In the age of Google Books, such assertions need not be taken at face value. As for clocks, the people of the 18th century lived in a clockwork universe, so perhaps you should consider
whether the analogy can be stretched to cover things as abstract as “well regulated society”
I am well regulated, are you? Or are you dependent upon another man for your safety?
My wife is well regulated and safe, my son is well regulated and safe, my land is well regulated and safe. If you want you can come visit. I have a guest house, have you ever had elk filet? She makes a fantastic bordelaise sauce.
We can set down and talk about what you fear. I fear people taking what I have from me. What I have worked so hard for. Because they write some bullshit law that says so.
Though admittedly from a Buddhist perspective, nothing is really mine. Not even my emotions. Yet as a human I can’t evolve to let china murder my fellow Buddhist friends in front of me with guns and let it happen.
No way; not this lifetime.
Well regulated in the context used, meant properly and sufficiently equipped, not overseen and controlled by the Federal Government.
Modern revisionists tend to ignore what was written about the Constitution by the very same people that created the document itself, the Federalist Papers.
For a well written and documented discussion of the 2nd, see http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm.
So you’re comparing a guy who built permit-less dams to store up water that is claimed variously by the local municipality or state with a guy who is battling the federal government and only acknowledges local authorities?
Your point is… confusion?
I read about that Oregon case before, it’s complicated. But I am immediately suspicious of anybody that goes ahead and builds a dam to deprive people downstream of water. Regardless of laws, they come off as a self-centered asshole if they’re not doing it with the express permission of their downstream neighbors.
Now, being an asshole isn’t against the law, but you might want to look at your confusing, mixed-scenario bedfellows.
2 Likes
That depends on what you mean by “well regulated”. In general, though, my brain cannot be understood using 18th century notions of neuropsychology. I’m not a clockwork automaton, and I’m not interested in becoming one.
With things being the way that they are, I would think a Homestead Act redux would be a pretty good idea. Something along the lines of every citizen being entitled to (just guessing?) 5 or 10 acres of BLM land, as long as they improve on it and were forbidden to own more than one parcel (with their land subject to forfiture if they’re found to be in violation, and the land put back into circulation for the next citizen to claim/improve) AND if they were forbidden to resell it in their lifetime. Maybe?
Regardless of ones feelings about militias, sovereignty movements, “white” insurrectionists/seditionists, there’s this thing called Freedom and our government doesn’t really, honestly seem to be in favor of it. We, as citizens, are surveilled and micromanaged and (figuratively) helicoptered and (very soon, literally) droned by “our betters” within an inch of our lives. Some people are in favor of the tending we’re subjected to since they generally get cradle-to-grave care and freebies (TANSTAAFL though) as the upside of their servitude. Other people aren’t in favor of it at all, and would rather Live Free or Die. I’m one of those people, kinda. Luckily, I live in (arguably) the free-est state in America. I can carry a weapon, for self-defense, and not have to hide it or be worried that The Powers That Be will see me as a threat. On the question of guns, I think it’s a matter of Our Betters thinking that “Peasants May Not Own Swords.” I, as a human being, have the inherent right of self-defense. In some states, if you catch a cop on a bad day (and they seem to be having a lot of them of late) he or she might just totally overreact to a situation with you and try to kill you dead. In those states, merely trying to defend your own life might get you killed, or put you in prison for the rest of your life. In my state, the police know that the citizens can legally carry weapons, and they (in general) conduct themselves accordingly: they (the police, state troopers, etc.) are, on the whole, the most polite and um calm, reasonable ones I’ve ever encountered in our country. They know that, if they pull their guns inappropriately or unprofessionally, one or more people involved might just pull their guns out too, in self-defense.
I’m getting a bit far afield here. Just wanted to agree with you, and share some thoughts. Heinlein’s quote really does seem to apply: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life”. Absolutists/literalists can always find/argue exceptions where it (the quote) isn’t true, but eh, whatever.
As of 1976 you can not home stead in the United States.
As for all your other jargon; good luck to you and your family.
The individual was catching and storing runoff water (rain, and melted snow.) He wasn’t damming up a river, diverting a river, or anything like that. That “spin” on things was trotted out after the fact, when the case came to light and the utter ridiculousness of it (him being charged/prosecuted for keeping rain/snowmelt on his own land from making it to The People’s aquifer) became known. That’s how I understood the matter to be. Check and see, though. Maybe I’m wrong.
that’s where the “redux” would have, ideally, come into play.
Technically they are being jailed for not paying their court fees, not some one they borrowed money from. Though I do agree with you on the basis that that is a debt, I even consider it a double taxation. As in my view, money isn’t a payment for a crime.
At this point in time, they are different in the courts view point. But these are my views what are yours?
I do suggest you read what you post it will be much easier on your constitution.
You’re really obsessed with this “OMG there are non-elected people in the Federal Gummint” thing. The director of the BLM, like all Federal officials, ultimately answers to our elected representatives. They are also subject to the laws passed by congress. As I stated earlier, I don’t think it would be either feasible or wise to have all high-ranking government employees answer directly to the voters. Knowing how to win elections is not the same thing as being a qualified or competent civil servant.
To answer your question: In the unlikely scenario you propose you could lobby congress to change the law, lobby the executive branch to change the policy, or lobby to begin impeachment hearings for the elected officials that allowed it to happen.
1 Like
Lipstick lesbians and (eye) shadow forces to the rescue!
3 Likes
You’re new here, aren’t you.
I’m not saying such lobbying is always effective, just that the Bureau of Land Management isn’t unusually unaccountable for a Federal Agency and its director is not unusually unaccountable for a Federal employee. I don’t get to vote for the Director of the FBI or the Generals who fight wars for me either. Delegation of authority has been a big part of how the Federal government is structured since day one.
2 Likes
Delegation of authority happens within an office or department. When you layer departments, agencies and bureaus
within each other so that you create a system that only exists to expand it’s own power and authority, you create a classic bureaucracy that is accountable to nobody, except it’s own self appointed mandates.
Cabinet positions and Generals have a specific chain of command. Agencies like the BLM can make up the rules as they go along. One that can unilaterally decide that a State border has moved because of a change in the path of a river, therefore the property owners no longer have the deed rights to their property because they are now in a different state.
Or agencies that operate outside their mandate like the FCC that can force a “fee” on every phone bill to get around the taxing authority of Congress.
“Here” as in the US (and how Washington really works), not “here” on Reddit.
I was being sardonic. That’s kind of like sarcastic, but not as mean spirited.
1 Like
The statistics, even during the BP spill did Director Mike Pool didn’t report to congress ever; Because he didn’t have to. He blew them off. He reported to the President, who convinced everyone it was, and is, all o.k. - which it clearly is not. Try making a documentary regarding the oil spill that includes underwater film rights to show progress and wonder why you are denied access.
You are denied access because you have to apply to the BLM.
Can your representative in the legislative branch to do anything to help?
No, they cant do squat. What would your representative do anyways call the president and bitch him out? Really now?
Facts still remain. What you deserve as an American Citizen, is the same land that is being given to foreign companies to take as exchange for other services; Financial or otherwise. That is the Bundy families gripe. Why give lands away to foreign companies when he has been using it all along and paying normal fees. (yes, I do understand that the solar project was cancelled) but the point is. It was on, and the reason why it was originally cancelled was due to the fact Mr. Bundy would not let that land be utilized by a foreign company bought off through the Federal Government.
Lets just take several examples of what would involve all three portions of our Federal Government and are cabinet members of the Executive Branch:
The Secretary of state Mr. Kerry reports to congress and senate out of the need to convince them that choices the president makes are valid. Mr Kerry is in charge of nothing the choice is the executive branch - the President. These choices include such examples as defense needs, offensive needs (going to war), and all of them require Legislative power to be complete. Quite American.
The National Park Service Mr Jonathan Jarvis even has to report to the Legislative branch for everything he does and is accountable for.
Mr. Pool (the director of the BLM) makes a choice it’s all on him. He does not have to by law report to anyone but the President and the President does not have to report to the Legislative or the Judicial branch for choices Mr. Pool made.
You won’t win this debate my friend. I guarantee it.
Also I see no way to identify those men on the hill. Could be more of this guys friends. Would it make it anymore right if it was the police on the hill. Pointing guns at each other makes it ok?
