Would you ever risk your life for your liberties?

[Shupe]

Perhaps you could petition the mods to create a US Domestic Issues forum for you.

Lol'd. I feel like it is certainly coming to that point though. Hell, I'd sign that petition, just so that these threads are no longer posted in GD.

 

[Ripper]

So, to sum up the unanswered questions given to smiling Buddha, in order they were made:
1. which "constitutional rights" are they [the armed citizens] defending?

They also hope that their example of oath-sworn public servants defending the rights of the people will prompt Clark County, Nevada Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to honor their oaths of office by taking real action to defend the rights of the Bundy family, the rights of all Nevadans, and the sovereignty of the State of Nevada.

2. how is it [my posts] disinformation when the information is true and correct?
3. where is the "growing power" of the state in this instance? there's been leasing arrangements since at least 1936. the government bought the land from mexico in the 1840s. the legal wrangling, fines, court orders etc have been happening for 20 years. where is this sudden overreach in your opinion?
4. which part of violating court orders and obstructing the lawful execution of duties by federal officers is "law-abiding" in your world?
5. where's the corruption? it's federal government land, they can do whatever they want with it.
6. would you say you approve of violence (or intimidation/the threat of violence) over the rule of law?
7. so the judge was wrong when he ruled the US fed govt has owned the title since 1848?
8. the courts (the ultimate arbiters on what is or is not unconstitutional) disagree with you. what do you have to say in return?

Under the Founders design, the states were to control their own land, unless, and until, the federal government purchased a particular piece of land, with the consent of the state legislature, for a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, etc.

As Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 states, Congress has the power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.


When did the Federal government purchase the millions of acres in Nevada it claims to own? When did the legislature of Nevada ever consent to it? Where are the forts, magazine, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings on that land? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can keep 80% of a state when it is admitted into the Union? Nowhere. And yet the federal government totally ignores the limited powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, doctrine of equal footing, whereby new states admitted to the Union were to enter it on an equal footing with the original states. Why doesn’t Virginia have 80% of its land claimed by the federal government? Why doesn’t Ohio? It is only in the West that this absurdity exists (and it is not just in Nevada. Similar abuses are seen in the rest of the West).

It seems that this is spiraling out of control for Harry.

A Delegation of state legislators, lead by Washington State Representative Matt Shea, along with a delegation of current serving Sheriffs, lead by Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and military and police members of Oath Keepers, are converging on the site of a stand-off between federal law enforcement and Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy, to prevent bloodshed and to stand in defense of hardworking rural Americans who are under assault by a runaway federal government.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Lol'd. I feel like it is certainly coming to that point though. Hell, I'd sign that petition, just so that these threads are no longer posted in GD.

It must be so hard to not click on threads that don't interest you.

 

[clogged]

They also hope that their example of oath-sworn public servants defending the rights of the people will prompt Clark County, Nevada Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to honor their oaths of office by taking real action to defend the rights of the Bundy family, the rights of all Nevadans, and the sovereignty of the State of Nevada.

The Nevadan Constitution specifically says:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

More here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

 

[Long Live HFC]

They also hope that their example of oath-sworn public servants defending the rights of the people will prompt Clark County, Nevada Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to honor their oaths of office by taking real action to defend the rights of the Bundy family, the rights of all Nevadans, and the sovereignty of the State of Nevada.





It seems that this is spiraling out of control for Harry.

i would seriously avoid taking any interpretation of the constitution from the oath keepers. the US federal government bought the land before the state of nevada even existed. the courts have already ruled on the matter and bundy lost. what the oath keepers think is irrelevant. if the court disagrees with you, then no manner of re-interpretations will do you any good. you need to get a higher court to overule. which hasnt happened.

 

[Long Live HFC]

As Article One, Section 8, Clause 17

according to the senate site, this clause was for the governance of the district of columbia (washington DC):

This clause enables Congress to govern the District of Columbia. Congress has now delegated that power to a locally elected government, subject to federal oversight. Congress also governs forts, arsenals, and other places obtained from the states for the federal government’s purposes.

https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec8

so, completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. i told you, don't pay attention to oath keeper nutters.

 

[Shupe]

It must be so hard to not click on threads that don't interest you.

The threads do interest me. Your style of posting does not.

Anyway, off topic.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

The threads do interest me. Your style of posting does not.

Then just put me on ignore and enjoy the popular and engaging threads I tend to churn out.

 

[checkraiseulite]

where is the yes, and those nevadians should be shot option.

 

[Handsuper47]

nope

 

[tandino]

Isn't it an accepted fact that all "crown land", save for the original 13 States and Texas, is owned by the Federal Government? That was always my understanding.

 

[edgie]

Thread seems to have drifted off topic since the first post.

A significant number of people turned out in a non violent, albeit armed, protest against the government, to which the government was forced to retreat, over a perceived issue of civil liberty. If this happened in Australia, would you turn up with them?

The only thing that gets self centered Aussies off their arse is a bit of wog bashing on the beach

 

[Power Raid]

As an Australian what liberites am I guaranteed?
I'm almost ready to write-off America, things are getting crazier and crazier over there, I'd like to see Australia the Non-Aligned Movement.

well you can't get married, so I guess you will always be free in the eyes of our government



too far?

PS. I am pro gay marriage and working with labor to change their policy

 

[Power Raid]

in response to the OP

yes I would fight for my liberties and risk my life if necessary. Fortunately, we live in a great nation with more freedoms and opportunities than most.

 

[edgie]

well you can't get married, so I guess you will always be free in the eyes of our government



too far?

PS. I am pro gay marriage and working with labor to change their policy

Are some of your best fiends and relatives gay?

 

[Power Raid]

Are some of your best fiends and relatives gay?

Our goal keeper is gay, a mate I did my CA with was gay and had a number of friends at high school who were gay. I must admit these days I don't know of many in my day to day life but I am usually oblivious to these things.

I am just pro gay marriage as I believe that they and their relationships deserve the same respect and rights from our government as hetro couples.

Further, I have not heard a single reasonable reason to deny them the right to marry.

 

[edgie]

Our goal keeper is gay, a mate I did my CA with was gay and had a number of friends at high school who were gay. I must admit these days I don't know of many in my day to day life but I am usually oblivious to these things.

I am just pro gay marriage as I believe that they and their relationships deserve the same respect and rights from our government as hetro couples.

Further, I can not heard a single reasonable reason to deny them the right to marry.

Haha, I'm just mocking social convention regarding pledging ones stance supporting homosexual equality. Most recently seen with Mike Pyke and Brock McClean

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Which leads me to my question: Could you ever see yourself risking your life to defend principles such as liberty? Or perhaps you think that those who take up arms against tyrannical government are fruitloops who ought to be shot? Something in between? All views welcome as long as they are respectful of other posters.

Over to you, bigfooty.

Great to see you covering this Buddha, But i Drawn issue with one thing: your poll options aren't extensive enough.
where's my poll option for: Yes, but i'm a bit of a coward so i wouldn't risk my life for cattle but if it was something more seriously i would like to think i would. but more then likely i would pussy out and go live in the bush and bitch about how ****ed everything is how someone should do something about it. Also i don't believe in hero's be support these blokes right to defend there er.... rights!

 

[Power Raid]

Haha, I'm just mocking social convention regarding pledging ones stance supporting homosexual equality. Most recently seen with Mike Pyke and Brock McClean

I am not sure if it is additional disclosure or boasting but I was checked out by a gay guy on the weekend.

At my age, I don't care where the attention comes from, I just take it as a compliment.

 

[BALKAN]

Thread seems to have drifted off topic since the first post.

A significant number of people turned out in a non violent, albeit armed, protest against the government, to which the government was forced to retreat, over a perceived issue of civil liberty. If this happened in Australia, would you turn up with them?

The only thing that gets self centered Aussies off their arse is a bit of wog bashing on the beach

No, I would not turn up to a 'protest' where everyone has guns to fight for some cheapskate who doesn't want to pay some fees.

 

[Gough]

Haha, I'm just mocking social convention regarding pledging ones stance supporting homosexual equality. Most recently seen with Mike Pyke and Brock McClean

Why mock? Plenty of high profile people use their position to speak out about issues close to their heart.

 

[edgie]

Why mock? Plenty of high profile people use their position to speak out about issues close to their heart.

Then they should do it without the "close friends and relatives" line EVERYONE wheels out. You should be supportive without needing a personal experience. People don't need to justify anything by saying this, they should feel strong and secure in their opinions and movements regardless.



Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk

 

[SpuriousPea]

Man, this place is a cesspit of state idolatry.

 

[Ripper]

I see oathkeepers.org is down.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

You give him too much credit; I think his motives here are more subversive than most people could countenance.