Militia Cleanup: Did you say take away their kids?

[Imperializt Russia]

A constitution that they have stated they do not recognise.

Oh

Yeah! They're upholding doing the Constitution thing by....breaking....the law....?

Fixed?

Close enough

[Tekeristan]

What really makes me wonder is the difference in approach here.

If you're a black kid wielding a toy firearm in a public park, the police will kill you on the spot and the judiciary will confirm that the killing was lawful.
If you're a heavily-armed group of militiamen occupying a federal building, the police will just kindly wait for you to get bored and go home.

Ah yes, the trigger happy, racist police hivemind.

I'm having fun with this.
What that officer did however is simply unacceptable, not saying that it's not.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

90% sure a government can't commit treason, since it can only commit it against itself.

Can a government commit suicide?

A government is not a living being, so it cannot commit suicide.

How is the government overstepping its authority?

Well there's a lot of places where(1st Amendment restrictions, 2nd Amendment infringement, loss of rights to due process, not to mention the kill lists)

In this instance, they're arguing that the federal government only has the right to manage land that includes the area of DC and around military bases. Anything other than that is supposed to belong to the States. However, this issue(pertaining to the Property Clause, known as Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution) has been debated for a while.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

My personal stance on it is that such lands not explicitly stated for the feds to own should be given over to the state governments, which is a sentiment shared by a lot of these people. However, Hammond's little stunt has made the militias into an aggressor, and hence they've lost the moral high ground.

Go ask the Supreme Court if any of that is unconstitutional. They are the only authority who can declare anything unconstitutional.

[Trumpostan]

Yeah! They're upholding the Constitution by....breaking....the law....?

A constitution that they have stated they do not recognise.

Good, means they cannot claim any rights. Send in the army and give fair warning.

[Alvecia]

Oh

Fixed?

Close enough

Excellent. I suspect they'll see exactly the kind of results you'd expect.

[Risottia]

What really makes me wonder is the difference in approach here.

If you're a black kid wielding a toy firearm in a public park, the police will kill you on the spot and the judiciary will confirm that the killing was lawful.
If you're a heavily-armed group of militiamen occupying a federal building, the police will just kindly wait for you to get bored and go home.

Ah yes, the trigger happy, racist police hivemind.

I'm having fun with this.
What that officer did however is simply unacceptable, not saying that it's not.

The point is that the judiciary said that killing was lawful. So, if killing a kid who LOOKED LIKE wielding a gun was A-OK, how come lethal force isn't being used against an organisation of EVIDENTLY ARMED criminals?

[Alvecia]

Can a government commit suicide?

A government is not a living being, so it cannot commit suicide.

I suppose if it deliberately sabotaged itself the process would likely be called suicide.

[Haktiva]

Can a government commit suicide?

A government is not a living being, so it cannot commit suicide.

Well there's a lot of places where(1st Amendment restrictions, 2nd Amendment infringement, loss of rights to due process, not to mention the kill lists)

In this instance, they're arguing that the federal government only has the right to manage land that includes the area of DC and around military bases. Anything other than that is supposed to belong to the States. However, this issue(pertaining to the Property Clause, known as Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution) has been debated for a while.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

My personal stance on it is that such lands not explicitly stated for the feds to own should be given over to the state governments, which is a sentiment shared by a lot of these people. However, Hammond's little stunt has made the militias into an aggressor, and hence they've lost the moral high ground.

Go ask the Supreme Court if any of that is unconstitutional. They are the only authority who can declare anything unconstitutional.

isn't it kinda funny that only a federal organization can say if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?

[Tekeristan]

Ah yes, the trigger happy, racist police hivemind.

I'm having fun with this.
What that officer did however is simply unacceptable, not saying that it's not.

The point is that the judiciary said that killing was lawful. So, if killing a kid who LOOKED LIKE wielding a gun was A-OK, how come lethal force isn't being used against an organisation of EVIDENTLY ARMED criminals?

Different departments made out of different people.

Shooting up more people isn't going to solve much here.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A government is not a living being, so it cannot commit suicide.

I suppose if it deliberately sabotaged itself the process would likely be called suicide.

By the unwashed masses, yes. Not in any legal sense. And when dealing with government action, legality is really all that matters in any concrete sense.

[Alsheb]

This entire thing is a perfect example of something that has annoyed me for years already, being the double moral standard that is applied to governments and insurgents in the world.

Let's be clear about something. If you take up arms against your government, that government is going to shoot back. That is an inescapable and logical consequence of the decision to undertake armed insurrection. One may agree with either the government or the insurgents, based on the ideology that one follows. Yet it is highly hypocritical to accuse said government of "killing its own people" or some such nonsense based solely on the fact that it would fight back.

I hate the US government, with a passion. If tomorrow a Communist rebel group were to storm the Capitol and try to take over the country, I would support that. Yet I would not even consider crying that the US is "killing its own people" if the US army were to attempt to retake the Capitol through military means. That's what happens in an armed conflict.

The fake outcry over how terrible it would be if the US were to react through this armed uprising through the use of police or soldiers is sickening me. It is the Bundy militia that started using arms in this conflict, not the US government.

[Roski]

Assassinating the president doesn't even get you treason anymore in this country. They aren't traitors. Yet.

America really isn't getting its money's worth out of this treason law.

'Tis true

[Tekeristan]

They're invading natural wildlife preserves to demand that loggers and miners come in and destroy the friggin' forest.
How the hell can you describe that as "standing up for the constitution"?

it's a matter of private property and state sovereignty, mostly.

How? If I may ask, little confused as to how. :/

[Alsheb]

They're invading natural wildlife preserves to demand that loggers and miners come in and destroy the friggin' forest.
How the hell can you describe that as "standing up for the constitution"?

it's a matter of private property and state sovereignty, mostly.

And how is it legitimate to solve such a dispute through the force of arms? Try that in pretty much every other country in the world, and you'll at the very least end up in jail.

[The Emerald Legion]

A government is not a living being, so it cannot commit suicide.


Go ask the Supreme Court if any of that is unconstitutional. They are the only authority who can declare anything unconstitutional.

isn't it kinda funny that only a federal organization can say if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?

Not really. States rights got butchered in the civil war. For the better really.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A government is not a living being, so it cannot commit suicide.


Go ask the Supreme Court if any of that is unconstitutional. They are the only authority who can declare anything unconstitutional.

isn't it kinda funny that only a federal organization can say if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?

Well, you could have the German Bundesgericht decide over the constitutionality of US law, but that would be losing sovereignty. What other way did you have in mind?

[Teemant]

This entire thing is a perfect example of something that has annoyed me for years already, being the double moral standard that is applied to governments and insurgents in the world.

Let's be clear about something. If you take up arms against your government, that government is going to shoot back. That is an inescapable and logical consequence of the decision to undertake armed insurrection. One may agree with either the government or the insurgents, based on the ideology that one follows. Yet it is highly hypocritical to accuse said government of "killing its own people" or some such nonsense based solely on the fact that it would fight back.

I hate the US government, with a passion. If tomorrow a Communist rebel group were to storm the Capitol and try to take over the country, I would support that. Yet I would not even consider crying that the US is "killing its own people" if the US army were to attempt to retake the Capitol through military means. That's what happens in an armed conflict.

The fake outcry over how terrible it would be if the US were to react through this armed uprising through the use of police or soldiers is sickening me. It is the Bundy militia that started using arms in this conflict, not the US government.

They haven't used guns. They carry guns.

[Haktiva]

it's a matter of private property and state sovereignty, mostly.

How? If I may ask, little confused as to how. :/

Ranchers and such are pissed because the federal government through the BLM(most often anyways) are placing a shitload of restrictions on them, taking their lands for noncompliance and generally being very arbitrary with their rules. part of their argument is that the feds have no right to do that since they believe the federal government is only supposed to have authority over the lands of DC and around military bases, all other public land is supposed to belong to the state government(according to their interpretation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2)

some ranchers are just annoyed by grazing fees, at least having to pay them to the feds, whereas some have said they have no problem paying them to their local state government. I'm not a rancher, nor do I live in Oregon so technically this isn't my fight, not yet anyways.

[The Emerald Legion]

They haven't used guns. They carry guns.

With the explicit threat of using them should anyone try to get them off the property that they don't own.

[Haktiva]

it's a matter of private property and state sovereignty, mostly.

And how is it legitimate to solve such a dispute through the force of arms? Try that in pretty much every other country in the world, and you'll at the very least end up in jail.

I actually don't see this as legit, but I get where they're coming from. Oath Keepers and the III% groups are pissed because this makes militias into the aggressors as opposed to defenders. Bundy's a fucking moron trying to make a martyr out of himself and riding the general anger of "conservatives" and fair weather patriots.

[Alvecia]

This entire thing is a perfect example of something that has annoyed me for years already, being the double moral standard that is applied to governments and insurgents in the world.

Let's be clear about something. If you take up arms against your government, that government is going to shoot back. That is an inescapable and logical consequence of the decision to undertake armed insurrection. One may agree with either the government or the insurgents, based on the ideology that one follows. Yet it is highly hypocritical to accuse said government of "killing its own people" or some such nonsense based solely on the fact that it would fight back.

I hate the US government, with a passion. If tomorrow a Communist rebel group were to storm the Capitol and try to take over the country, I would support that. Yet I would not even consider crying that the US is "killing its own people" if the US army were to attempt to retake the Capitol through military means. That's what happens in an armed conflict.

The fake outcry over how terrible it would be if the US were to react through this armed uprising through the use of police or soldiers is sickening me. It is the Bundy militia that started using arms in this conflict, not the US government.

They haven't used guns. They carry guns.

Hmm, I suppose when they took over the building they formed a little pile in the corner with all their guns and put up a sign saying "Not to be used".

[Imperializt Russia]

This entire thing is a perfect example of something that has annoyed me for years already, being the double moral standard that is applied to governments and insurgents in the world.

Let's be clear about something. If you take up arms against your government, that government is going to shoot back. That is an inescapable and logical consequence of the decision to undertake armed insurrection. One may agree with either the government or the insurgents, based on the ideology that one follows. Yet it is highly hypocritical to accuse said government of "killing its own people" or some such nonsense based solely on the fact that it would fight back.

I hate the US government, with a passion. If tomorrow a Communist rebel group were to storm the Capitol and try to take over the country, I would support that. Yet I would not even consider crying that the US is "killing its own people" if the US army were to attempt to retake the Capitol through military means. That's what happens in an armed conflict.

The fake outcry over how terrible it would be if the US were to react through this armed uprising through the use of police or soldiers is sickening me. It is the Bundy militia that started using arms in this conflict, not the US government.

They haven't used guns. They carry guns.

Don't play fucking coy.
They're being used.

[Haktiva]

isn't it kinda funny that only a federal organization can say if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?

Well, you could have the German Bundesgericht decide over the constitutionality of US law, but that would be losing sovereignty. What other way did you have in mind?

states are supposed to assert their sovereignty in such matters, as well as American citizens. the problem is, nobody cares until it's too late.

having the federal government decide if it's acting properly is like having a private company decide if its business practices are unethical. can you honestly expect a powerful group to hold itself accountable?

[Teemant]

They haven't used guns. They carry guns.

Don't play fucking coy.
They're being used.

How?

[Haktiva]

https://www.oathkeepers.org/oregon-standoff-a-terrible-plan-that-we-might-be-stuck-with/