The first two paragraphs contain so many factual errors and out-of-context bullshit it isn’t worth killing any brain cells to read. The scary part is that there are people (Synapse, for example) that probably read this bullshit for the gospel truth. More to the point, some left wing ‘tard trying to attack guns through some convoluted tie-in to free speech….give me a fucking break. The right to bear arms is a right in and of itself – you see, it’s got it’s own amendment…and if you are going to be some fucktard and try to apply ‘speech’ implications to carrying a gun….well then, I guess by the same token I guess I will accept it as a form of speech when a black kid in a “hoodie” is walking through my neighborhood, right? Clearly that “speech” conveyed via hoodie *must* mean the kid is going to rob my house, right? Yeah…objects as speech. Go the fuck away.

Not so fast, krellin!

You can send morse codes with a gun.

steephi - just curious, are you at all aware of the Bundy situation in Nevada?

"The first two paragraphs contain so many factual errors and out-of-context bullshit it isn’t worth killing any brain cells to read."

That was very self-referential of you, krellin. : )

perhaps - doesn't change that fact that the linked-to piece is libtard media hackery.

"Guns publicly brandished by private individuals decided the outcome. For all Bundy’s appeals to constitutional justification, what mattered at the end of the day was who was willing to take the threat of gunplay the furthest."

Pretty sure this is the way the entire world ultimately functions. When I disagree with a law, I don't obey it because a piece of paper tells me to, I obey it because if I don't, men with big guns and federal muscle will come and lock me up. I think Bundy's an idiot, but to pretend that authority doesn't ultimately derive from power and the ability to do harm is naive.

Bundy and those like him are just trying to flex what power they have. They'll overplay their hand, sooner or later.

krellin, what *isn't* libtard media hackery to you?

Fox News.

Yellowjacket I agree and disagree. The arguments of gun-freaks that a rifle is a "tool of democracy" while a drone is a "tool of oppression" make no logical sense. It is obvious that citizens should not own nuclear weapons, yet they arm the state against its people (potentially).

The point is that you shouldn't bring a gun to a idea-fight, whether that's a communist government shooting dissidents, or dissidents shooting at politicians. We have a well established social convention that politics is about ideas, votes, and discussion and thankfully most societies around the world enforce that to some degree. If anything is a threat to democracy, it is those armed individuals who could easily form a coup or junta, equally as it is the government with its state-sanctioned armaments.

I hate to say it....I really do...but that was a good post SYnapse. Where'd you copy and paste it from?

SYnapse - I don't have Fox News, and don't listen to Fox News. Unlike you, I actually gather my news information from a variety of sources, including NPR.

I think Krellin ignited without reading the article; it was the gun-nuts who LEGALLY challenged the idea of bringing guns to rallies under their amendment for freedom of SPEECH (using caps so he understands).

The author is simply saying that you can't gain political points with a gun in your hand, you need to put the gun down and pick up the pen/microphone. The alternative is tyranny whether that's tyranny of the govt or tyranny of the majority (mobocracy).

SYnapse...you idiotic "you shouldn't bring a gun to an idea fight..."

Funny, because the "BLM"...that Federal LAND MANAGEMENT bunch....brought 200 SNIPERS WITH GUNS to an idea fight...they taped off an area and called it the "First Amendment zone" and tazered and arrested anyone daring to tke video of Federal actions outside that zone...which included stealing a man's cows from what had been his families land for about 150 years.

If he was actually breaking the law, I'm fairly certain they coudl have obtained a warrant, driven to his house with the local Sheriff, and arrested him peacefully WITHOUT 200 Federal Snipers...

The alternative is tyranny....you idiot, the 2nd Amendment is designed to PROTECT US FROM TYRANNY....you know...like the Feds confiscating land and property...with 200 SNIPERS and the threat of violence if you exercise your 1st Amendment free speech rights.

Is Krellin the token tin-foil-hat/town-psycho around here? I'm starting to make some assumptions about the regular forum posters here. Not that I'm complaining. Crazy can certainly be funny.

....a funny thing happened along the way, too....it's been discovered the Senator Harry Reid is behind the deal....with *vast* mineral rights under this land that has been grazed for 150 years...and is suddenly killing off some tortoise (which up until now has survived WITH the cows...)

Good lord, SYnpase...you are the definition of sheeple, aren't you?

CPT....the funny thing is, even the libtards around here seem suspicious of the government and authorities with guns....until it is about citizen's gun rights...then suddenly the sheeple fall on their knees and worship the Feds and claim they can do no wrong.

Pathetic…sheep for the slaughter…

Krellin, you're right the government shouldn't do that. Neither should private individuals. What if it was a drug kingpin who did it instead? That's where statelessness gets you.

The state is not a foreign entity but a representative of society, and it's societies job to complain not to wage war against it.

In other words I don't agree with Waco or Ruby Ridge but neither do I agree with the Oklahoma bombing.

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.

This is the second amendment as it is published in the national archives. Just putting this out here to enrich the conversation. Enjoy :)

Here's the first, as well:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The constitution, like the Bible, is never completely clear. What does it mean to "bear" arms? To conceal them? To show them in public? To take them into the White House demanding change?

Freedom of speech - the word speech is pretty clear. It doesn't include bearing arms in the manner of speech.

The right to assemble and petition - what constitutes a petition; armed uprising? Clearly the Union States didn't think so, as they militarily wiped out the armed forces of the Confederacy. What if the government doesn't redress your grievances?

Just food for thought. Like everything created by humans the Constitution is a guide, not an absolute.

"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

Declaration if Independence.

You are 100% WRONG SYnapse...the founders of this country deemed it not only allowable, but a DUTY to throw off an oppressive government.

SYnapse - you are actually that uch of a stupid sheep to believe "bearing arms" is now "speech" that should be prohibited. You truly are a moron.

I for one am glad to see the people stand up to the federal government and its alphabet soup of unaccountable, unnameable, agenda-pushers.

It's this guy's land. He shouldn't have to give it up for some turtle that isn't even really threatened just so some agency can let a company mine it.

Synapse, the article is a piece of shit, but so are some of krellin's comments.

The fact of the matter here is that the government bully got its ass kicked for once, and we should all be happy about that.

Yeah but the founding fathers probably didn't want anyone who might be insane or deluded destroying the government based upon their own individual judgement. So who authorises you to throw off an government which you think is oppressive?

One thing I always think about is that none of us "agreed" to live by this government or laws. We were born into it. So really, what authority does the government have to tell us what we can or can't do?

Of course that isn't realistic, or how things work, but still.

As for who authorizes you... oh wait. You spelled it authorise. You're British, Synapse?

Specific to Bundy...this was land that for 150 years his family used for cattle grazing...until the Feds came along one day and decided to claim they owned it by fiat.

In fact, the land the Feds are "charging" grazing fees for is owned by the State of Nevada, NOT the Feds. If morons like SYnapse would actualyl research what is going on here, instead of just putting on his Obama flag pin and saluting the Feds like a good sheep, he *just might* be intelligent enough to be concerned about what is happening.

Sadly, it's far easier for SYnapse to remain stupid/ignorant while the Feds slowly strip away our rights. Fuck, cordoning off the "free speech zone" and tazering/arresting anyone daring to use a camera outside the "free speech zone" should enrage even the most dim-witted of Libtards.

Free-speech zones are the biggest joke I've ever seen. Reminds me of that scene from Arrested Development.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xohzz1_lindseys-cage-dance_fun

"One thing I always think about is that none of us "agreed" to live by this government or laws. We were born into it. So really, what authority does the government have to tell us what we can or can't do?"

Its a social contract Chaqa.

Right, I understand the social contract. But the thing is, on a personal level, no one has ever agreed to it. It's one of those things that bugs me - that really we have no control over it, despite being a "democracy" - that no person ever agreed to this all.

"I understand the social contract."

OK, so you claim to understand it.

"But the thing is, on a personal level, no one has ever agreed to it. "

OK no you don't.

Social contract is just that people as a whole gave up some freedoms to the government authority.

What I'm saying isn't a practical point, it's more of a philosophical one - that no one person has ever agreed to this set of rules. It's implied and its part of the social contract, but I can't really fault someone for not liking a system that they never agreed to.

Dog goes woof, cat goes meow, bird goes tweet and mouse goes squeak.
But there's one sound, that no one knows,
WHAT DO GUNS SAY?

Guns say "bang".

Chaqa, implied consent, taking into consideration that you think life in the forest sucks.

But really, you talk about a "system" or a "state" its just a bunch of people around you who you accept and listen to their experience the same as in a pleistocene era tribe.

SYnapse i think your response to me was spot-on. I was only taking issue with the specific part of the article I pointed out. I do not believe that laws are always right, and I do not believe that laws should always be obeyed. You can't have a level conversation with your government. At the end of the day, they decide what happens, and it isn't their pretty words and convincing arguments that enforce their will.