Skip to main content

View Diary: A Modest Proposal to Resolve the Cliven Bundy Controversy (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pity. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back In Blue

    If only we had a Kenyan socialist dictator to oppress us and take our guns. Things would sure be different then. ;-)

    "You want weapons? We're in a library! Books! The best weapons in the world! This room is the greatest arsenal we could have—arm yourselves!" -The Doctor

    by quillsinister on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:02:21 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If Bundy and his supported did not have guns (0+ / 0-)

      I am sure this incident would have turned out differently.

      This is exactly the situation the Second Amendment is supposed to be about.

      Whether you think that is a good or a bad thing is another matter.

      •  Not really. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quillsinister, lurkyloo

        This is about a douchebag who doesn't want to pay, not about an abuse of power by the government.

        America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

        by Back In Blue on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:31:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  no it damn well isn't (4+ / 0-)

        the second amendment is NOT and never was a self destruct program built into the constitution.
        that well-regulated militia was supposed to fight FOR the US, not against it.
        Constitution contains mechanisms for changing the government, and taking up arms against is NOT one of them.
        And what has stayed the hand of the feds so far is fearing a repeat of Ruby Ridge, not because they don't think they'd win a firefight against these clowns.

        Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

        by kamarvt on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:56:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Founders took up arms against their (0+ / 0-)

          established government.

          Thomas Jefferson wrote:

          We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
          I think it is pretty clear that he, at least, saw revolution as one of the mechanisms for changing the government.  
          And what has stayed the hand of the feds so far is fearing a repeat of Ruby Ridge, not because they don't think they'd win a firefight against these clowns.
          Ruby Ridge is an interesting example.  How familiar are you with what happened there?  See http://en.wikipedia.org/...
          The Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement (ROE) had been drawn up on the basis of reports from the headquarters of the USMS and FBI, bolstered by unconfirmed news media accounts accepted by HQ, that exaggerated the threat posed by the Weavers.

          If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
          If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
          If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
          Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another.[46]
          Standard deadly force policy of the FBI was: "Agents are not to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Whenever feasible, verbal warning should be given before deadly force is applied."[47]

          ...

          Fred Lanceley, the FBI Hostage Negotiator at Ruby Ridge, was "surprised and shocked" at the ROE, the most severe rules he had ever heard in his over 300 hostage situations and characterized the ROE as inconsistent with standard policy.[48] A later Senate report criticized the ROE as "virtual shoot-on-sight orders."[10]

          ...

          While controversy exists as to who is responsible for approving the ROE that were being followed by the sniper...

           On about August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo:

          OPR 004477
          Something to Consider
          1. Charge against Weaver is Bull Shit.
          2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting.
          3. Vicki has no charges against her.
          4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was
          barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog.
          Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the

          shooting [of Degan]. He [Weaver] is in pretty strong legal position."[10][55]

          That bolded part is the most amazing part - apparently these unprecedented ROEs had a virgin birth - no one wrote them and no one approved them.  I find that part absolutely shocking.

          Anyway, why don't you consider why the government is unwilling to risk another Ruby Ridge.  It's because the last one was unmitigated FUBAR.

      •  Bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pelagicray, Back In Blue

        The Second Amendment was written in a time when there was no standing army, and many of the founders didn't think we should ever have one. The "well-regulated militia" was not so that some very not-well-regulated-at-all kook could overthrow the government in a whim, but so that the country could draw on a healthy supply of able-bodied and capable fighters for its own defense.

        The political system we have was designed to be overthrown peacefully on a regular basis, and, so long as citizens were involved in the political life of their nation, no other revolution should ever be necessary.

        One may argue that popular apathy has allowed the system to be hijacked, and I would not argue with that, but to say that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to facilitate evasion of grazing fees is beyond ridiculous.

        "You want weapons? We're in a library! Books! The best weapons in the world! This room is the greatest arsenal we could have—arm yourselves!" -The Doctor

        by quillsinister on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:27:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site