Model Train Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Any of you guys going to Oregon to join up with y'allqueda and vanillISIS? Seems they need some more guys wearing camo in the snow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I certainly hope that these insurrectionist are fined the exact amount of the cost for suppressing their rebellion so that we don't have to take any funding away from our real combat Veterans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
It is a scary situation.
And I do not like it when I see the Police and these normally law abiding citizens clashing.
I know the constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms and form militia's to overcome "Tyranny".
But I do not think this particular situation is "Tyranny" by the government or justified.

Even more scary is when the "copy cats" do the same, i.e. "Black Lives Matter", Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazi's, Black Panthers, and others...unarmed protests are not enough.

I am still reading and gathering information, as ALL mainstream media outlets including the one I really really like, are not reporting all the facts. They are picking and choosing depending on their stance.
There is more to this story than what is being told.

On the surface, I feel what the ranchers did (controlled burns on government wildlife refuge land) was wrong, as they would be the first to complain if the government did that on the ranchers land.

Also, although I am a right wing conservative, I am a strong advocate of wild life refuge's, national parks, and historical preservation.
As an example, I get very angry when the justification to destroy a historical battlefield site is "Well, you can't preserve everything".
My response is, "Well, you can't destroy everything"....even though they are in most cases.

Although, I am for some aspects of gun control, I am more of a gun rights supporter.
Despite that, I feel I can honestly say based on what I have seen and read that some people are just "itching" to use their guns to the point of stupidity.
Case in point, the lady who shot her daughter because she thought she was an intruder.
Come on!
Was she so itching to use that gun that she could not shout "Who is it?", turn a light on first, or make sure who she was shooting at?
Nope...shooting so fast without caution and understanding of the situation is irresponsible as a gun owner.

Another example, in Texas where I used to live almost everyone owns guns.
Whether they know how to properly use them is another matter.
For years, Texas tries to enforce their law of not shooting into the air in celebration, especially on New Years Eve when it is very popular to do so.
If you truly understand guns, then you would know that what goes up must come down somewhere, and people were getting killed and injured from others shooting up into the air.
One story there comes to mind and is the perfect example of stupidity, ignorance, and gun addiction is as follows:

There was a story in the Houston Chronicle where this guy would shoot a couple of rounds into the air EVERY New Years.
His wife begged and pleaded with him one year to NOT do it for that particular New Year's.
He promised not to, but when the egghead heard others doing it, his gun addiction took over and he could not help himself.
So he went to clean and load his gun, and accidently shot and killed his young daughter by accident, who was standing their watching him clean and load the gun.
STUPID!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,333 Posts
The father, clyde, still owes over $1,000,000 in grazing fees. Why isn't he in jail?

I'm against violence so I suggest they shut off all utilities, surround and isolate the building they've seized and no one goes in or comes out. Then in a few months have haz-mat crews remove the bodies, or better yet burn the building down and send the families a bill for every cent expended.

What ever happened to laws?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,333 Posts
There's laws. there's the courts, the bundy's didn't like the fact some ranchers took things into their own hands starting back fires without the proper authorization and were found guilty of doing so according to the reports.
Uphold the Constitution my butt, nothing but a bunch of gun toting yahoo's. you'd fit right in.
And throw clyde in jail, seize the property he leases to pay what he owes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
It is a scary situation.
And I do not like it when I see the Police and these normally law abiding citizens clashing.
I know the constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms and form militia's to overcome "Tyranny".
Where does it say that?

Militias are mentioned 5 times in the Constitution:
Art I sec 8:
Congress can call forth the milita to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Congreess can provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the militia and for governing them as they may be empoyed in the service of the US.

Art II sec 2:
The president is commander in chief of the Army, Navy and the militias of the states, when called in the actual service of the United States.

2nd Amend:
A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

5th Amend:
Capital crimes have to go before a grand jury except in case involving the military or milita, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

NONE, not one, of those sections authorize people to "form militia's to overcome "Tyranny"."
On the contrary they use the terms like execute the laws, well regulated, disciplined, in the actual service of the US. NONE of those things apply here. If they are a militia in service to the US then Obama is their commander in chief, don't argue about it, that's what the Constituion says. Don't read some right wing propaganda, read the Constitution, its there in black and white.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

There is nothing in that document that authorizes people to take up arms to redress their grievances. Exactly the opposite. There are multiple ways that people can redress their grievances provided in the Constitution. Armed mobs is not one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Yeah, I'd go down to Oregon if they needed a hand...
The cops needing a hand, I mean. I'm well trained in the use of CS and CQB by some of the best in the business (US Army Special Forces) from my Army days.
"Tyranny" is a highly subjective concept, even if the constitution allowed for what these knuckleheads are doing. I know whack jobs who feel it's tyranny to simply have speed limits on the roads. Heck, it wouldn't shock me if some of the guys in that building are of that ilk (I've never liked ilk).
This reminds me of the movie, "Taps" where actor Wayne Tippit says it best:
Let me tell 'em it was growing pains - the wrong execution of the right idea.
Frankly, I don't even see this as the right idea and it sure as heck is the wrong execution, even if it was said right idea!
But Waco and Ruby Ridge have left the Feds gunshy these days on clearing people out where it probably should happen.
This is where people are anymore, though, regardless of their cause. They feel that whatever brand of bee is in their bonnet gives them some sort of bizarre right to disrupt everyone else. In short, I simply don't care what their beef (so to speak) is. Let them fight it out in the courts where it belongs. Otherwise, I'd be tempted to throw some firecrackers in the building if I came up to use it legally and found these jokers inside it for these so-called reasons, instead.
Break out the CS canisters and the attack dogs. I'd be happy to lob the first round of gas in there to smoke 'em out if asked!
 

·
Admin
Joined
·
43,791 Posts
There's laws. there's the courts, the bundy's didn't like the fact some ranchers took things into their own hands starting back fires without the proper authorization and were found guilty of doing so according to the reports.
Uphold the Constitution my butt, nothing but a bunch of gun toting yahoo's. you'd fit right in.
And throw clyde in jail, seize the property he leases to pay what he owes.
Yep, no courts, no jury, just right to jail or simply execute them on site. You sure wouldn't advocate that for the rioters in all the major cities that have destroyed millions of dollars in private and government property, why is that? I guess what they're doing is more "legal" in your eyes? Tell me how their situation is "more legal" than the guys in Oregon. Perhaps it doesn't square with your extreme liberal stance, so those criminals don't deserve to be executed on the spot. :rolleyes:

Of course, you jump right to the conclusion that I agree with the occupation up there, even though nothing I said supports your assumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Where does it say that?

Militias are mentioned 5 times in the Constitution:
Art I sec 8:
Congress can call forth the milita to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Congreess can provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the militia and for governing them as they may be empoyed in the service of the US.

Art II sec 2:
The president is commander in chief of the Army, Navy and the militias of the states, when called in the actual service of the United States.

2nd Amend:
A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

5th Amend:
Capital crimes have to go before a grand jury except in case involving the military or milita, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

NONE, not one, of those sections authorize people to "form militia's to overcome "Tyranny"."
On the contrary they use the terms like execute the laws, well regulated, disciplined, in the actual service of the US. NONE of those things apply here. If they are a militia in service to the US then Obama is their commander in chief, don't argue about it, that's what the Constituion says. Don't read some right wing propaganda, read the Constitution, its there in black and white.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

There is nothing in that document that authorizes people to take up arms to redress their grievances. Exactly the opposite. There are multiple ways that people can redress their grievances provided in the Constitution. Armed mobs is not one of them.
Actually; we are both correct, this is why we have jury's and lawyers to interpret the law.
I wish it was black and white; but it is not, and here is why:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States.

Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory."

A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

Also...

FIRST: The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

A. The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government.
1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.
2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994,2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).
3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).
4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644]1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36.

B. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the University of Virginia.

C. Christian religious thinkers, such as Samuel Rutherford (in Lex, Rex, 1644) argued that man’s rights come from God. Using Biblical principles and examples, they argued against the notion that kings ruled by divine right. To be legitimate authorities, all governments must uphold man’s rights and do justice. Otherwise, the people owe a lawless and tyrannical ruler no allegiance at all.

D. Cicero, Rome’s leading orator, had early argued that the right to self-defense was natural and inborn, and not a creation of the government. The right to use weapons was a necessary part of the right to self-defense — any view to the contrary was silly nonsense. [Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 17, fn 76-77.]

E. The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect.

F. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, indicated that the word “people” in the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not to states. [494 U.S. 259 (1990)] (This was not a holding or ruling of law, but an observation by the Court).
smalline

SECOND: The language of the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from “infringing” on this right of the people. There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.” (See Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed.1983, p. 941.) The language of the Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical reason to read the Second Amendment as a weak statement, while treating the First Amendment as a strong protector of rights.

A. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

B. Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”
smalline

THIRD: The Second Amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia.”The right of the people to form citizen militias was unquestioned by the Founders.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.
smalline

FOURTH: The Second Amendment begins with the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” Some people argue that this phrase limits the right to keep and bear arms to militias only ... which they say means the National Guard. Very recent research shows, however, that it was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700’s to include a preamble. The Constitution has a preamble, the Bill of Rights has a preamble — yet people don’t argue that the Constitution is limited by the preamble. Professor Eugene Volokh at the UCLA Law School has examined numerous other state constitutions of the same general time period, and observed this kind of preamble language in many of them. (The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 793-821 (1998)). The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters.

A. Examples:
New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 contained a preamble for the freedom of the press: “The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”
Rhode Island’s 1842 state constitution recited a preamble before its declaration of the right of free speech and press: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty...”
New Hampshire’s Constitution in 1784 also contained a detailed preamble and explanation of purpose for its right to a criminal trial in the vicinity where the crime occurred.
The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution, all contained preambles or explanations of the right of freedom of speech and debate in the state legislatures.
The New Hampshire Constitution also gave an explanation, right in the text, for why there should be no ex post facto laws.

B. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.
smalline

FIFTH: Before the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment, many states enacted laws that made it illegal for slaves and for free black people to possess firearms (unless they had their master’s permission or a government approval). [See list, with sources in law reviews, in Gran’pa Jack No. 4 ]

A. The Second Amendment did not protect black people then, because(1) it was understood to limit the federal government’s power only and (2) black people were not considered citizens whose rights deserved to be protected. [Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Judge Taney observed that if blacks had the privileges and immunities of citizenship, then they would be able to freely possess and carry arms ... unthinkable to Southern slave owners.)][Halbrook, pp. 98, 114-15]

B. The Second Amendment was designed by people who did not want to become slaves to their government, but they were unfortunately and tragically willing to permit private slavery in some states. Now that slavery is abolished, however, all citizens of all races should enjoy the Second Amendment’s legal protection against despotic government.
smalline

SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unless they have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See ... Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]

B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).

C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings exten-sively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.
Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die ... unless the people are armed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Actually; we are both correct, this is why we have jury's and lawyers to interpret the law.
I wish it was black and white; but it is not, and here is why:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States.
I never said anything about an individual not having the right to bear arms. My objection is to the insinuation that the Constitution allows citizens to take up arms against the government.

So far the only evidence in support of that concept is in the Federalist papers. The Federalist papers are NOT part of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution provides an option for people to take up arms against the government or its laws. Taking up arms against the government is insurrection and the Constitution explicitly allows the government to suppress it.

When the government passes a law, if the minority that objects to it takes up arms to force their will on the majority, that is tyranny. The Constitution provides for remedies besides forcing your opinions on people at the point of a sword.

I find it amusing that if you mention gun ownership there is a long discourse on the Second Amendment, but when Trump proposes running the First amendment religious freedoms through the shredder by his restrictions on Muslims you guys can't wait to get in line behind him.

If the IRA becomes violent again and blows up an airliner from London to New York, will you be cheering behind Trump if he bans Catholics from entering the US? If he can ban Muslims he can ban Catholics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,940 Posts
I never said anything about an individual not having the right to bear arms. My objection is to the insinuation that the Constitution allows citizens to take up arms against the government.

So far the only evidence in support of that concept is in the Federalist papers. The Federalist papers are NOT part of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution provides an option for people to take up arms against the government or its laws. Taking up arms against the government is insurrection and the Constitution explicitly allows the government to suppress it.

When the government passes a law, if the minority that objects to it takes up arms to force their will on the majority, that is tyranny. The Constitution provides for remedies besides forcing your opinions on people at the point of a sword.

I find it amusing that if you mention gun ownership there is a long discourse on the Second Amendment, but when Trump proposes running the First amendment religious freedoms through the shredder by his restrictions on Muslims you guys can't wait to get in line behind him.

If the IRA becomes violent again and blows up an airliner from London to New York, will you be cheering behind Trump if he bans Catholics from entering the US? If he can ban Muslims he can ban Catholics.
You DO realize that temporary suspension of any and all aliens travel to the US when there is a perceived threat is a power granted to the President and is written in US Code, right?

Obama even did it for a brief period with those "refugees" coming in from Iraq after it was found that some terrorists had come to the US and had been settled here as refugees (and were continuing in their terrorist ways).

I think it's hilarious how the general public alllows the press to parse out incomplete statements without context and they buy it hook, line and sinker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,746 Posts
I've been to Oregon several times.

That;'s why I have no enthusiasm for going back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,940 Posts
but when Trump proposes running the First amendment religious freedoms through the shredder by his restrictions on Muslims you guys can't wait to get in line behind him..
In case you missed it....this isn't Trump's proposal. It's US Statutory Code.

8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
Here's the federal building they took over. Must have been a long hard fight. LOL Just leave them alone and ignore them. They will leave eventually when they have no spotlight.

lol.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
To be honest with you, I did a ton of research yesterday and I feel the Ranchers are WRONG!
The only things this is about is not paying grazing fee's to have the priviledge of grazing your herd on government land and doing illegal controlled burns on Federal Land.
No Fee. No Graze! You burn someone else's land you get in big trouble.
End of story.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top