Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[tvbcof]

...
This is a political ploy. The residents can gather at a county council meeting and take a vote and see if there is really discord. I doubt it.
...

Of course.  I doubt it to because it's a public meeting so the armed psychos can attend and see who's not a 'real American' then stop their cars and beat the shit out of them on the public road when they leave.

Readers now know who is the psyops implant here.

He.  Ya.  ''An army of one."

Upthread you stated Bundy was receiving welfare, I challenged you to cite some proof.

Bundy is a 'welfare rancher.'  This is res ipsa loquitur.

You never did. Now you make claim that militia are beating the shit out of innocent people. Again I challenge to cite some proof.

I said 'can'.  Try moving your lips if it help you read mo-betta.

You are FUD machine trying to scare people away from their Constitutional rights. You've pretend to be for small government, but all your stated positions in this thread are big government and Communist.

As I've said before I am a second amendment proponent and would tend to favor smaller and more local government, especially compared to further expansion of the Federal government.  My problem with loony-tunes fuckwads like you are that you are the biggest threat to my hopes in these regards.

[tvbcof]

...
If the militia are doing this, it is because of the aggressive war declared on Bundy by the BLM and those liberal activists who want to go squat on the ranches to make some reenactment of Woodstock concerts to try to prove a point that Bundy is a squatter. But the difference is the ranchers are those work the land and make it sustainably productive since the 1870s.

Bundyfest is a joke, and a rather funny one.  Could you possibly be a bigger fool???

BTW, the main militia guy is now a little butt-hurt by the feedback he got and is no longer planning the same kind of support for Bundyfest that he had been.  But it looks like he's still planning to attend for personal reasons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRbfBnvr5xQ

[AnonyMint]

My strong guess is no one is commenting any more, because you've demonstrated that Communists have no logic and so rational readers are just exasperated.

They've now turned their attention towards thinking about how to guard their families against (to put it mildly) the coming global train wreck aided and abetted by people like you.

Upthread you stated Bundy was receiving welfare, I challenged you to cite some proof.

Bundy is a 'welfare rancher.'  This is res ipsa loquitur.

And how many times have I explained upthread that the Feds have no constitutional rights to manage the state land, once a territory has been admitted to the union as a state.

And Bundy has said he will pay the grazing fees to Clark county.

And I've explained upthread that the ranchers (and to limited extent miners) are the only people that can make the arid West productive.

No citizen who resides and makes productive some land which has no private owner is a welfare recipient by way of the right to use the land. This private productivity is the antithesis of welfare.

You never did. Now you make claim that militia are beating the shit out of innocent people. Again I challenge to cite some proof.

I said 'can'.  Try moving your lips if it help you read mo-betta.

I can say you could do the same. Or I could say the moon could collide with the earth. There are zillions of things anyone could assert 'can' occur. However you need some actual evidence and data supporting the likelihood of such assertions, otherwise all you are doing is employing FUD to try to make your Communist case.

You are FUD machine trying to scare people away from their Constitutional rights. You've pretend to be for small government, but all your stated positions in this thread are big government and Communist.

As I've said before I am a second amendment proponent and would tend to favor smaller and more local government, especially compared to further expansion of the Federal government.  My problem with loony-tunes fuckwads like you are that you are the biggest threat to my hopes in these regards.

What exactly do you propose that has ever worked in the history of mankind?

All I see you saying is to respect the fox that manages the hen house.

If you can't see the fucking horrible shit coming to all of us if we don't stop these insane globalists, then your ignorance is the greatest threat to human kind.

Actually it is much too late to stop the coming Apocalypse. The only variable is as I stated...

...[snip]...

Note the wildcards that could cause the globalists plans to fail are if the USA citizenry rise up and stop Obama, or if anonymous crypto-currencies become viable enough fast enough to defund the global order:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/23/obamas-litmus-test-to-fire-upon-american-citizens-if-they-rise-up-against-the-government/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=564097.msg6182414#msg6182414
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/14/american-civil-unrest-is-starting-on-schedule/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/03/12/the-real-reason-why-the-constitution-preserved-the-militia-right-to-retain-arms/

[tvbcof]

Upthread you stated Bundy was receiving welfare, I challenged you to cite some proof.

Bundy is a 'welfare rancher.'  This is res ipsa loquitur.

And how many times have I explained upthread that the Feds have no constitutional rights to manage the state land, once a territory has been admitted to the union as a state.

And Bundy has said he will pay the grazing fees to Clark county.

And I've explained upthread that the ranchers (and to limited extent miners) are the only people that can make the arid West productive.

You haven't explained shit.  All you've done is repeatedly bloviated on some absurd belief that you and a handful of loons have got yourself believing.

No citizen who resides and makes productive some land which has no private owner is a welfare recipient by way of the right to use the land. This private productivity is the antithesis of welfare.

I've got a big yard.  I spent a lot of time recently creating it by cutting all the brush and planting grass.  I did this for reasons associated with fire protection.  I've also left a certain number of trees.  I've left them because I appreciate the appearance and the shade.  Because this is my land to manage as I see fit, I get to decide how I want things.

Sometimes I invite people to enjoy my property.  It is entirely unwelcome that some uninvited bozo comes and cuts down the trees I did leave because they have some mistaken assumption that a lawn is always better.

Like it or not, a good portion of the NV land belongs to everyone.  We hire the Federal government to managed.  We hire them by voting and we pay them through taxes.  Since I am part-owner, I don't get to micro-manage what they do.  If they don't WANT watering holes on some small parts of the land, then it is a stupid argument that Cliven Bundy is doing anyone a favor by puting them there.

As I've said before, if Cliven Bundy wants to dig watering holes, he can do so on his own fucking property, and if he wants to dig more of them, he can go buy his own ass some more land with is own fucking money.

If Cliven Bundy is unsatisfied that the land he wants to buy is already owned by the Federal government (and thus, by me) he can run for office and work to change things.

You never did. Now you make claim that militia are beating the shit out of innocent people. Again I challenge to cite some proof.

I said 'can'.  Try moving your lips if it help you read mo-betta.

I can say you could do the same. Or I could say the moon could collide with the earth. There are zillions of things anyone could assert 'can' occur. However you need some actual evidence and data supporting the likelihood of such assertions, otherwise all you are doing is employing FUD to try to make your Communist case.

It's either a story made up out of whole cloth, or a fact that the out-of-state militia anarchists are interfering with citizens rights to mobility and physically harassing them through a show of force on public property.  I suspect it's true.  This is flat out intimidation and it is one small step from physically assaulting them.  From everything I can tell (from decades of interacting with people like you dating back to the usenet days), I would assume that a lot of these guys would believe that it is their right and duty to intimidate people who don't believe what they believe.  It is a certainty that a fair fraction of normal citizens of the community would be concerned about this.  Thus, if they didn't feel free to express their opinions in a public meeting peppered with armed militia whackos from all over the country, it would be completely understandable and predictable.

[/quote]

You are FUD machine trying to scare people away from their Constitutional rights. You've pretend to be for small government, but all your stated positions in this thread are big government and Communist.

As I've said before I am a second amendment proponent and would tend to favor smaller and more local government, especially compared to further expansion of the Federal government.  My problem with loony-tunes fuckwads like you are that you are the biggest threat to my hopes in these regards.

What exactly do you propose that has ever worked in the history of mankind?

All I see you saying is to respect the fox that manages the hen house.

If you can't see the fucking horrible shit coming to all of us if we don't stop these insane globalists, then your ignorance is the greatest threat to human kind.

Actually it is much too late to stop the coming Apocalypse. The only variable is as I stated...

That, and hundreds of statements before it, show in no uncertain terms that you are a nutcase.

See, when you participate in nutcase efforts, almost everyone around you is a nutcase as well.  This leads ignorant jackasses like you to mis-judge ratios conclude that you have some sort of meaningful support.  We can see this right here in this thread on this forum.  I'm trying to do is my civic duty and try to educate you a little bit before you go off the deep end and make a lot of innocent people suffer.

I'm also a little sensitive that our foreign readers will think that a high percentage of Americans are whacked out lunatics.  Because the U.S. can pretty much do anything to anyone and any time in any part of the world complements of our highly successful empire building efforts, I want them to realized that there are some sane people here.  Of course I don't know if there are enough because even sane people are pretty lazy and detached.  Indeed, most are...it's part of what constitutes sanity.

[tvbcof]

BTW...

...
And Bundy has said he will pay the grazing fees to Clark county.
...

It's like any low-life saying they will happily pay for the the car they stole, but only to a specific pet rock as soon as it sends a bill.

The state and county don't have the legal means to take the money and Bundy knows this.  He thinks he's being cute and clever, but most people including his fellow ranchers see things for what they are:  Bundy's a greedy self-serving welfare deadbeat suckling off the public teat.  And now he's a political liability as well.

[Chef Ramsay]

BTW...

...
And Bundy has said he will pay the grazing fees to Clark county.
...

It's like any low-life saying they will happily pay for the the car they stole, but only to a specific pet rock as soon as it sends a bill.

The state and county don't have the legal means to take the money and Bundy knows this.  He thinks he's being cute and clever, but most people including his fellow ranchers see things for what they are:  Bundy's a greedy self-serving welfare deadbeat suckling off the public teat.  And now he's a political liability as well.

In the interviews that I've heard Bundy in, he matter of factly calls this area state land that has been usurped by the Feds over time. I'm late to this topic but the man's family has been ranching there for over a century and this BLM outfit has been in existence since ~1981. This land is what has been known as open/free range for a long time and it's clear that the Feds have been trying to put the squeeze on all ranchers in the area for years. And, part of the issue here is that it is in fact public land. If it was private then there would be no dispute. However, despite the fact that NV has allowed the Feds to take ~90% of the state over there should still have been a clause that allows for the random public to do whatever peaceful activities they want. Not to mention the grazing rights this family has earned through making use out of the land for all this time. Plus, initially the cover story was to protect the desert tortoise but that has turned out to be a joke as anyone knows that many military/bombing exercises have occurred in these arid areas w/ said allegedly endangered species for the last 60+ years. This whole scenario is a mess started by and for the betterment of big central government.

[Bit_Happy]

This whole scenario is a mess started by and for the betterment of big central government.
90% owned by the Feds is so ridiculous:
Ideally, the constitution should place severe limits on how much land the Feds can own (by % in any state)
Of course it doesn't.

[tvbcof]

BTW...

...
And Bundy has said he will pay the grazing fees to Clark county.
...

It's like any low-life saying they will happily pay for the the car they stole, but only to a specific pet rock as soon as it sends a bill.

The state and county don't have the legal means to take the money and Bundy knows this.  He thinks he's being cute and clever, but most people including his fellow ranchers see things for what they are:  Bundy's a greedy self-serving welfare deadbeat suckling off the public teat.  And now he's a political liability as well.

In the interviews that I've heard Bundy in, he matter of factly calls this area state land that has been usurped by the Feds over time. I'm late to this topic but the man's family has been ranching there for over a century and this BLM outfit has been in existence since ~1981.

Bundy matter-of-factly lies as do most deadbeats.

It's a documented fact that the Federal govt bought territories which eventually became most of the Western states.  IIRC, in the case of NV, it is written into their constitution that there is a lot of Federal land within their borders.  They are welcome to work on changing that if they wish, and I honestly would like to see them do it.

It's a documented fact that Bundy's mommy and daddy bought what is currently his 140 acres from a different family after WWII.  The didn't start running cattle at all until the 50's.  1950's.

It's a documented fact that the BLM was instituted within a year of Bundy's birth and prior to that there were other government bodies which had various jurisdictional duties over the land.

After Bundy's '1870's lie was exposed he didn't have much to say in his defense.  I guess he's trying to argue that some Mormons or some honkys or whatever used some land somewhere West of ol'Miss to graze some ungulates for personal gain, and that gives him the right to do whatever he wants on the 600,000 acres near his mellon patch.  It's a lame argument.  I, for one, am disgusted by that sense of entitlement that moochers of all stripe try to put forward.

This land is what has been known as open/free range for a long time and it's clear that the Feds have been trying to put the squeeze on all ranchers in the area for years. And, part of the issue here is that it is in fact public land.  If it was private then there would be no dispute. However, despite the fact that NV has allowed the Feds to take ~90% of the state over there should still have been a clause that allows for the random public to do whatever peaceful activities they want. Not to mention the grazing rights this family has earned through making use out of the land for all this time. Plus, initially the cover story was to protect the desert tortoise but that has turned out to be a joke as anyone knows that many military/bombing exercises have occurred in these arid areas w/ said allegedly endangered species for the last 60+ years. This whole scenario is a mess started by and for the betterment of big central government.

It's a fact that the whole fucking world was 'the commons' at some point.  Some places, like most of Mongolia, still are.  As population patterns change, the viability of a 'commons' land utilization scheme changes.  That is a historical fact that many individuals and societies have had to deal with.

Bundy choose to lease land from the owner (me as a member of the public) via grazing fees.  It's a logical choice that tens of thousands of ranchers make.  Why?  Because the owners give them one hell of a deal relative to market value of private land.

The downside of not owning land is that you don't get to make the rules.  Even if the owner decided to stop utilizing ALL of it as active rangeland for grazing, that's their right as the owners.  We are a capitalist economy with relatively strong property ownership rights and not some nanny state for deadbeat ranchers.  Bundy should do one of the following:

 - Adjust his operation to make use of the land that the owner wants to make available as working range-land.

 - Stop running cattle and be content raising mellons in HIS land.

 - Move to somewhere where the govt is still willing to support his lifestyle with highly subsidized land if he's addicted to welfare.

 - Run for office or organize politically for the change he wants (as have done the dopers in CO for instance.)

[counter]

This whole scenario is a mess started by and for the betterment of big central government.
90% owned by the Feds is so ridiculous:
Ideally, the constitution should place severe limits on how much land the Feds can own (by % in any state)
Of course it doesn't.

To my limited understanding the Feds don't acutlly own the land but they hold it for the best interest of the state/people.  It should be given to those best fit to take care of the land.

[bryant.coleman]

Ideally, the constitution should place severe limits on how much land the Feds can own (by % in any state)
Of course it doesn't.

That will be quite complicated. Because there are several types of federal land, and each of them are administrated by different authorities. These authorities include:

1. United States Department of Defense
2. Department of Agriculture
3. Bureau of Reclamation
4. Bureau of Indian Affairs
5. National Park Service
6. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
7. Bureau of Land Management

Even if it will be possible to place limits on any one or two of these authorities, I doubt whether a combined limit could be imposed.

[Bit_Happy]

This whole scenario is a mess started by and for the betterment of big central government.
90% owned by the Feds is so ridiculous:
Ideally, the constitution should place severe limits on how much land the Feds can own (by % in any state)
Of course it doesn't.

To my limited understanding the Feds don't acutlly own the land but they hold it for the best interest of the state/people.  It should be given to those best fit to take care of the land.

In reality, they do what they want and don't care much about "the people".
It's common for Federal land to be leased to well-connected people for strip-mining (or 'fracking') which is the exact opposite of protecting the land.

[tvbcof]

This whole scenario is a mess started by and for the betterment of big central government.
90% owned by the Feds is so ridiculous:
Ideally, the constitution should place severe limits on how much land the Feds can own (by % in any state)
Of course it doesn't.

To my limited understanding the Feds don't acutlly own the land but they hold it for the best interest of the state/people.  It should be given to those best fit to take care of the land.

In reality, they do what they want and don't care much about "the people".
It's common for Federal land to be leased to well-connected people for strip-mining (or 'fracking') which is the exact opposite of protecting the land.

Finally a point we can agree on.  Examples of malfeasance and graft abound.  They have throughout history and it's hardly a problem unique to America.  It is a natural result of human nature and the structures we tend to form.  As the owners of the land, we citizens have the right and obligation to keep an eye on our employees (the Feds being one of them) so they don't rob the till.

I think that problems in this area are getting better rather than worse in some ways (but not others) as the years go by.  Part of this is due to the increased power of people on the other side (who have their own contingent of fundamentalist who are just as dingy as annoyneymint.)  But our government on the Federal level especially is increasingly 'by the rich for the rich' due to money in politics.  Local leaderships are just as inclined to be corrupted by special interests and personal greed, but they are more visible to the local populations.  The internet has made Fed level politicians more visible to locals as well which might be part of the reason why it is more difficult for the dirty ones to hide.

[solarion]

This whole scenario is a mess started by and for the betterment of big central government.
90% owned by the Feds is so ridiculous:
Ideally, the constitution should place severe limits on how much land the Feds can own (by % in any state)
Of course it doesn't.

To my limited understanding the Feds don't acutlly own the land but they hold it for the best interest of the state/people.  It should be given to those best fit to take care of the land.

In reality, they do what they want and don't care much about "the people".
It's common for Federal land to be leased to well-connected people for strip-mining (or 'fracking') which is the exact opposite of protecting the land.

Finally a point we can agree on.  Examples of malfeasance and graft abound.  They have throughout history and it's hardly a problem unique to America.  It is a natural result of human nature and the structures we tend to form.  As the owners of the land, we citizens have the right and obligation to keep an eye on our employees (the Feds being one of them) so they don't rob the till.

I think that problems in this area are getting better rather than worse in some ways (but not others) as the years go by.  Part of this is due to the increased power of people on the other side (who have their own contingent of fundamentalist who are just as dingy as annoyneymint.)  But our government on the Federal level especially is increasingly 'by the rich for the rich' due to money in politics.  Local leaderships are just as inclined to be corrupted by special interests and personal greed, but they are more visible to the local populations.  The internet has made Fed level politicians more visible to locals as well which might be part of the reason why it is more difficult for the dirty ones to hide.

We both know there's no way to keep an eye on the MASSIVE number of federal employees. They don't even bother pretending they're employees any longer(cue nancy piglosi scoffing at being held to Constitutional limits). "Let them eat cake" is the underlying message in nearly every public address at every level. Apathy is carefully cultivated. The masses are kept toiling at the plough handle and distracted with fringe issues that have no real bearing on their circumstances, but are instead designed to keep the populace divided so that those in charge can seize more power unopposed. The false left vs right paradigm, the ridiculousness of the (s)election process, gay rights, racial tension...blah blah. Bunch of silly smokescreens. Meanwhile the US is bankrupt, morally and financially, yet continues to deploy her children all over the globe allegedly hunting evil al-CIA-duh. We're chaining our own children and grandchildren to debt so massive they've no chance whatsoever. All the while our infrastructure continues to crumble.

When corruption is found beyond any reasonable doubt on the federal level...NOTHING is done about it. Sure if it gets bad enough somebody resigns, but systemic fraud is very rarely met with any real justice. This country is a pressure cooker boiling over, this is just the latest issue that's got the peasants rightly riled up and also rightly ready to take up arms against their own tyrannical federal government.

[tvbcof]

@solarion:

Believe it or not, I agree with you on your last post more than I disagree with you.  More importantly, I'll bet that the upper ranks of those in the various branches of government see your points as well...because they got their jobs based on sponsors who see things the same way.

In the Weaver affair, the government grew a particular interest to fast and they hired incompetent people.  One small project was to enlist Randy Weaver as an informant.  When he wouldn't play ball they took a vindictive approach (incompetence) and it resulted in other incompetents shooting his dog and minutes thereafter shooting his kid (multiple times in the back.)  After yet more incompetence, his wife ended up with a bullet through the face and laying dead in the families dining room.

This was a tactical loss for the Govt, but it was more-or-less effectively papered over by a compliant media and payouts to the surviving members of Weaver's family.  Even to this day, the mainstream media can make some lemonade out of lemons by painting an inaccurate picture of the event which 90% of people will believe without questioning it.

In the Bundy affair, the mistakes have been learned it seems.  The Feds have scored a knockout punch already.  The Bundy side is like a boxer flat on his back on the canvass, but still throwing shadow punches since in what is left of his mind he's still in the fight and maybe even winning.

This was such a classic and such an effective rope-a-dope that I cannot help but stand in awe.  The militia guys (if there even are any among the plants) were goaded into defending an indefensible position of a leach on society and the very tools which a lot of us consider an absolute last resort (the potential for violent resistance) are roundly (and incorrectly) assumed by everyone to be a key element of their 'success'.  We now have a situation where psychos are running around with guns terrorizing locals (literally) which is extremely bad publicity.  I'll bet that it is true that armed 'militia' guys have stopped people on the road, although I wouldn't be surprised if in some or all cases it were infiltrators who did this, or at least provoked it.

It's now up to the Govt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something stupid.

[solarion]

@solarion:

Believe it or not, I agree with you on your last post more than I disagree with you.

Sure I believe you. Why not? IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THIS TURNS OUT. This is just the latest installment of government overreach and stupidity. This isn't a boxing match it's the death throes of American society we're witnessing. We're on the brink of economic collapse and our federal government is wasting huge amounts of resources we don't have chasing around some stupid cows, threatening people's livelihoods, and endangering lives. They're charged with defending the borders and upholding US immigration laws, but *NOTHING* can make them do it, yet somehow they have the time to dispense taxpayer funded weapons to mexican drug cartels, invade gibson guitar, and vilify anyone with the audacity to sell raw milk. It's mind numbing. At every single turn the federal regime provokes. Good thing they have all those hollow point bullets.

[tvbcof]

@solarion:

Believe it or not, I agree with you on your last post more than I disagree with you.

Sure I believe you. Why not? IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THIS TURNS OUT. This is just the latest installment of government overreach and stupidity. This isn't a boxing match it's the death throes of American society we're witnessing. We're on the brink of economic collapse and our federal government is wasting huge amounts of resources we don't have chasing around some stupid cows, threatening people's livelihoods, and endangering lives. They're charged with defending the borders and upholding US immigration laws, but *NOTHING* can make them do it, yet somehow they have the time to dispense taxpayer funded weapons to mexican drug cartels, invade gibson guitar, and vilify anyone with the audacity to sell raw milk. It's mind numbing. At every single turn the federal regime provokes. Good thing they have all those hollow point bullets.

I've held more or less the same basic concerns with varying degrees of agitation for about 15 years now.  Intellectually I always told myself that things can persist in a steady state for longer than expected.  Steady-state in today's America is not all bad.  We win some and lose some and the world turns.  I believe we are generally on the descent (empire building, extrajudicial killings and gulags around the world, increased stratification and various levels here at home, etc.)  Many of the most dangerous losses are hidden beneath the surface (e.g., the domestic surveillance frameworks, 'fusion centers', etc) which, if anything, makes them more of a threat.

I theorize that there will probably be a step function event that will shift American society sharply.  Most likely it will be an economic jolt of some sort, and will be more-or-less out of the blue...or will seem that way to most people.

At such a point it will be imperative (for us citizens) to have every tool possible at our disposal.  This includes communications abilities (e.g., something like today's internet), economic abilities (e.g., something like today's Bitcoin), and yes, the means of violent resistance if it is unavoidable that the least-bad option (e.g., today's freedom to keep and bear arms.)

(As an aside, I'd further note that it's the potential for violent resistance which is the real value here.  It acts as a very real limit on the flexibility of what a central government can do on various fronts since the cost in terms of support would be huge.  Tactically any arms we might possess are of limited value.  Strategically they have much more value.)

I don't know when a jolt such as I've mentioned will occur, and hope it never does.  If/when it does, it could be decades away (or it could be tomorrow.)  I will say that one of the things I look for as an indicator that such a jolt may be approaching are attacks on the three areas I mentioned.  And others.

When the militia loons shoot their wad over some inconsequential deadbeat rancher like Bundy I don't consider it all bad.  These types are what I would consider a liability.  I don't trust them and I'm happy to be rid of them.  If anything I suspect that they are the types that could be flipped by the Govt and become part of the problem (in the form of death squads and such which our govt is demonstrable fond of employing.)  The trouble is that they take a lot of our otherwise needed tools with them.

[solarion]

I've held more or less the same basic concerns with varying degrees of agitation for about 15 years now.  Intellectually I always told myself that things can persist in a steady state for longer than expected.  Steady-state in today's America is not all bad.  We win some and lose some and the world turns.  I believe we are generally on the descent (empire building, extrajudicial killings and gulags around the world, increased stratification and various levels here at home, etc.)  Many of the most dangerous losses are hidden beneath the surface (e.g., the domestic surveillance frameworks, 'fusion centers', etc) which, if anything, makes them more of a threat.

I theorize that there will probably be a step function event that will shift American society sharply.  Most likely it will be an economic jolt of some sort, and will be more-or-less out of the blue...or will seem that way to most people.

At such a point it will be imperative (for us citizens) to have every tool possible at our disposal.  This includes communications abilities (e.g., something like today's internet), economic abilities (e.g., something like today's Bitcoin), and yes, the means of violent resistance if it is unavoidable that the least-bad option (e.g., today's freedom to keep and bear arms.)

(As an aside, I'd further note that it's the potential for violent resistance which is the real value here.  It acts as a very real limit on the flexibility of what a central government can do on various fronts since the cost in terms of support would be huge.  Tactically any arms we might possess are of limited value.  Strategically they have much more value.)

I don't know when a jolt such as I've mentioned will occur, and hope it never does.  If/when it does, it could be decades away (or it could be tomorrow.)  I will say that one of the things I look for as an indicator that such a jolt may be approaching are attacks on the three areas I mentioned.  And others.

When the militia loons shoot their wad over some inconsequential deadbeat rancher like Bundy I don't consider it all bad.  These types are what I would consider a liability.  I don't trust them and I'm happy to be rid of them.  If anything I suspect that they are the types that could be flipped by the Govt and become part of the problem (in the form of death squads and such which our govt is demonstrable fond of employing.)  The trouble is that they take a lot of our otherwise needed tools with them.

When you call the militia guys "loons" you lose credibility imo. This nation is plainly in decline. The USD is plainly losing it's status as the world reserve currency. This nation is plainly being governed by people that don't believe in Constitutional law, yet swear oaths to defend the Constitution. Cute terms like "living" Constitution are used to justify this lapse...which frankly amounts to treason. Is it possible the "loons" are seeing the same information you are...have the same concerns you've had for 15yrs, but instead of simply prepping and complaining are already past their breaking point?

As far as jolts go, what would you call sept 11, 2001 which was the justification for wars on many fronts as well as the seizing of many liberties on the domestic front. What about the banking collapse and subsequent TBTF bailouts? The federals saw fit to print a whole mess of fascinating $100 bills all dated 2009 and then pretend as though they didn't exist. When that charade failed they then pretended as though they were misprinted and therefore couldn't be deployed. You can't even make this stuff up.

[tvbcof]

When you call the militia guys "loons" you lose credibility imo. ...

Fine with me.

As far as jolts go, what would you call sept 11, 2001 which was the justification for wars on many fronts as well as the seizing of many liberties on the domestic front. ...

I call 9/11 a false flag operation.  It is very difficult to call it anything other than that after analyzing things a bit.

Most people who've looked into things much are wise enough to keep their mouth shut about it, but as with my attitude about having credibility with the militia loons, I don't really care that much.

9/11 was an engineering solution to a political problem.  It's a tried-n-true method of achieving a political direction that our leaderships wanted to take the nation.  The U.S. certainly didn't pioneer the technique.  It's probably more common than not in achieving shifts in public sentiment, and probably somewhere near 100% of the wars of aggression were touched off by a similarly engineered event.  Both in modern times and in antiquity.  It's nothing more than an extension of some tribal elder sitting around the fire and telling his clan some lie about what some other clan did to them in order to induce them to cooperate in a particular action.

So, in my opinion, you cannot really completely reject a government for one event which is neither anything which they've not done before nor that nearly every other government has done and will do in the future.  The alternative action could well be worse.  The most logical course of action is to work to try to make it so that other similar engineered events are less likely to result in harm to the society, and that would be more effective working within it in some cases.  Certainly including this case at this time.

[solarion]

When you call the militia guys "loons" you lose credibility imo. ...

Fine with me.

As far as jolts go, what would you call sept 11, 2001 which was the justification for wars on many fronts as well as the seizing of many liberties on the domestic front. ...

I call 9/11 a false flag operation.  It is very difficult to call it anything other than that after analyzing things a bit.

Most people who've looked into things much are wise enough to keep their mouth shut about it, but as with my attitude about having credibility with the militia loons, I don't really care that much.

9/11 was an engineering solution to a political problem.  It's a tried-n-true method of achieving a political direction that our leaderships wanted to take the nation.  The U.S. certainly didn't pioneer the technique.  It's probably more common than not in achieving shifts in public sentiment, and probably somewhere near 100% of the wars of aggression were touched off by a similarly engineered event.  Both in modern times and in antiquity.  It's nothing more than an extension of some tribal elder sitting around the fire and telling his clan some lie about what some other clan did to them in order to induce them to cooperate in a particular action.

So, in my opinion, you cannot really completely reject a government for one event which is neither anything which they've not done before nor that nearly every other government has done and will do in the future.  The alternative action could well be worse.  The most logical course of action is to work to try to make it so that other similar engineered events are less likely to result in harm to the society, and that would be more effective working within it in some cases.  Certainly including this case at this time.

I must have read that wrong. This is not the gulf of tonkin incident, or even the regime deliberately allowing the bombing of pearl harbor and then feigning surprise to drag the isolationists along for WWII. We're talking about the deliberate slaughter of nearly 3000 humans in New York city. If you believe as I do that this was yet another false flag attack, then how are the militia guys loons?

[tvbcof]

We're talking about the deliberate slaughter of nearly 3000 humans in New York city. If you believe as I do that this was yet another false flag attack, then how are the militia guys loons?

Among the reasons, they tend to believe certain things fundamentally and completely and don't see a need to explore things beyond something they choose to believe.  Or are told to believe in most cases.  Most of them really don't seem to have the basic skill-set to do otherwise.

I, of course, didn't believe anything other than what was initially presented about the 9/11 events (though from knowing something about demolishion I was thoroughly surprised that the collapses happened at all when the three buildings came down later that day.)

A few weeks after the event some French guy produced some photos which were of the Pentagon part of the event which piqued my interest since it was pretty clear that if the images were not totally fake, there was no way a commercial airliner hit the building.  From there I exposed myself to a lot of information that people were producing (much of it rubbish.)  By this time I am quite confident that the event was engineered.  It is simply hands down the strongest explanation for all of the observations across the physical and political spectrum.

Much of the Snowden material which was leaked had been leaked in dribs and drabs prior to Snowden himself.  It fit into a body of 'conspiracy theories' which I considered neither true nor false but worthy of analysis.  Once such element of that body is that there is has been for some time an active program of deception using various staged events.  Some of the techniques are borrowed from Hollywood which is on the forefront of making fictional things seem realistic, and the media which who's job it is to present the public with things that they are supposed to be believing.

We do not really know that 'nearly 3000 people' died in the events of 9/11.  That event has gone amazingly unstudied by either government bodies, the court system, or mainstream media.  I've no doubt that some people died, but...

...lets say that 3000 Americans died on 9/11.  It was clear that that many were going to die in an adventure such as Iraq, and many more than that would be maimed.  And that's not even counting Iraqis.  Yet our leadership did everything to enter the adventure anyway in spite of having to know that the excuses for going (Saddam's threat to us) were complete and utter bullshit.  So, the people in leadership positions are demonstrably willing to sacrifice many American lives to achieve a political objective.

You are saying that because 3000 lives were lost that proves that 9/11 could not be a false flag.  Period.  End of story.  I'm saying it's not that clear-cut to me in the mode which I think.