"Harry K" wrote in message news:299aee26-b79c-4e56-bcc6-
stuff snipped
http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion...dy-ranch-and-o
ur-rights
Gack! There's SO much wrong with that editorial it's hard to decide where
to begin. It's filled with pseudo facts and mis-information to the brim.
It certainly would appeal to your gun toting militia member who stops
believing in democracy when things aren't going his way. Why bother with
the rule of law when you have a rifle and you're not afraid to use it?
These types are as loony as the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh.
You see, even peaceful protests can be intimidating to government types.
If government types feel slightly threatened, they arm themselves to the
teeth. When they arm themselves to the teeth, they're far more likely to
view a peaceful protest as cover for an attack on the government. And if
they believe someone holding a sign or a camera might also have a gun,
agents are more likely to hurt someone. Thus, the government suspends the
First Amendment as a public safety measu Citizens are denied their rights
to peacefully assemble and engage in political speech because the content of
that expression might be "intimidating" enough to make government agents
overreact and hurt them. . . . That's exactly why unaccountable agents have
the authority to ignore the Constitution without consequence.
I'm not sure what planet this writer was on, but I saw plenty of pictures of
protesters armed to the teeth including setting up sniping positions behind
concrete highway barricades. Peaceful my ass. The Feds were smart enough
to realize the massing of armed idiots could result in a bloodbath. The
Feds apparently have learned from Waco and Ruby Ridge and I assume that many
of the armed protesters will be ID'ed and closely monitored from here on in.
It's pretty clear who has the rule of law on their side and who are the
armed thugs despite what revved up libertarian loons write in their
editorials. The writer needs to take a ConLaw class or two, because he
doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground. "First Amendment Zones"
are nothing new and have been extensively court tested.
I wonder if this writer or the others who agree with him were equally
bothered when Bush II's teams set up "First Amendment Zones." Seems they
only howl when *their* ox is getting gored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
"Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency
of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was
greatly expanded." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court
decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and
manner-but not content-of expression.
In the face of armed, sadly misinformed idiots being rabble-roused (sort of
like Sharpton does, when you come to think about it) to come in "aid" of
this deadbeat the Feds really had no other choice. From what little I saw
of the videos, there are charges a'plenty for anyone who was pointing a
weapon at a federal official or interfering with the performance of their
lawful duties. My guess is that they take them down quietly, one by one
after the dust clears. I wouldn't even be surprised if the whole point of
this exercise was to carefully identify anyone who decided to arm themselves
and come to deadbeat's Clive's aid. What a great way to separate the
armchair idiots from the truly dangerous ones.
We had much the same type situation in this county with the nuts
crawlingout of the woodwork supporting a dead beat...up until the Swat team
showed up and impounded a batch of horses and forced him out of his
foreclosed and barricaded house. Not a shot fired, no real threats made and
all the "militia" quietly folded and snuck away.
That's what's going to happen here as well, I predict. An open
confrontation would have likely made martyrs out of these militia kooks.
Reminds me of a cop friend who didn't believe in hot pursuit because it was
so dangerous to innocent civilians. His theory was that this *wasn't* their
last criminal act and eventually he or some other cop would catch them when
they could be captured safely. That was the mistake the Feds made at Waco
and RR. They weren't willing to wait for the right moment. Maybe they
*have* learned something from the past after all.
There's slightly more factual reading than the RJ (Rotten Journalism?)
editorial he
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-stand/360587/
Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted
for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the
right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.
But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal
Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have
been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States . . . and
whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede
from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the
Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force
in compelling obedience to its Authority.
IOW, you'd get a better reading of Constitutional law from *Al* Bundy, the
fictional shoe salesman from "Married - with Children" than Cliven Bundy or
some of the editorial hacks supporting him.
--
Bobby G.