Libertarian Fail

Your definition of cunty apparently involves requesting payment of fees and taxes that everyone else does. That's a stupid reason for the second amendment and, incidentally, is not the reason we have it.

 

In all seriousness, Matt, please tell us what role Jefferson had in getting the Bill of Rights written and passed. Wasn't he ambassador to France at the time?

 

From what I've read this situation has been going on for 20 years but a recent change at the head of the BLM (and off course because it is on orders from Obummer) is what triggered the stand off. From my perspective, Bundy's cattle operation seems very inefficent and uses too much land. As a matter of fact we should be eating much less beef since they consume too much water and release greenhouse gases.

But off course the rights of Bundy and his family trumps state, federal, humanity.

 

Ah, this is Golden...

You know that these patriots have going overboard when they send hate mail to the person that inspired them...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/beck...at-all-unsubscribe-and-unfriend-me-right-now/

https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/posts/10152343875623188?stream_ref=10

I have also learned that Harry Reid is grabbing the land to build a solar power plant and the contract is going to his son and he is using Chinese technology. But off course!

PS. And the info comes from a very reliable source:

http://www.infowars.com/flashback-sen-reid-breaks-ground-for-nevada-solar-farm-near-bundy-ranch/

 

The fees can't be usurious because there's no money being lent. Everyone else was not driven away from "their" land, either. The land in question is Federal land, and in 1993 they required a fee to be paid for grazing. Given that over 20 years Bundy owes around $1,000,000 in fines, that means that at most, without compound interest, he'd be required to pay 50K a year, something feasible for him. We know that because he tried to pay the county instead of the Feds. So clearly the fees are "usurious", nor was it ever "his" land.
So not only is it a terrible reason for the second amendment, it's quite literally on its face not the reason for the second amendment. We know that because there's no issues here about a well regulated militia protecting a free state. It's a dickhead making a stupid political point by not paying money he is perfectly able to pay for using land he has never owned.
That you think Jefferson agrees with you isn't relevant either. First, of course, he didn't. And second, what Thomas Jefferson, who didn't draft the Bill of Rights, has to say on the subject, carries no more weight than what Al Jefferson says about it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/opinion/egan-deadbeat-on-the-range.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Imagine a vendor on the National Mall, selling burgers and dogs, who hasn’t paid his rent in 20 years. He refuses to recognize his landlord, the National Park Service, as a legitimate authority. Every court has ruled against him, and fines have piled up. What’s more, the effluents from his food cart are having a detrimental effect on the spring grass in the capital.

Would an armed posse come to his defense, aiming their guns at the park police? Would the lawbreaker get prime airtime on Fox News, breathless updates in the Drudge Report, a sympathetic ear from Tea Party Republicans? No, of course not.

So what’s the difference between the fictional loser and Cliven Bundy, the rancher in Nevada who owes the government about $1 million and has been grazing his cattle on public land for more than 20 years? Near as I can tell, one wears a cowboy hat. Easterners, especially clueless ones in politics and the press, have always had a soft spot for a defiant white dude in a Stetson.​

​

 

And that only reinforces my perception of innefficency. Using more land that is not even suited for the purpose? How is that fine in the long term?

http://notesofnomads.com/kobe-beef/

Yup, because bringing guns to protestover fines is perfectly good behavior.

 

Come in Matt when you say shit like this, I think is time to re examine your sense of "right".

 

That's a red herring - the protesters at Occupy would have been massively in breach of NYC's very tough gun laws if they had come armed. That's why that situation wouldn't happen.

 

? By the time Vicki Weaver was killed, multiple federal officials were dead. In the hypothetical, the Occupy protesters haven't harmed a flea.

 

I am not a vegetarian but I do think that we are not using our resources rationally and our love for animal proteins is one of the main culprits. Deserts or farmland are no isolated in vaccum and whatever we do over there affects Earth as a whole and the same applies to any other environment in the world. And yes, there are issues with the meat we eat everyday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467800/Are-cows-killing-planet.html

Cattle soak up a phenomenal amount of water: it takes a staggering 990 pints of it to produce just one pint of milk. And their wastes often pollute rivers and the sea. A giant 'dead zone', stretching over 21,000 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico, is partly caused by pollution from U.S. beef production, carried down the Mississippi.

But perhaps the greatest surprise is that cattle are responsible for more of the pollution that causes global warming than are cars. Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow their food, to produce meat and to transport it accounts for about 9 per cent of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

Worse, their manure and wind produces at least a quarter of the pollution by methane, a 20 times more powerful gas.

/quote

 

Got it. Well never mind, I shouldn't be responding to a conversation about a hypothetical anyway.