Bundy Terrorists

[Yurt]

Where individuals can be identified, those who put women out as shields, and the women who willingly acted as shields, can be charged in family court as unfit parents.

so people in our military can be charged as unfit parents?

Were these folks in an organized militia under control of the government? If they were and disobeying orders, then they could be court martialed.

Since they were operating as brigands, they can be dealt with in civilian courts.

how is defending their rights being an unfit parent?

 

[Yurt]

Where individuals can be identified, those who put women out as shields, and the women who willingly acted as shields, can be charged in family court as unfit parents.

jake makes this post, i respond to it and he claims i'm not on topic



so according to jake, he is not on topic here and should moderate himself instead of being a whiny wannabe mod.

 

[JakeStarkey]

he, fakey, didn't say children, he said women

hey, Yurt, the concept is the same. I know you don't do higher level thinking well, but at least pay attention.

Stay on OP, please.

the concept is not the same. we don't put our minor children in the military, we do, however allow our women to fight on the front lines. so again, these women believe their on the front lines, so why should we charge them with child endangerment?

this is what happens when you make an ass out of yourself, you immediately get pissy and claim we aren't on topic, we in fact we are on topic. stop being a wannabe mod and back up your claim chickenshit.

Yurt, your post above is why folks laugh at you.

The militia were not under the control of the government, thus they were bandits.

Yet you are defending the use of women and children as shields.

Yes, they state can rescind parental rights for criminal action.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so people in our military can be charged as unfit parents?

Were these folks in an organized militia under control of the government? If they were and disobeying orders, then they could be court martialed.

Since they were operating as brigands, they can be dealt with in civilian courts.

how is defending their rights being an unfit parent?

You are defending the far right militia; thus you are a reactionary.

Never lie again that you are not a reactionary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK. Let's watch the yurtmelt.

 

[Yurt]

Were these folks in an organized militia under control of the government? If they were and disobeying orders, then they could be court martialed.

Since they were operating as brigands, they can be dealt with in civilian courts.

how is defending their rights being an unfit parent?

You are defending the far right militia; thus you are a reactionary.

Never lie again that you are not a reactionary.

i'm not defending them, i'm countering your claim they are unfit parents if they are fighting for what they believe in. you are willing to send mothers to the front line in a war, but claim these women, who believe in their cause, are unfit mothers.

the hypocrisy is stupid.

 

[Yurt]

hey, Yurt, the concept is the same. I know you don't do higher level thinking well, but at least pay attention.

Stay on OP, please.

the concept is not the same. we don't put our minor children in the military, we do, however allow our women to fight on the front lines. so again, these women believe their on the front lines, so why should we charge them with child endangerment?

this is what happens when you make an ass out of yourself, you immediately get pissy and claim we aren't on topic, we in fact we are on topic. stop being a wannabe mod and back up your claim chickenshit.

Yurt, your post above is why folks laugh at you.

The militia were not under the control of the government, thus they were bandits.

Yet you are defending the use of women and children as shields.

Yes, they state can rescind parental rights for criminal action.

people laugh at me because i show your ignorance? sure starkey, sure....

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is why starkey refused to debate in when i called him out. virtually everytime he does, he loses. he simply doesn't know what he is talking about and is frequently wrong on the facts.

hence why most of his posts are solely ad homs. and lies. because i don't defend the use of them as shields and said so when this first came out. but to expect honesty from starkey.....welll....i won't hold my breath

 

[PredFan]

"The armed domestic terrorists may feel invulnerable right now, but Lombardo promises that those who aimed their guns at officers will be dealt with. According to the Assistant Sheriff, Metro Police have developed a lot of intelligence about militia members.
“Yes, there will be consequences, definitely. That is unacceptable behavior. If we let it go, it will continue into the future,” Lombardo said.
As Metro Police work fervently to identify suspects and make a move of their own, sources tell 8 News NOW that federal officials are preparing to move against Bundy. However, they may wait months until things die down to minimize the potential for loss of life".

Just cut off their supply of depends, fat back, grits and white bread mayonnaise,
spam


COPS: Bundy?s Terrorist Militia Pointed Weapons at Officers, Wanted Violent Outcome (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

Oh noooooo he called them terrorists!

Like the Americans were called terrorists by the British.
Like the French Freedom Fighters were called terrorists by the Nazi's.
Like Nelson Mandella was called a terrorist by the South African government.
Like the Ukrainians are being called terrorists by Putin.

You libs lack originality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

how is defending their rights being an unfit parent?

You are defending the far right militia; thus you are a reactionary.

Never lie again that you are not a reactionary.

i'm not defending them, i'm countering your claim they are unfit parents if they are fighting for what they believe in. you are willing to send mothers to the front line in a war, but claim these women, who believe in their cause, are unfit mothers.

the hypocrisy is stupid.

You said they were defending their rights, thus agreeing with them. Yup, you are a react.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the concept is not the same. we don't put our minor children in the military, we do, however allow our women to fight on the front lines. so again, these women believe their on the front lines, so why should we charge them with child endangerment?

this is what happens when you make an ass out of yourself, you immediately get pissy and claim we aren't on topic, we in fact we are on topic. stop being a wannabe mod and back up your claim chickenshit.

Yurt, your post above is why folks laugh at you.

The militia were not under the control of the government, thus they were bandits.

Yet you are defending the use of women and children as shields.

Yes, they state can rescind parental rights for criminal action.

people laugh at me because i show your ignorance? sure starkey, sure....

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is why starkey refused to debate in when i called him out. virtually everytime he does, he loses. he simply doesn't know what he is talking about and is frequently wrong on the facts.

hence why most of his posts are solely ad homs. and lies. because i don't defend the use of them as shields and said so when this first came out. but to expect honesty from starkey.....welll....i won't hold my breath

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

Yurt cannot argue the points, thus he whines and tattles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing like that at all, predfan.

The militia bandits were contempt of the law.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt, your post above is why folks laugh at you.

The militia were not under the control of the government, thus they were bandits.

Yet you are defending the use of women and children as shields.

Yes, they state can rescind parental rights for criminal action.

people laugh at me because i show your ignorance? sure starkey, sure....

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[75]

Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is why starkey refused to debate in when i called him out. virtually everytime he does, he loses. he simply doesn't know what he is talking about and is frequently wrong on the facts.

hence why most of his posts are solely ad homs. and lies. because i don't defend the use of them as shields and said so when this first came out. but to expect honesty from starkey.....welll....i won't hold my breath

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

Yurt cannot argue the points, thus he whines and tattles.

not according to scotus. as you are so fond to say, you don't get to make that decision. scotus does and they said they do not have to be under the control of the government. your opinion is irrelevant, scotus has ruled and you are wrong.

i even cited the case for you and you claim i can't argue points? are you senile?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Just as militias are essentially local, so also are they essentially independent of established authorities, since the militia may have to challenge or bypass those authorities if they abuse their authority or fail to perform their lawful duties" is the argument some use to legitimatize their lawfulness independent of authority.

When they operate independently without authorization when LEO or the armed forces are present, these people become criminals.

 

[Yurt]

But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[JakeStarkey]

The militia were not under the control of government, thus they were bandits.

Yurt cannot argue the points, thus he whines and tattles.

not according to scotus. as you are so fond to say, you don't get to make that decision. scotus does and they said they do not have to be under the control of the government. your opinion is irrelevant, scotus has ruled and you are wrong.

i even cited the case for you and you claim i can't argue points? are you senile?

You don't get to make the decision as to what SCOTUS says.

The militia cannot lawfully oppose LEO or military forces.

Your cite and interpretation are wrong by your own post.

Yep, you can't argue. We know your buddy used to cite material that blow up his arguments. You do the same.

 

[Yurt]

"Just as militias are essentially local, so also are they essentially independent of established authorities, since the militia may have to challenge or bypass those authorities if they abuse their authority or fail to perform their lawful duties" is the argument some use to legitimatize their lawfulness independent of authority.

When they operate independently without authorization when LEO or the armed forces are present, these people become criminals.

scotus has ruled you are wrong. and as you often say, your opinion is irrelevant. scotus has ruled and you are wrong.

deal with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Show us how to apply that to the banditti at Bunkerville.

 

[JakeStarkey]

scotus has ruled you are wrong. and as you often say, your opinion is irrelevant. scotus has ruled and you are wrong. deal with it.

Only in your mind.

 

[whitehall]

"A list of intelligence" of enemies of the state. Lefties joked about "ranch-Dividian" What's next for the left, burning people alive?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, Yurt, at least try to make a sensible argument.