DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's amazing that the two incidents don't actually have anything in common. The black man (didn't he have a weapon in his hand?) is intentionally causing fear to prevent Citizens from voting. The armed (with a gun) white man is supporting a Citizen's rights against the government. One supporting a Citizen's rights, while the other is infringing on a Citizen's rights. Yeah, totally the same.  What these thugs are doing is protecting a man that refuses to pay his bills, and continues to steal from the government by fattening his cattle on public land so he can sell them at a hefty profit. In no way are they protecting anyone's rights. It's funny how these "patriots" would call a single mother on welfare that is trying to feed her kids and put a roof over their heads a parasite on society, yet they protect a thief that is stealing from that same government and owes a million dollars in fees, and call him a hero. No, there is quite the difference. I don't think the militia men think the BLM owns the land, so they aren't supporting this guy's law-breaking, at least not intentionally. While we agree that Bundy should be paying the BLM to graze on the lands, I doubt the militias would agree with us. The only way the militias would knowingly be doing wrong, is if they knew Bundy legally had to pay the BLM, and they were supporting his decision to not do so. That Bundy thinks he has to pay NV or Clark County (wrong on both accounts, imo) is what the militias believe, too. Thus, the BLM coming in with armed Feds is wrong and should be opposed. Opposition to Federal over-reach is why the militias are there.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|