LAWLESS militia aids rancher in collecting WELFARE from taxpayers!

The right to bear arms was practiced by the Founding Fathers', there is no question as to their intent, which is why there is no need to ever mention the militia aspect when it comes to the individual...

 

"Intimidate law enforcement" now that is laughable. And that LE doent carry for the same reason? No fly zones are not intimidating?

I supported OWS right to protest and i assure you some of them were armed *gasp*

 

Oh trust me, I hate Giethner. Question: do you think this guy is above the law? Do you think it's OK for armed militias to wantonly intimidate the federal government? If so, you're setting a dangerous precedent. Something tells me you would think differently if hundreds of OWS protesters brought AK-47s.

 

So you think we should set a precedent in this country that allows for armed militias to obstruct the law? If OWS protesters were brandishing guns like this, and POINTING THEM at authorities, the NYPD would open fire without question.

 

"LAWLESS militia aids rancher in collecting WELFARE from taxpayers!"

Because of such an excessive amount of egregious, burdensome, idiotic, silly and stupid laws, the nation is being pushed toward anarchy.

 

Use force against an armed militia...which they didn't?

 

Sorry, the faux concern of the taxpayer simply will not resonate because we've already seen what bunch of lying hypocrites the left are on the matter. I'm quite shocked you people ever went down that road without thinking nobody would call you guys out on it...

Intimidate the federal government? That is only possible if the federal government is weak and pathetic, which I don't believe it is, just it's leadership at the moment...

I would have loved for OWS to have brought AK-47s, with their sense of entitlement, it might have actually changed the face of gun control for decades to come...

 

I would be much more impressed if the authors of that piece did not themselves believe in welfare and if they had contributed seriously to the tax base...

 

You really think the order of words is consequent to the importance of them? The Founders did not envision a totalitarian State, hence the whole checks and balances thing.

'Regulated' in this term refers to orderly conduct. As government also decried Anarchism as unrealistic. I must add that thankfully the internet has evolved so much. Not too many people experienced Waco in real time(I was only about 2-3 yrs old), but to you Far-Leftists: We experienced the Ranch in real time.

Americans now know first hand what we're dealing with in the worst case scenario.

 

These people didn't go looking for a fight with the feds. The feds came to Bundy armed like they did in Waco when this guy could be arrested almost anytime the feds wanted.

If these people or OWS go to NY City armed they should be shot.

BTW, who is the person in the picture pointing his gun at?? Show me a picture of people other than the feds that were pointing guns at people?? I saw the feds with their guns pointing at people but didn't see the people pointing guns at them.

 

Intimidation isn't just the literal "we might kill you," it's also the threat of instability. What would happen if a Fed felt his life was in danger and shot someone? Or, one of Bundy's snipers got a little trigger-happy and did the inverse? In this climate, I wouldn't be surprised if the militia types might feel emboldened to attempt an insurrection.

This is not a good precedent to set. Also, you know nothing about my opinions on the tax code, so i'm not sure where you're getting your intimations, other than a blanket assumption of my "liberal" beliefs.

 

Well, lets see, some 200 BLM contractor soldiers complete with armored vests, attack dogs, and armored trucks show up, vs an old guy riding a horse.

HMMMM...... I not sure really... uh.... but if I had to made a reasonable guess, I would venture:

HELL YES AND THANK GOD FOR THE MILITIA showing up just in time before the old guy "disappears" to one of those secret interrogation facilities that President Obama promised would be closed, but.. GUESS WHAT>> NOT!!! And no only that, but provisions in NDAA 2012 EXPANDED to allow for the US citizens to be detained without representation.

 

Bundy had militia snipers, who do you think they were pointing at? And they absolutely were spoiling for a fight for the feds, otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to bring guns. That's why this situation escalated so quickly, and i'm sure the Feds knew loony tunes right wing gun-toters would show up.

 

Insurrection? What? This is exactly the kind of fear mongering we have seen over and over again when it comes to anyone that exercises their rights in a way this regime doesn't like. These people have caused no harm, these people have broken no laws. Since you brought them up, how'd OWS fair on that scale? Oh wait, the regime supported their ideas on class warfare and entitlement, yet there was no talk of possible insurrection by them...

Precedent? I was wholly unaware that Americans exercising their rights was something new...

 

Blame? Well who is to blame for your ignorance? Society? No Way. Your ignorance is willful. The SCOTUS in Heller dealt with the anti-gun LIBERAL DEMOCRAT collectivist rights and the prefatory clause arguments and closed the door on that idiocy. Instead, the SCOTUS found in favor of the operative clause, recognizing that it is in fact an individuals right to keep and bear arms. You better go catch up on James Madison, the Federalist papers (29 & 46 specifically) or stay willfully ignorant.

 

"Armed militias" have the right to protest. Who is pointing guns at whom?

 

Like the feds would allow snipers to be set up like that.. Give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break.

 

Or just maybe your "loony tunes right wing gun-toters" are the ones who are standing up for injustice and actually exercising their second amendment rights as the founders had intended? Seems like it sure kept the forces of an out-of-control looney tunes tyrannical left-wing government at bay.

 

So in other words the answer is no. You have people who are saying this. I can say I walked on the moon. Just because I say that it doesn’t make it true. Is there video evidence? Because if there is, that is sold 100% irrefutable proof.

 

He does not owe anything to the tax payers the tax debt he owes is to the government. Two different entities.

In fact no one owes the government any taxes they are simply claimed and stolen by the government.

 

The government might own it not the tax payers you keep confusing the two.

Yes one should always abide by the laws of the nation you live in.

View attachment 26612

 

Source for that?

 

This is a hilariously bad rant, "shouted" at people and filled with misinformation and ignorant assumptions.
Every single sentence, including the title line is error filled and this just shows the intellectual level of non achievement of the angry pitchfork carrying mob that wants Cliven Bundy crucified for the crime of the century....letting his cows eat grass in a place that a week ago, none of you rabble even knew existed.

Your unreasoning anger is controlled by your Pavlovian masters at cesspools like Think Progress (LOL) and stop and think about what must be missing in your own lives that you can be whipped up into such a frothing mob so easily.

 

I would suggest subscribing to less than main stream media.

 

So you still have no irrefutable proof?