Nevada rancher situation shows what the proper use of a militia is all about

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

But by what form of logic can they call on the first amendment to protect free speech when they disavow the government that produced that protection?

Produced the protection? Are you saying the bill of rights come from govt? That govt allows them to exist?

Shit... how do y'all become convinced by something you have to know somewhere deep down is patently false?

Doesn't a little pang go off after it gets regurgitated? No gag reflex... no nothing anymore?

Would you care to elaborate?

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

But by what form of logic can they call on the first amendment to protect free speech when they disavow the government that produced that protection?

Produced the protection? Are you saying the bill of rights come from govt? That govt allows them to exist?

Shit... how do y'all become convinced by something you have to know somewhere deep down is patently false?

Doesn't a little pang go off after it gets regurgitated? No gag reflex... no nothing anymore?

Would you care to elaborate?

Just wow... no. I don't think we have any common ground by which I could explain unalienable rights.

Don't worry... nobody will know what I'm talking about in a generation or two.

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:That sign was to designate an area well away from the point of contention to sequester the right of peaceful assembly and speech. It's not always politically expedient to outright squash dissent... relegating it to obscurity works too.

But by what form of logic can they call on the first amendment to protect free speech when they disavow the government that produced that protection?

Produced the protection? Are you saying the bill of rights come from govt? That govt allows them to exist?

Shit... how do y'all become convinced by something you have to know somewhere deep down is patently false?

Doesn't a little pang go off after it gets regurgitated? No gag reflex... no nothing anymore?

Would you care to elaborate?

Just wow... no. I don't think we have any common ground by which I could explain unalienable rights.

Don't worry... nobody will know what I'm talking about in a generation or two.

Seriously that's what I thought you meant but in reality, unalienable or not unless there is some mechanism set up to protect them they are abstract and of no account. I guess free speech is a universal unalienable right of all human beings but it is only concrete in countries where governments stand firm to protect this idea. Without protection it is just a concept if it is not recognized by the general population.

othershoe1030 wrote:We have a method. Its called US. You know, INDIVIDUALS?

unfortunately as pkr mentions, the brain washing will be complete in a couple of generations. Unless a revolution happens within the next decade.


Well you can individually hold the concept and belief that there are unalienable rights, keep them in your head and heart certainly. However, in order to actually cash the check, so to speak, to exercise those rights there has to be a structure within which to do so.

In this country and many others the national government makes sure people can exercise their unalienable rights. It is not so everywhere even though ideally it extends to all human beings.

I just found it ironic that the ranchers were basically saying they were declaring a certain area as a First Amendment Area, a specific reference to part of a foundational document of a government they say they don't recognize. Apparently they recognize some of it.

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:We have a method. Its called US. You know, INDIVIDUALS?

unfortunately as pkr mentions, the brain washing will be complete in a couple of generations. Unless a revolution happens within the next decade.


Well you can individually hold the concept and belief that there are unalienable rights, keep them in your head and heart certainly. However, in order to actually cash the check, so to speak, to exercise those rights there has to be a structure within which to do so.

In this country and many others the national government makes sure people can exercise their unalienable rights. It is not so everywhere even though ideally it extends to all human beings.

I just found it ironic that the ranchers were basically saying they were declaring a certain area as a First Amendment Area, a specific reference to part of a foundational document of a government they say they don't recognize. Apparently they recognize some of it.

I said this earlier... it was the govt that relegated a specific removed place restricting the citizens right to "free speech".

The citizens are seen there in the picture mocking the govt control and rightfully resisting the infringement.