FBI Investigating Bundy-supporters in BLM dispute

[SAYIT]

does anyone believe they should be arrested because they were not a militia under government control?

I hope not.
Does anyone believe they should get a free pass just because they have guns and camo hats with American flags on 'em?

jakestarkey believes that.

no, they should not be given a free pass. if they broke the law, they answer to the law. they are not above the law. that said, the law must be based on our constitution and the laws of our land. they must not be based on tyranny. and i don't see any tyranny here.

I have read nothing from Starkey in which he either states or implies that the militias should get a free pass just because they have guns and camo hats nor that they should be arrested because they are not a militia under government control. Either is a position of an extremist and Starkey definitely doesn't strike me as one. Do you have a link?

 

[Yurt]

I hope not.
Does anyone believe they should get a free pass just because they have guns and camo hats with American flags on 'em?

jakestarkey believes that.

no, they should not be given a free pass. if they broke the law, they answer to the law. they are not above the law. that said, the law must be based on our constitution and the laws of our land. they must not be based on tyranny. and i don't see any tyranny here.

I have read nothing from Starkey in which he either states or implies that the militias should get a free pass just because they have guns and camo hats or that they should be arrested because they are not a militia under government control. Either is a position of an extremist and Starkey definitely doesn't strike me as one. Do you have a link?

he never said to give them a free pass, only that they are illegal solely because they do not operate under government control....i will give you full context

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.

what say you now?

 

[SAYIT]

You mean there's no Constitution right to be an irrational nut job? That's bad news for Bundy supporters.

We absolutely have that right but not all (or even most) Bundy supporters are nut jobs. USMB posters prove that rabid ideologues come from both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Howey]

Mods...I missed Statist's thread. Can you merge mine with this? Thanks!

 

[Yurt]

this is how howey asks:

dupe thread

not surprised howey made it

Yes, Yurt. I just noticed that and asked this be merged with it.

Now, will you be contributing to the conversation in Statis's thread or merely cry?

 

[Yurt]

his selfie is beyond embarrassment.....

 

[SAYIT]

jakestarkey believes that.

no, they should not be given a free pass. if they broke the law, they answer to the law. they are not above the law. that said, the law must be based on our constitution and the laws of our land. they must not be based on tyranny. and i don't see any tyranny here.

I have read nothing from Starkey in which he either states or implies that the militias should get a free pass just because they have guns and camo hats or that they should be arrested because they are not a militia under government control. Either is a position of an extremist and Starkey definitely doesn't strike me as one. Do you have a link?

he never said to give them a free pass, only that they are illegal solely because they do not operate under government control....i will give you full context

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.

what say you now?

You know, rather than jump to conclusions I went back and read the entire exchange between you two. Considering the context it seems Starkey used "under the control of the gov't" to say "within the bounds of the law." The term "militia" in America denotes private (non-gov't), light-weapon paramilitary groups and we have a valuable right to form and join them.

What say you, Starkey?

 

[Yurt]

you're wrong sayit. i showed him the case from scotus that said there are militia groups under the control of government and those that are not. he then ignored the case and then later cited the case to prove that only government controlled militia are legitimate.

his comment is unambiguous, if they are not under government control, they are bandits.

 

[Yurt]

you're wrong sayit. i showed him the case from scotus that said there are militia groups under the control of government and those that are not. he then ignored the case and then later cited the case to prove that only government controlled militia are legitimate.

his comment is unambiguous, if they are not under government control, they are bandits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you're wrong sayit. i showed him the case from scotus that said there are militia groups under the control of government and those that are not. he then ignored the case and then later cited the case to prove that only government controlled militia are legitimate.

his comment is unambiguous, if they are not under government control, they are bandits.

Your case undermined your interp, honey.

Go back and read it. You took my remarks out of context.

Militia operating beyond military control are operating illegally, unAmerican, and unconstitutionally.

If they go into the woods and are not bothering anyone, who cares.

Yurt, I have held you accountable for your nonsense, always have, always will.

Tis what tis.

 

[Yurt]

so because starkey says so, it must be true.

FACT: scotus says a militia is legal if they are under government control or NOT under government control

you said the opposite of what scotus said:

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

"thus" is not accurate. your sentence above means even if they are in the words, they are bandits because they are not under government control.

you can lie and lie jake, but your words convict you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt, shut the **** up and sit down until you have any idea about what you are talking. The militia were not called up by government and were acting against the government; thus, they were bandits. Read below.

Constitutional authority concerning militias and member remains quite clear.

The units and their members have the right to bear arms and respond to the call of lawful authority.

Appointment of officers and training are state responsibilities.

Those militias who appoint their own officers and train without state authority violate the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

1. Sir Matthew Hale, History of the Common Law 1713 (posthumous)

2. William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:401--4, 1765

3. Records of the Federal Convention

4. Charles Pinckney, Observations on the Plan of Government, 1787

5. "John DeWitt," NO. 5, Fall 1787

6. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 29, 181--87, 9 Jan. 1788

7. Federal Farmer, no. 18, 25 Jan. 1788

8. Luther Martin, Genuine Information, 1788

9. A Native of Virginia, Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 1788
10. Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788

11. Melancton Smith, Proposed Amendment, New York Ratifying Convention, 2 July 1788

12. James Iredell, Proposed Amendment, North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 1 Aug. 1788

13. James Madison, Fourth Annual Message to Congress, 4 Nov. 1812

14. Vanderheyden v. Young

15. Gouverneur Morris to Moss Kent, 12 Jan. 1815

16. Houston v. Moore

17. William Wirt, Courts-Martial--New York Militia, 19 June 1821

18. Martin v. Mott

19. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1199--1210, 1833


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

 

[Yurt]

that is not what you said, you said

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

no mention of their actions, just solely that because they were not under government control, they were bandits.

scotus says you are wrong and as you have told other posters, your opinion is irrelevant because scotus has spoken. you have been schooled, now stop acting like a schoolboy and just admit you were wrong. no need to keep lying about what you said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

that is not what you said, you said

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

no mention of their actions, just solely that because they were not under government control, they were bandits.

scotus says you are wrong and as you have told other posters, your opinion is irrelevant because scotus has spoken. you have been schooled, now stop acting like a schoolboy and just admit you were wrong. no need to keep lying about what you said.

They were not under control of the government and were operating against the government.

You can lie all you want, and it means nothing.

You have been caught out yet again in your lies.

Deal with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you take my remarks out of context, I will kick your butt, every time, Yurt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt supports militias operating illegally, thus he is indeed a far right wing nut reactionary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt, if it is a question of whether I am right or you are right on almost any given question, you will be wrong. You know it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now let's see if Yurt militia melts.

 

[Yurt]

four posts in a row....lmao....

meltdown on aisle fakey

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, nothing to say now about militias now that he has been outed.

Little buddy, you are and act like a reactionary. You are no libertarian or Republican.