In what language does impounding cattle found illegally grazing on public land pursuant to a court order equal “stealing a guy’s cattle”, exactly?
“Liberty Freedom For God We Stand”-could someone who speaks Patriotese parse this for me?
*This is Bigger Than Cliven Bundy Concerned Friend Town Board Meeting 04/04/14*
I understand your position. However, not everyone sees it that way. There is a recent trend among some state legislatures to explicitly enumerate the peoples’ right to posses firearms nearly anywhere they are legally allowed to be.
There is a recent trend among state legislatures to pass whatever ALEC tells them to. Even if the courts and/or legislatures foolishly make it legal for you to do something, it doesn’t mean that you should. Regardless of the gun laws that exist or the courts’ preposterous interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, these people had absolutely no business showing up packing heat. Perhaps the BLM made the right call by temporarily backing down, but I hope they come back with tanks and troops and seize the cattle by whatever means necessary. And if armed half-wits come out carrying arms to support this nutcase and his continuing theft of government property, and if they fire their weapons, they deserve whatever happens to them.
And seriously, using theblaze.com as a cite? Graffiti on a mens’ room stall has more credibility.
So when dies a group stop being “people excercising their first and second amendment rights” and become an armed mob?
“I imagine…”, “They probably…” and my favorite line “Did God not create the cow?” That’s right-he refuses to pay what he owes and justifies trespassing to support equal rights for cows. :dubious:
He’s just using it to point out that such laws have been passed. It’s not as though it’s a highly contentious issue that state legislatures are doing this stuff (versus whether they ought to.)
I suppose, but generally I think it’s better to cite from a more neutral source.
I’m trying to parse this claim.
The legislatures have passed, the governor has signed, and the courts have approved, legislation which grants an individual the legal right to carry a firearm.
What other steps are necessary before a person may legitimately carry?
What is the point of camouflage at a public demonstration in the middle of a desert?!
As I said, because you can doesn’t mean you should. Confronting armed federal agents with similarly armed yokels surrounding you is one of those times that you shouldn’t.
:rolleyes: Nevertheless, it is not only inarguable but painfully obvious. I recall a clip from a documentary about how, back in the '60s, the Black Panthers walked fully armed into a session of the California state legislature. They were making no actual threats with their weapons (and in fact had simply walked into the wrong room by mistake), but the legislators certainly and reasonably perceived it as a threat and some dove under their desks, as any sensible person would have, in that situation.
:eek: Ooh, be careful! You know where that kind of talk might lead!
You are confusing “legitimately” with “reasonably.”
Cites and specifics, please? The only one I can think of is a situation where the cop is both dirty and out to kill you, which is extremely rare.
Same reasons we all do, excluding patriotism.
Most of the people in those pictures seem to be camouflaged as cowboys. The one wearing actual camo seems to be wearing jungle camo, so he may be lost.
OK. Fair enough.
He’s not disputing the legality of carrying. He’s disputing the wisdom of it. Sure, some states have passed laws that it’s legal to carry a firearm into a bar. Doesn’t mean it’s a wise decision.
Similarly here. Sure, the protestors are legal allowed to carry, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t raise the probability and stakes of a gun fight. Thus, it may not be wise for the protestors to raise that implicit connotation of violence.