Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Shits gettin real yo

+1.

TL;DR version: Legal battle in court between rancher and federal government. Rancher loses. Court issues order to seize rancher's property. Rancher had due process and the ability to litigate his case but lost. Rancher now wants to resist order through force, and cries like a bitch when feds show up to enforce order.



This would be a hilarious interview if it wasn't so fucking disturbing. A Sheriff does not have the authority to tell the federal government to "go away." But the most disturbing part -- truly fucking disturbing -- is his implied advocacy of force against other Americans.

First things first, throwing in snarky comments and name calling doesn't make you right Rok.

Where did I ignore the tax issue? I simply said it wasn't the whole story. Perhaps before you spout off with your angry words, you should read the words I write in their entirety and attempt to understand them.

Also, maybe ask more questions.

What's a MUCH bigger issue here to me than any of the minutia, and what I was really driving at is the fact that:

1. The federal government is confronting unarmed AMERICAN citizens with 20+ dudes with body armor and high powered weapons over what? Money? That should scare the shit out of you and if it doesn't, then I wonder what would.

That was the focus of my video which you erroneously characterized as "libertarian hype". That sheriff was saying that the federal government should not be showing up to private land with men armed in military grade gear and that the local sheriff needs to sack up and intervene on behalf of his state's citizens and put and end to this military style stand off.

2. These confrontations escalated because the BLM agents set up a specific area for 1st amendment "free speech" protestors. This was supposed to be where they were "allowed" to exercise their first 1st amendment right. Are you familiar with the 1st amendment Rok? It guarantees you the right to peaceably assemble. Does the fact the federal agents specified a specific area where you can protest and then engaged in confrontation with people who did not follow this ridiculous rule not scare you? It fucking should dude. This is the issue that the Nevada governor has focused on and it's the issue that scares me the most.

The right to peacefully protest is what won African Americans and women their civil liberties. Are you comfortable with the government telling you where you can exercise this right?

They have placed motion detector s on the fruited plain! And by fruited plain I mean a desert

1. Where did you see the people that were assembled to protest the action using force? I saw force from only one side of the equation in all the videos I have found. Maybe I missed some?

2. No he doesn't, but he also shouldn't sit on his ass and do nothing. At the very least, he could have appealed to the governor to speak with Washington and attempt to have some sort of deescalation of this situation take place.

3. Which part of the video are you talking about?

The BLM have to forcefully remove the cattle because the guy is an asshole who didn't pay his taxes. The group of "peaceful" protesters are self proclaimed members of the sovereign citizen movement who engage in terrorist activities against the federal government, along with tax evasion, drug and gun smuggling. The BLM are in the right to be overly cautious due to the nature of the players involved.

This group of individuals are also linked with the FLDS who also like to not pay taxes, along with banging little girls on religious compounds.

More often then not I side with personal freedom over government, but to support this group of nut jobs is a waste of outrage.

Can you please direct me to where you got all of that information you just posted? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious. I'd like to read more about it.

Also, despite the players, I think being upset that armed federal agents have been allowed to designate a "free speech area" is not a waste of outrage at all.

There was a back in forth in one of the videos about how this Sheriff Gillespie could "end it all" and tell the "Feds to turn around." He alleges that another Sheriff told the Feds to "turn aruond" and was threatened with a SWAT team, and that the local Sheriff responded that "I have a SWAT team too."

The implied threat being that the local Sheriff has an armed SWAT team that he can use to resist lawful federal authority. That's insanity -- to think that you would use local law enforcement to resist federal law enforcement from carrying out court orders.

And, in anticipation of a particular rebuttal, I don't believe for a fucking second that the federal government threatened these ass clowns. The federal government insisted that it would carry out the court order, and that is what the locals are attempting to prevent.

These are called time/place/manner restrictions. They are not unusual. Constitutional rights are not unlimited and courts have long recognized that the government possess the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner in which an individual exercises their right to free speech, as long as the restrictions imposed are not based upon the content of the speech.

Who are "these ass clowns"?

Your statements are logical and correct. However, without attempting to argue the merits of any court order (an order is an order, after all), I will simply say that just because the government says "we are right and this is how it's going to be", doesn't mean it's actually right. Every civil war since the beginning of time started with the people in charge claiming they were right and trying to enforce that right with might. Look at the Ukraine if you want a recent example.

I recently watched Valkyrie. It intrigued me, so I started doing some research on the historical facts behind the movie. Not sure if you're familiar with the story? In any case, even high ranking officials within the Nazi regime realized near the end of the war that Hitler has gone bonkers and wanted him over thrown and wanted to surrender to the allies. These "traitors" failed in their assassination attempt and were all tried before The People's Court, found guilty of treason and executed. Was that right? Of course not, but it happened because those in charge used force to carry out these orders and those who were victimized by the orders did not have the power to fight back.

I am certainly not attempting to compare this to Nazi Germany, I only used it as an example because it was the first one I could think of that had to do with internal conflict between interested parties of the same government that resulted in the "stronger" side imposing their will through force. I am not familiar with the incident he's referring to in the video but I'd think that regardless of the particulars, it should be more alarming that the sheriff, when objecting to the presence of armed federal agents in his jurisdiction was threatened with a SWAT team at all. You don't find that more alarming than his response? I most certainly do. Why would the federal government ever threaten another law enforcement agency with use of a highly trained, militarized assault force simply because they told them their presence wasn't wanted? Court order or not, you'd think that when facing resistance from American citizens, especially other law enforcement, they would do everything possible to come to a peaceful resolution.

drama queens