Cliven Bundy speaks:
Yep, there is your hero, the guy who thinks "negroes" would be happier as slaves.
Get yourselves a new hero, the more we learn about this nutcase the worse it gets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=1
Where to start... it would be so much easier to call you stupid, but that wouldn't help...
Let's start with your conspiracy theory... that militia groups are planning acts of domestic terrorism.
Where did you get that information?
Next, that they are planning a revolution?
Furthermore, you claim that the militias were the aggressors here? Where's the evidence of that?
And finally, that these militias are filled with people having paranoid delusions, hearing voices in their heads. I don't suppose you have evidence for that either?
Oh ya, my assumption?
Who was on the scene?
- fox
- CAN
- MSNBC
- Militia members
- infowars reporters
- the bundy family
The Bundy's were not recording video, and you don't want to see what infowars or the militia members put out there... what does that leave us with?
My sources have been raw video, but you added so many caveats that it's best that you do your own search so that you can't accuse me of bias.
It is there, and there's more than one version of that audio, which as I said capturing audio off a loudspeaker in the distance is not going to make for a quality recording.
The only conclusion I could garner was that these agents, when they stood down, were trying to get the protesters to escalate so that the swat teams could come in to mow down the crowd.
The fact is that those agents under the bridge would not stand a chance having taken the low ground, would not have stood a chance, but the response would have been to kill all the protesters.
Now, for your conspiracy theory that these guys are wanting to kill government people to start a revolution, well, they had the perfect chance to start shooting, but didn't... why is that?
The militia nuts are calling the events between the BLM and Bundy and his militia buddies the "battle of Bunkerville". Militia nuts were falling over themselves wanting go to Nevada because they thought it was going to be the start of the American Revolution 2.0
ANd for the conspiracy militia connection: Pete Santilli was on hand. Pete is about as conspiracy theory nutty as one can get. Personally I enjoyed listening to Petes conversation with BLM guy Dan Love. Mr. Love owned Pete served his ass to him it was comical.
Alex Jones wantsa revolution: Blueprint For Revolution Realized In Nevada At Bundy Ranch | Planet Infowars
"The next major engagement will take place in Washington DC on May 16 when a huge force of patriots from all over the world will converge on the capitol and demand the resignation of obama and his band of criminal thieves. Operation American Spring will prove once and for all who really runs this country."
Now dont pretend that you dont know about Operation American Spring that may 16th plan to start a revolution that is being put together by militia extremists and paid for by the Tea Party. Gun Confiscation -- Operation American Spring
"Concept of Operations:
Phase 1 – Field millions, as many as ten million, patriots who will assemble in a peaceful, non-violent, physically unarmed (Spiritually/Constitutionally armed), display of unswerving loyalty to the US Constitution and against the incumbent government leadership, in Washington, D.C., with the mission to bring down the existing leadership. Go full-bore, no looking back, steadfast in the mission.
Phase 2 - One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holder removed from office.
Consistent with the US Constitution, as required, the U.S. Congress will take appropriate action, execute appropriate legislation, deal with vacancies, or U.S. States will appoint replacements for positions vacated consistent with established constitutional requirements.
Phase 3 – Those with the principles of a West, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, should comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President."
What they want is a coup, they want to rid the country of Democrats. Personally I am going to be in conflict with any American that promotes Operation American Spring. In fact I am willing to bear arms against such Anti American treasonous activities. If they want to draw the proverbial line in the sand then they have chosen to be my enemy. There are various groups and organisations that assert as being anti American scum, many are Leftists and many are Rightists. It doesnt matter their lean they are all the enemy.
Unless protest is terrorist / revolutionary, you haven't made a point.
Planet info wars is like a Facebook page, not representative.
Alex jones is adamant about not wanting anything like that to start, bug not to back down if forced...
There hasn't been any armed resistance.Americans have the right to peaceful protest. Armed resistance does not classify as protest. I can't believe I even have to clarify that point. I mean really, buy a dictionary.
Some did, yes, and that's not armed resistance unless and until those guns are used.they had guns no? For some reason I don't remember MLK, Gandhi, or Occupy using weapons to intimidate officials
Some did, yes, and that's not armed resistance unless and until those guns are used.
You're right, that sniper hiding on the overpass looks more like an 'armed aggressor' with his loaded gun aimed at the government officials below. Gee, he's even wearing body armor like he's ready for battle.
Notice the belt and vest and boots he's wearing? I'll bet he picked those up from some stinking US Army surplus store!
"....One of the rancher’s supporters, Richard Mack, a Tea Party leader who is in the National Rifle Association’s Hall of Fame, said he planned to use women as human shields in a violent showdown with law enforcement.
“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up front,” Mack said in a radio interview. “If they were going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot.”
That wouldn't surprise me. lol
Here he is again....with what appears to be an AK-47.
The sniper below definitely looks army surplus.....
Here's another Bundy supporter hiding in the brush......
When the gun toting thugs aren't hiding behind overpasses or in the bushes....
....they're hiding behind women and children.
Dang that hurts!
I wonder if any were thankful that there's US Army surplus stores that sell that equipment? you know, them being anti government and all that stuff...
yeah, I'm pretty bad about identifying a firearm, I couldn't tell if that was a AR-15 or a AK. You can tell?
And, you know what? if I were a fed or a LE officer, I would have cleared that bridge - overpass.
Yes I see him. It's not "armed resistance" until the trigger is pulled. Until that moment it's just preparedness.Notice the belt and vest and boots he's wearing? I'll bet he picked those up from some stinking US Army surplus store!
If you took the time to hear that interview you would know something more damning Bundy said about his fight then that simple mis-speak.Here's the real stupidity and hypocrisy of these anti-government simpletons.....Bundy says he doesn't believe in the federal government....only state sovereignty. So why is he standing by the American flag instead of the flag of Nevada? In fact I don't see one state flag in the entire bunch. But they sure are waving a lot of federal flags for a group that claims they hate the federal government. lol
If Bundy doesn't believe in the federal government can he even claim he's an American?
If you took the time to hear that interview you would know something more damning Bundy said about his fight then that simple mis-speak.
Yes I see him. It's not "armed resistance" until the trigger is pulled. Until that moment it's just preparedness.
Given all the firepower the cops showed up with, which you conveniently forgot to include, I think a lone sniper is a demonstration of restraint.
I'm not sure what that rifle is but it's not an AK or AR.
I was thinking of this one:Bundy gave a lot of interviews so which one did you have in mind?
Well Mr. Bundy, the feds do own that land, so you are wrong. Pay your bill.Link?
Edit:
At 4:30; http://danaloeschradio.com/the-western-war-last-remaining-rancher-vs-the-federal-govt/
Bundey: "It get's back to the ownership of this, who owns this land. Does the sovereign state of Nevada own this land within their borders, or does the United States own this land? If the United States owns this land then I guess I'm wrong."
Of course Im playing semantics, this is a debate website.You're playing semantics.
The cops showed up with firepower because Bundy threatened a "range war".
Here's the real stupidity and hypocrisy of these anti-government simpletons.....Bundy says he doesn't believe in the federal government....only state sovereignty. So why is he standing by the American flag instead of the flag of Nevada? In fact I don't see one state flag in the entire bunch. But they sure are waving a lot of federal flags for a group that claim they hate the federal government. lol
If Bundy doesn't believe in the federal government can he even claim to be an American?
Yes I see him. It's not "armed resistance" until the trigger is pulled. Until that moment it's just preparedness.
Given all the firepower the cops showed up with, which you conveniently forgot to include, I think a lone sniper is a demonstration of restraint.
I'm not sure what that rifle is but it's not an AK or AR.
I was thinking of this one:
Playing semantics isn't debating, its equivocating and fallacious reasoning.Of course Im playing semantics, this is a debate website.
His statement is closer to admitting to being wrong than claiming to own federal land.Ah, so does Bundy think he owns the federal lands...or did actually admit he was wrong?
Equivocation is going back on what you've previously argued, which I'm not doing.Playing semantics isn't debating, its equivocating and fallacious reasoning.
His statement is closer to admitting to being wrong than claiming to own federal land.
Equivocation is going back on what you've previously argued, which I'm not doing.
Semantics: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning." [sup]link[/sup]
"Armed resistance" has a meaning. That term is not casual, it carries a legal consequence. There were guns present at the protest, but no guns were used in the resistance, so it wasn't "armed resistance". It was peaceful resistance in much the same way http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=304 carries rifles while demonstrating.
Although I can see where someone might argue that placing yourself as a shooter even-though you never actually fire could be seen as 'using a gun in a resistance'. If it could be proven that the rifleman actually sighted in on a cop, that person would be guilty of felony assault of a police officer, just for pointing the rifle at him from a long distance. If I were that person I would never admit to such a thing, and also 'dial-in' on an inanimate object instead of a person.
#semantics
I was thinking of this one:
Well Mr. Bundy, the feds do own that land, so you are wrong. Pay your bill.
And to the cops: just put a lien on the property, stop trying to confiscate cows with SWAT teams, that's just retarded.
If the bullets fly, I'll only feel sorry for the children caught up in all the bull****. The adults on both sides can go ahead and kill each other; they're all retarded anyway, they can each have a Darwin award.
Of course Im playing semantics, this is a debate website.
His statement is closer to admitting to being wrong than claiming to own federal land.
Equivocation is going back on what you've previously argued, which I'm not doing.
Semantics: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning." [sup]link[/sup]
"Armed resistance" has a meaning. That term is not casual, it carries a legal consequence. There were guns present at the protest, but no guns were used in the resistance, so it wasn't "armed resistance". It was peaceful resistance in much the same way Texas | OpenCarry.org carries rifles while demonstrating.
Although I can see where someone might argue that placing yourself as a shooter even-though you never actually fire could be seen as 'using a gun in a resistance'. If it could be proven that the rifleman actually sighted in on a cop, that person would be guilty of felony assault of a police officer, just for pointing the rifle at him from a long distance. If I were that person I would never admit to such a thing, and also 'dial-in' on an inanimate object instead of a person.
#semantics
There is a legal difference between carrying a firearm and having it drawn ready to fire and aimed at a group of people. The guy prone on the bridge was clearly aiming his weapon at people not inanimate objects.
That shouldn't be too hard to prove since there are plenty of witnesses and photos of the sniper looking through his gun sights through that little crack in the concrete wall right down on the base camp of the police officers. It's going to be very hard for him to prove that he wasn't aiming his gun at anything or anyone else but those police officers. He wasn't there to smell the roses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?