/forums/wisconsin-discussion-firearm-news/10990-wisconsin-carry-challenges-school-zone-law.html

A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security officers (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. [...] Most often the models are presented in "stair step" fashion, with each level of force matched by a corresponding level of subject resistance, although it is generally noted that an officer need not progress through each level before reaching the final level of force.

I take exception to your use of the term "lawbreaker", since it is actually the denial of the politician's command authority. A parable if I may...

Cop:
The reason I pulled you over sir, is I noticed you were not wearing your seat belt. I am issuing you a citation for failing to do so.
Driver:

What is the purpose of this seat belt law?
Cop:
It's for your safety.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore this citation?
Cop:
The court assume you are guilty and will fine you.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore the fine?
Cop:
The court will issue a bench warrant for your arrest, and I'll have to come to your home to arrest you.

Driver:
What happens when I resist your attempt to arrest me?
Cop:
I'll call for backup.

Driver:
While you are waiting for backup, I'll be making sure all my guns are loaded with rounds in the chamber. What then?
Cop:
We will escalate force until you comply.

Driver:
If I present an armed refusal to obey you, what happens?
Cop:
You could be killed if we are forced to shoot you.

Driver:
Didn't you say the purpose of this law was my safety?

Government always uses force. It may be hid behind euphemisms, but the gun is ALWAYS under the table.

Quote
As far as the Kelo decision, eminent domain is the compromise that society makes, like the need for interstate highway construction to pay a land owner for the needed land.
On its face, your statement looks like you don't understand what the deal with Kelo was. The property was taken not for public need like an interstate, but to give to a developer. Peter was robbed of his property so Paul could have it. Here is that link again.

Quote
If you watch inner cities, the poor always get kicked around, based on the current whims of the wealthy as far as whether restaurants, shops, and clubs are in vogue for suburb or city.
As Andrew Napolitano states in his book Constitutional Chaos, "The government is not your friend". Your statement makes that case for me and for the poor.

Quote
*edit - this is where your point of view is necessary and correct in the US.  We need to hold the laws feet to the fire constantly to ensure it is a fair compromise for our collectively defined society's needs.

What factually, is the law's feet?
What factually, is this fire?

Quote
Wrong translation.  My fault for assuming you would follow through with the Somalia reference.  I am not saying leave - just looking for a country where laws are pretty much nonexistent, as an example of how society needs to operate - I chose Somalia after its decades of failed government.  Let's say Mr. Bundy does indeed go to Somalia, where he need not worry about endangered species acts or grazing rights, since no rights are guaranteed nor taken away.

Actually, I think it's my bad.

Let me point out that there have been laws against murder since time immemorial and in spite of those laws, there have been murders since time immemorial. Murderers don't pay attention to laws against murder, so it could be said that the laws against murder don't apply to the murderer. And non-murderers aren't going to commit murder, so those laws don't apply to them either.

Regardless. Law is a politician's command backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for not complying.

Quote
After enjoying his huge herd profits with current beef prices :), Mr. Bundy notices more and more cattle are disappearing, until one day he sees men loading up his cattle on trailers. He tries to complain to the police, but realizes there are none, so he gets in his truck, grabs his gun and follows the thieves.  Coming around the corner into the village, he sees the cattle being unloaded and fires a shot into the air, demanding his cattle back.  A 12 year old with a Uzi comes out of a hut and shoots Mr. Bundy dead, beside his truck.    Mr. Bundy's wife walks eight miles to the warlords compound to ask if anyone has seen her husband, and they invite her in for steak.

What evidence do you have that Bundy has huge herd profits?
What evidence do you have of Bundy's expenses?


You think the police are your friends? Get a clue.
WARNING: This video is disturbing.

 

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2014, 12:49:54 PM »
I'm here with an agenda. I'm planning on engaging the contra-religion logic and having it applied to another form of religion. The superstitious belief in "government". I expect the same logic and thought used to address the "religious" to be used with me.

Do you believe in "corporations?"  If not, does that mean you are free to walk into a "Wal-Mart" and take a "Dell" computer without paying for it?  If neither "Wal-Mart" nor "Dell" exist, there's nobody to pay for the computer, so it can't be stealing, right?

How about baseball or football teams?  Can't pour fifty milliliters of "New York Yankees" or "Green Bay Packers" into a beaker, so obviously "the New York Yankees" and "the Green Bay Packers" must be religious fictions.  So what are you cheering for/against when you watch a World Series or a Super Bowl?  Or are "the World Series" and "the Super Bowl" just more religious fictions?

It is interesting that you bring up corporations since the "State" (erroneously called "government") is a corporation.

What then is a corporation?

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

The difference between government and Santa Claus is that somebody told you the truth about Santa Claus.

I don't quite understand the point you are attempting to make so I'll leave it to you to start the process of proving that "government" exists.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12552
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2014, 12:55:30 PM »
He's pointing out that human institutions exist as human institutions.  They don't have some metaphysical existence of their own, they're defined by human thoughts and behaviour.

Corporations are something humans do.
Religions are something humans do.
Governments are something humans do.
Sports teams are something humans do.

These all exist as things that humans do, and can be observed/described as such.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 12:57:06 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2014, 01:02:03 PM »
Quote
The problem is the federal government does exist.
 
By that same unexamined logic, Santa Clause does exist as well.

No.  By the same logic, Christmas exists.  To which human individual purported to be a part of the federal government is "Santa Clause" supposed to be analogous?

All of the government.

He's pointing out that human institutions exist as human institutions.  They don't have some metaphysical existence of their own, they're defined by human thoughts and behaviour.

Corporations are something humans do make.
Religions are something humans do make.
Governments are something humans do are alleged to make.
Sports teams are something humans do make.

These all exist as things that humans do, and can be observed/described as such.
changes mine.


If no more comments, I'll start that topic now.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12552
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2014, 01:06:57 PM »
Quote
The problem is the federal government does exist.
 
By that same unexamined logic, Santa Clause does exist as well.

No.  By the same logic, Christmas exists.  To which human individual purported to be a part of the federal government is "Santa Clause" supposed to be analogous?

All of the government.

So all of the government workers don't exist, just like Santa Claus doesn't?  Interesting position you've carved out for yourself.

Take more care in your analogies, please, to ensure they actually make sense.

He's pointing out that human institutions exist as human institutions.  They don't have some metaphysical existence of their own, they're defined by human thoughts and behaviour.

Corporations are something humans do make.
Religions are something humans do make.
Governments are something humans do are alleged to make.
Sports teams are something humans do make.

These all exist as things that humans do, and can be observed/described as such.
changes mine.


If no more comments, I'll start that topic now.

So you acknowledge that humans make/organize corporations, religions, and sports teams...yet somehow you dispute that humans make/organize governments?

On what grounds do you do so?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2014, 01:08:05 PM »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12552
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2014, 01:11:00 PM »
Does that mean you'll not be responding to the objections brought against your positions in this thread?

And if so, then why should anyone expect you to follow up in that one?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 01:16:11 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2014, 01:18:33 PM »
Does that mean you'll not be responding to the objections brought against your positions in this thread?

And if so, then why should anyone expect you to follow up in that one?

No. It means bring up the objections over there.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12552
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2014, 01:19:41 PM »
1. I already did.
2. That shouldn't be necessary.  The relevant posts are here.  If you aren't capable of carrying on an in-thread discussion, then you should refrain from pretending you can.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2014, 01:41:16 PM »

Unfortunately, you did not answer the question. I see no evidence in the above paragraph...........

Lets cut to the chase, HED.  As you question our belief in the necessity of a government, what remedy do you recommend for society?   Or is this some lead in an  "atheists deny god but trust man" argument?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2014, 01:45:17 PM »
1. I already did.
2. That shouldn't be necessary.  The relevant posts are here.  If you aren't capable of carrying on an in-thread discussion, then you should refrain from pretending you can.

1. And it appears that you are impatient with how long it takes me to type a reply.
2. Fine. But I am going to incorporate my first post of that other thread as if it was posted here.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2014, 01:53:05 PM »

Unfortunately, you did not answer the question. I see no evidence in the above paragraph...........

Lets cut to the chase, HED.  As you question our belief in the necessity of a government, what remedy do you recommend for society?   Or is this some lead in an  "atheists deny god but trust man" argument?

I question the religious belief in authority, which is required for "government".

And my question still stands unanswered:
Quote
Let's go with my law above that makes it illegal to carry a loaded shotgun in a school.
What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the law applies to me?

Quote
[...] what remedy do you recommend for society
I don't. And I call you on changing the subject.

Edit to answer question:
Quote
Or is this some lead in an  "atheists deny god but trust man" argument?
Nope.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 01:58:17 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus »

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2014, 01:56:48 PM »


I'm here with an agenda. I'm planning on engaging the contra-religion logic and having it applied to another form of religion. The superstitious belief in "government". I expect the same logic and thought used to address the "religious" to be used with me.

What is this 'superstitious belief in government' you speak of?

su·per·sti·tion noun \?sü-p?r-?sti-sh?n\ 

: a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck : a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck


So you are trying to paint people with a patently and obviously false pejorative as the foundation for your ire and your agenda. Please look up the definition of Strawman.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Nevada gun aholes face off with government
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2014, 02:01:46 PM »


I'm here with an agenda. I'm planning on engaging the contra-religion logic and having it applied to another form of religion. The superstitious belief in "government". I expect the same logic and thought used to address the "religious" to be used with me.

What is this 'superstitious belief in government' you speak of?

<snip>

The superstitious, nay, religious belief that government, i.e. the state, has "authority".