Militia in NV setting up checkpoints and demand ID's

[Two Thumbs]

If armed terrorists are roaming along the Muddy River valley, they will be stopped and taken into custody. If they resist, they will be killed.

Americans have the Constitutional right to bear arms, the government has no right to stop them for kicks, so they would have the right to resist.


Why do you support a government tyranny?

We have the right to bear arms. We do not have the right to threaton other citizens with said arms. You threaton me with a weapon, I will reply in kind, and you will either be dead or facing legal charges. These goons are threatoning the people of that area, and are committing assault with a deadly. For that, they need to be legally imprisoned.

Liar

they are not threatening anyone.

you "people" are pathetic

 

[Steinlight]

As a Jew who lost 4 family member in the Warsaw ghetto upraising to even suggest equivalency with this white subhuman terrorist rightwing trash is disgusting

Yea there is no equivalence, the people at the Bundy Ranch won, lol.

 

[koshergrl]

People have a right to defend themselves from tyrants.

And the Federal government isn’t a ‘tyrant,’ it’s ignorant idiocy to maintain otherwise.

Uh, yes, the federal government definitely behaved tyrannically in this instance. And the people rose up against them. And they will next time, too.

 

[koshergrl]

Americans have the Constitutional right to bear arms, the government has no right to stop them for kicks, so they would have the right to resist.


Why do you support a government tyranny?

We have the right to bear arms. We do not have the right to threaton other citizens with said arms. You threaton me with a weapon, I will reply in kind, and you will either be dead or facing legal charges. These goons are threatoning the people of that area, and are committing assault with a deadly. For that, they need to be legally imprisoned.

Liar

they are not threatening anyone.

you "people" are pathetic

Bundy never threatened anyone. None of the protesters threatened anyone. There are no check points, and the neighbors are not afraid. The neighbors were involved in the face off in the first place.

 

[LockeJaw]

People have a right to defend themselves from tyrants.

And the Federal government isn’t a ‘tyrant,’ it’s ignorant idiocy to maintain otherwise.

Son....you're stupid. I can't help you.

 

[koshergrl]

You know that federal government must be obeyed, silly! It can't possibly be tyrannical! Kill those rednecks!

 

[oldfart]

Americans have the Constitutional right to bear arms, the government has no right to stop them for kicks, so they would have the right to resist.


Why do you support a government tyranny?

We have the right to bear arms. We do not have the right to threaton other citizens with said arms. You threaton me with a weapon, I will reply in kind, and you will either be dead or facing legal charges. These goons are threatoning the people of that area, and are committing assault with a deadly. For that, they need to be legally imprisoned.

Liar

they are not threatening anyone.

you "people" are pathetic

Who pooped in his Fruit Loops?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ranchers weren't violent. They stood against the threat of violence.

And the statist pigs are calling for their annihilation and imprisonment.

More ignorant nonsense.

Federal officials were acting in accordance with a court order and the law, where Bundy was afforded his comprehensive due process and twice found to be in contempt of the law.

That Federal official wisely and appropriately withdrew from the situation is proof the government is not ‘tyrannical,’ and proof of the pathetic, desperate demagoguery of the partisan right, and the propensity of most conservatives to lie and contrive ‘controversies’ where none exist, the Bundy case being one of many examples.

If an Americans believes his civil liberties are being violated by the government, he files suit in Federal court to challenge the government’s actions, he doesn’t make unwarranted, illegal, and un-Constitutional threats as to the use of violence.

 

[LockeJaw]

You are completely duped obviously. The argument is that the Feds lost their claim to the land once Nevada became a state. That has never been heard in these cases. They say his argument is that he doesn't believe in the federal govt...no, he doesn't believe they have the claim of the land. Let me ask your simple self this...if the government came to seize your property right now, claiming some old outdated agreement gave them the right to do so, would you just sit there and take it or stand up for your property rights? If you wouldn't, youre a pink vagina.

The ranchers weren't violent. They stood against the threat of violence.

And the statist pigs are calling for their annihilation and imprisonment.

More ignorant nonsense.

Federal officials were acting in accordance with a court order and the law, where Bundy was afforded his comprehensive due process and twice found to be in contempt of the law.

That Federal official wisely and appropriately withdrew from the situation is proof the government is not ‘tyrannical,’ and proof of the pathetic, desperate demagoguery of the partisan right, and the propensity of most conservatives to lie and contrive ‘controversies’ where none exist, the Bundy case being one of many examples.

If an Americans believes his civil liberties are being violated by the government, he files suit in Federal court to challenge the government’s actions, he doesn’t make unwarranted, illegal, and un-Constitutional threats as to the use of violence.

 

[Politico]

Yurt doesn't care about rights or authority.

?

huh....what makes you say that?

Gee I dunno. The fact you don't have a problem with these rednecks who are stopping people at gunpoint and asking for their papers?

 

[jon_berzerk]

allegations are not proof moron

where are the pictures of the road blocks

good point, because wasn't one allegation of a news crew....as if they would not take a picture

yes plus everyone carries a cellphone that takes pictures

but no one who thought this was important enough

to snap a photo or 2

 

[Geaux4it]

The ranchers weren't violent. They stood against the threat of violence.

And the statist pigs are calling for their annihilation and imprisonment.

More ignorant nonsense.

Federal officials were acting in accordance with a court order and the law, where Bundy was afforded his comprehensive due process and twice found to be in contempt of the law.

That Federal official wisely and appropriately withdrew from the situation is proof the government is not ‘tyrannical,’ and proof of the pathetic, desperate demagoguery of the partisan right, and the propensity of most conservatives to lie and contrive ‘controversies’ where none exist, the Bundy case being one of many examples.

If an Americans believes his civil liberties are being violated by the government, he files suit in Federal court to challenge the government’s actions, he doesn’t make unwarranted, illegal, and un-Constitutional threats as to the use of violence.

The courts? No, not the same institution that passes unjust laws for which the second amendment is expected to deter.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

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.[104]

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[105] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[106][107]

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[106][108]

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[106][109]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

 

[JimH52]

The ranchers weren't violent. They stood against the threat of violence.

And the statist pigs are calling for their annihilation and imprisonment.

More ignorant nonsense.

Federal officials were acting in accordance with a court order and the law, where Bundy was afforded his comprehensive due process and twice found to be in contempt of the law.

That Federal official wisely and appropriately withdrew from the situation is proof the government is not ‘tyrannical,’ and proof of the pathetic, desperate demagoguery of the partisan right, and the propensity of most conservatives to lie and contrive ‘controversies’ where none exist, the Bundy case being one of many examples.

If an Americans believes his civil liberties are being violated by the government, he files suit in Federal court to challenge the government’s actions, he doesn’t make unwarranted, illegal, and un-Constitutional threats as to the use of violence.

The courts? No, not the same institution that passes unjust laws for which the second amendment is expected to deter.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

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.[104]

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[105] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[106][107]

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[106][108]

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[106][109]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

So you advocate immediate Marshall Law and Survival of the Fittest? You are totally dismissing the Rule of Law and Court System.

Fine, so when someone with bigger guns than yours comes and seizes your house, you should not have a problem. Now, you could get law enforcement involved, but that would end you up in the court system, which you have dismissed. So, the only choice you would have in this case is to go buy bigger guns and more ammo than the person who took you house.

Do you see how insane your method of thinking is? It is just a matter of time before Bundy and the Thugs that are protecting him see justice. Stay Tuned....

 

[Geaux4it]

More ignorant nonsense.

Federal officials were acting in accordance with a court order and the law, where Bundy was afforded his comprehensive due process and twice found to be in contempt of the law.

That Federal official wisely and appropriately withdrew from the situation is proof the government is not ‘tyrannical,’ and proof of the pathetic, desperate demagoguery of the partisan right, and the propensity of most conservatives to lie and contrive ‘controversies’ where none exist, the Bundy case being one of many examples.

If an Americans believes his civil liberties are being violated by the government, he files suit in Federal court to challenge the government’s actions, he doesn’t make unwarranted, illegal, and un-Constitutional threats as to the use of violence.

The courts? No, not the same institution that passes unjust laws for which the second amendment is expected to deter.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

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.[104]

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[105] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[106][107]

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[106][108]

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[106][109]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

So you advocate immediate Marshall Law and Survival of the Fittest? You are totally dismissing the Rule of Law and Court System.

Fine, so when someone with bigger guns than yours comes and seizes your house, you should not have a problem. Now, you could get law enforcement involved, but that would end you up in the court system, which you have dismissed. So, the only choice you would have in this case is to go buy bigger guns and more ammo than the person who took you house.

Do you see how insane your method of thinking is? It is just a matter of time before Bundy and the Thugs that are protecting him see justice. Stay Tuned....

Unjust laws. Big difference or did you miss that part?

And to think laws are what deters one from taking my house is ridiculous. Additionally, the consequences dealt for such actions from within my home would exceed those that would come from LEO

-Geaux

 

[killer189]

Well if they are using "checkpoints" and trying to get people to show ID, I so wish I was there to see them make me. They have NO RIGHT to ask for ANY information from anyone on a public road. NONE. BTW, this is being reported on more than just "the gawker". You guys saying that might want to do a little research.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you wonder why we carry guns.

Because you are too ******* dumb to make your points with anything else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americans have the Constitutional right to bear arms, the government has no right to stop them for kicks, so they would have the right to resist.


Why do you support a government tyranny?

We have the right to bear arms. We do not have the right to threaton other citizens with said arms. You threaton me with a weapon, I will reply in kind, and you will either be dead or facing legal charges. These goons are threatoning the people of that area, and are committing assault with a deadly. For that, they need to be legally imprisoned.

Liar

they are not threatening anyone.

you "people" are pathetic

Their very presence on public roads carrying weapons threatens people.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The courts? No, not the same institution that passes unjust laws for which the second amendment is expected to deter.

So you believe in rule of law... as long as it happens to suit your personal interpretation of the applicability of that law vs. the constitution, as opposed to the interpretation the courts that we as a society entrust to make those decisions.

Boy we'd sure have a civilized orderly community of everyone had the same notions.

 

[Geaux4it]

The courts? No, not the same institution that passes unjust laws for which the second amendment is expected to deter.

So you believe in rule of law... as long as it happens to suit your personal interpretation of the applicability of that law vs. the constitution, as opposed to the interpretation the courts that we as a society entrust to make those decisions.

Boy we'd sure have a civilized orderly community of everyone had the same notions.

Can't argue much with your observation.

Good work

-Geaux

 

[LockeJaw]

Yurt doesn't care about rights or authority.

?

huh....what makes you say that?

Gee I dunno. The fact you don't have a problem with these rednecks who are stopping people at gunpoint and asking for their papers?

Are you against the border checkpoints 100 miles away from the Arizona/ Mexican border, ran by the federal government also? They carry guns & stop and ask everyone for their papers too?

I am against both instances, only difference is..the militia were not and are not setting up checkpoints between Mesquite and Bunkerville.