oregon

>>13577
Armed takeover... of 1 building. Big whoop.

>>13578

Think about this. I am in Scotland, and I found out about this non police action, against the protesters, before most of you in America.

Wako up.

>>13579
>Wako up.
>Waco up.

ZOINKS

did we really need another thread about this overglorified hostage situation?

seems like barely local-news tier to me.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
Sovereign Citizen militia plans to stay in the park for years if they have to.

>>13612

Sorry, Spelling mistake.

JINKIES

>>13577
The fact that they are doing this shit as Obama is pushing his gun control measures is questionable.

>>13656
>Obama is pushing his gun control measure

Background checks =/= gun control. I know it's fun to kneejerk but this isn't a modification of existing law, it's simply mandating enforcement where none was present before.

>>13656
Good point.

>>13577

This is (OP)
MOD
Delete this post.
We all know what happened.

> Keep the chan fresh.

>>13666
Please reread my post and notice how I never said anything about that. I'm simply stating how much of a coincidence it is that they are only doing this as Obama is starting to enforce stronger gun control.

At least they are doing something about federal oppression

Why aren't they being called terrorists? Where's the national guard?

>>13627
Did you understand the joke?

>>13689
The problem is that you treat the phrase "gun control" like it's some kind of catch-all that handles anything having to do with firearms.

That isn't what gun control is at all. Words have meanings. Background checks are not gun control.

ITS HABBENING!!!!!!!!!!

>>13723
Background checks are already in place.
Anything that can be included in the word "regulation" is also "infringement".

>>13714
Anon, the federal government are the terrorists here.
They also probably have some level of state protection again.

>>13725
>Anything that can be included in the word "regulation" is also "infringement".
>regulation
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>well regulated
>"regulation" is also "infringement"
ok

>>13773
Different time periods and contexts.
Well regulated was used as "well equipped" or "maintained in proper working order"; not that it was to be "well restricted" or "well infringed upon".

>>13773
You're a fucking moron.
Read a goddamn book.
Next you'll say "BUT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT A MILITIA!"

>>13577
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl5rkosu2Ig
Che Guevara this dude ain't. Shit this motherfucker is boring.

At what point and how else do you stop this out of control federal government. I see both sides of the gun control debate. Gun control is treasonous or hitting your target. Dont tread on me!!!!!!

>>13626
Awwwww they're sovereign fags?

Didn't know that...cant support them anymore

>>13622
You are retarded.

I'm sure you find almost everything inexplicable.

That's because you're dumb and not smart. If you accepted this, you could start to change it, but you won't. You will be stupid and arrogant about it forever . . .

You know you're in a low point in life when you're aspiring to be a low-rent Waco, in hopes of inspiring a McVeigh wannabe to maybe attempt another Okla. City

>>13868
I'm guessing that for the average person in that group, that's actually a new high point

OF THEY WERE BLACK THEY WOUKD BE SHOT ALREADY

I like what they did at that ranch
>fuck you pigs
>k we won't fight lol
>just have the utilities turned off
>everyone just grumbled and left

>>13875
like in ferguson and baltimore and chicago, where they were allowed to run rampant and burn and loot?

>>13875
if they were black they would have shot people and looted stuff already

>>13802
>and I began to understand that The Lord was not pleased with what happened to the Hammonds

hahaha, faggot. these are the people who want to make the laws.
I sympathise with their cause, but this is sad

Interesting video, link provided. The intro to the video is shit. But the guy seems to know what is going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdO8HH7swk

>>13723
>>13773
>Not knowing what words mean
>2016

>>13862
Yep, also stormfags, since the Bundy family and others like them are involved. What makes this whole thing even stupider is that the person they claim to represent, Dwight Hammond, has said that he doesn't want to draw his case out any more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-ranchers-will-return-to-prison-angering-far-right-activists.html

>>13626
Build a wall

Great title OP, very informative

>>13773
Just stop it. They don't care.

The only way forward with responsible gun control is to repeal the second amendment. Anything else is politics and nonsense designed by the gun manufacturers to maintain their market.

Unless and until we repeal the second amendment, you have to acknowledge that the purpose of government is to protect people's rights, not to abridge them. This is why I am both in support of repealing the second amendment and of repealing all gun control measures except the most basic background check to determine that the person buying the gun in an American citizen who hasn't been specifically excluded from owning a gun through due process of law.

>>14000
Maybe you can't pass any "reasonable" gun control because it isn't reasonable.
Maybe you can't repeal the 2nd amendment, because it says "shall not be infringed" (unique and solidifying wording)
Maybe you're either a fucking moron or a well witted individual who is trying to get all gun control repealed.
Anyway, the guy you quoted is a illeterate moron.

>>14004
I don't think personal firearms ownership should be a constitutionally protected right, I think that's stupid as fuck. But as long as it is, gun control in America is entirely too strict and most of it is by the letter of the law unconstitutional.

Conservatives use the same logic every time they try to repeal the ACA. If the government guarantees something it should be guaranteed, there shouldn't be any room for bullshit politicking.

>>14036
The right to bear arms is more fundemental than just to the constitution.
Do people not have a right to defend themselves?
Is that right limited to inferior or outdated arms?
Does the Collective have a right to personal defense from both foreign attackers and their government themselves?

If you answered no to any of those questions then read some John Locke and theories on natural rights, because you are wholly uneducated.

Now personally, I don't believe in any type of universal rights, but that doesn't work in modern politics with this whole freedom fiasco.

>>14036
Also Healthcare isn't a fundemental right.
It never has been and never will be.
The ACA is a tax, that's the only reason it exists.

>>14051
Food, clothing shelter, and medicine should be guaranteed rights. Personal firearms? It makes no sense.

>>14084
Food, clothing, shelter are not garuenteed rights.
Those are called personal responsibilities, those are for adults.
I suggest you become one.

>>14098

They are all required to survive.

How is safety sans a firearm not a personal responsibility?

>>14104
They are required to survive, but not a right.
You don't have *a right* to food, you have a right to work for that food or produce it your self, you don't have *a right* to clothing, you have a right to work for it or make it yourself.
None of these things are restricted by the government, and actually are supported by them with handouts. But it doesn't make it a right, or proper.
A firearm is nothing more than a tool, that provides safety and food if needed. But it's also a hobby if you wish.
The government should not have power to intervene into my private life. If I wish to own one for self defense then I should be able to. They don't have to provide me with one, but they damn well not restrict it either.

>>14109

A gun is not your private life. A gun shoots projectiles away from your person. Assault weapons are designed to kill other humans. A gun's existence has implications beyond your own personal vanity. They should be regulated so that only trained individuals with robust backgroud checks are able to purchase them.

Same as driving a car.

>>14114
> a gun is not your private life
It is my private property.
>it shoots projectiles away from your body
Yes. Yes it does Einstein.
>Assault weapons
There is no such thing as an assalt weapon.
>are designed to kill other humans.
The scary part is cars are designed to not kill humans, and they kill more every year.
Doctors, who are to save humans, kill MANY more people than firearms.
>A gun's existence has implications beyond your own personal vanity.
And? That's not yours to be worried about.
>They should be regulated so that only trained individuals with robust backgroud checks are able to purchase them.
Why?
>Same as driving a car.
Driving a car isn't a right.

>>14129
Do you often dissect an argument into individual groupings of words so its easier to respond to? Any question of "why?" is elaborated upon, maybe connect the phrases back together and you will be able to figure out the argument.

>>14132
There is no argument.
You provided an example that proves either A. Regulation doesn't work.
(Cars are not designed to kill, are regulated, and more people die) or B. Is not a valid comparison.

A gun is a tool, it is my private property and you should have nothing to do with it.

Sorry you're too booty blasted to respond

>>14137

You are focusing on the car part. Again focusing on what you find easier to process.

The argument is that a gun shoots projectiles, owning and operating a gun is not a private thing. If you are shooting yourself it would be a wholly private matter, but you are not.

I should have nothing to do with your private property. But the government should have a say over who gets to own what private property if that private property by the very nature of its existence serves to project force away from an individual. You are not allowed to own bombs.

>>14134

No I don't. Same as driving a car means that the same process you must follow to drive a car on public roads should also be applied to the owership of firearms. There is no good reason to argue against this, unless you want a lot of people who don't know how to safely operate guns with suspect backgrounds to own guns.

>>14098
>those are for adults.
>I suggest you become one.
Fuck you dude. You argue like a teenager. Please find another board. I treated you with respect. This shit fucking triggers me. If I wanted reddit-tier arguments I'd go to reddit. Please buy a bottle of bleach and drink it. For fucks sake.

>>14146
The gun and it's bullets are my property.
You have no right to regulate it.
The government has no right to regulate private property.

I have no intention to shoot other humans unless they wish to harm me.

The government doesn't gain power upon the potential of action.
>>14147
>Fuck fuck shit grow up, drink bleach weak arguments blah blah ABLOOABLOOABLOO
I suggest you grow up as well.
Discussion is for adults.

>>13780

found the retard -_-

>>14152
>words and meaning don't change over time
>-_-
I suggest you read a book.
The word "well regulated" as used in the sentence refers to the usage as "well maintained" or "kept in proper working order", not "well infringed".

>>14152
>-_-
Found the reddit

>>13666
Fuck off Reddit.

Anything that makes it more difficult to get a gun = gun control

We already have background checks.

>>13714
>>13714
>don't kill anyone
>don't threaten anyone
>no one was on the premises when they began occupying it
>terrorism

Booty blasted liberal detected

>>14151
>The gun and it's bullets are my property.
>You have no right to regulate it.
>The government has no right to regulate private property.

Then it follows that I should be able to own and use the following on my property:
Land mines
Chemical weapons
Biological weapons
Nuclear weapons

Do you agree?

>>14197
Sure. Go ahead.

>>14129
>Driving a car isn't a right.
9th amendment. It is, actually a right, and you can drive a car on your own property. The government determines how its roads are used. Not how you use your car. It's a bit of a loophole the government used but for a while until the government owned most of the roads in America, you didn't need a liscense. This changed. The government essentially paid for all the roads and said, "now look, if you're going to use our roads, you're going to all use the same rules of our roads. the "rules of the road" as it were."

>>14146
>But the government should have a say over who gets to own what private property if that private property by the very nature of its existence serves to project force away from an individual.
This does not pass what is known as "strict scrutiny."

If you look at the concept of strict scrutiny, you see very plainly that if you CAN use something without the user being hurt or anyone else being hurt, then you cannot reasonable ban it.

>You can't own bombs.
Untrue.
>you can't own nuclear weapons!
Even though this is passing into really really REALLY hypothetical territory:
If you were able to -
-Store it where the radiation wasn't hurting yourself or others (remember strict scrutiny?)
-DETONATE IT without hurting yourself or others
(Hypothetically owning many many hundreds of square miles of land)
Then yes.
You COULD own a nuclear weapon.

>>14197
You cannot booby trap or make unsafe your own private property:
This is because meter readers and public servants need access to your land.
So land minds are a no no UNLESS you don't use them.
Can you OWN them? Yes, actually you can!
With a DD stamp and if it was made prior to 1987...then yes. You can.
>Biological weapons
This has been banned under the united states and all NATO countries for various reasons and purposes.

But we're getting off course here. Why are you conflating FIREARMS with these things?

>>13714
>Why aren't they being called terrorists?
In what way are they terrorists?
>Where's the national guard?
Are they a threat to the public yet? Have they harmed anyone or destroyed any public property?

The national guard is called in on riots because they seriously endanger the safety of the public. They destroy the homes, private property and endanger the lives of citizens.

Do you not see the difference here?

>>14146
>There is no good reason to argue against this, unless you want a lot of people who don't know how to safely operate guns with suspect backgrounds to own guns.
There is a lot of misinformation on your part.

You want a background check on all firearm purchases from licensed gun dealers? If only there was some kind of National Instant Check System.
A kind of federal database that stored the criminal background of everyone entered into it mandatory if they commit a violent felony or are adjudicated by a judge to be mentally unfit to own a firarm. Yes, a System that Checks for these people on a National level, Instantly.

And if only there was an acronym for this, "National Instant Check System."

And I wonder how many firearm related casualties there are each year. Boy, if there weren't very many, that would mean that enforced safety just for OWNING a firearm wouldn't help much! It would then mean that you'd only be reducing firearm related accidents! I mean, if firearm related accident statistic data was available, it would be tragic to your argument. Why, I imagine if someone were to come along and mention that say, 90% of all firearm related accidents, which number less than 900 per year last year were hunting related...You might feel downright silly! Because as you know, all hunting licenses REQUIRE firearms and hunter's safety courses!

I mean, that would make you look like a fucking idiot, knowing that almost all of what you're trying to reduce, firearm related accidents, are caused by something that ALREADY HAS ENFORCED AND MANDATORY SAFETY.

>>14151
>The government has no right to regulate private property.

Good Lord. I hope you're very young.
The government regulates private property in just about every way, from the FDA approving your food to the EPA telling you which cars you can drive due to emissions standards.

The government regulates the sizes of knives people can have and whether or not merely having them is illegal; same with pretty much weapons of all kinds.

>>14233
Different guy here, I was always told bombs were absolutely illegal and even searching for how to make a bomb could spark an investigation

Canadian btw

>>14270
There was a SCOTUS case 20 years ago that's interesting enough:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/600/case.html

It cites to an earlier case (Freed) where they had to decide whether or not having unregistered grenades meant the defendant was liable.

>The Government argues that § 5861(d) defines precisely the sort of regulatory offense described in Balint. In this view, all guns, whether or not they are statutory "firearms," are dangerous devices that put gun owners on notice that they must determine at their hazard whether their weapons come within the scope of the Act. On this understanding, the District Court's instruction in this case was correct, because a conviction can rest simply on proof that a defendant knew he possessed a "firearm" in the ordinary sense of the term.

>The Government seeks support for its position from our decision in United States v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601 (1971), which involved a prosecution for possession of unregistered grenades under § 5861(d).4 The defendant knew that the items in his possession were grenades, and we concluded that § 5861(d) did not require the Government to prove the defendant also knew that the grenades were unregistered. Id., at 609.

The US code for explosives is 18 USC § 842. You can read it, here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842

It's similar to the firearm statute for Staples above, which is why Freed lent itself so readily to compare.

>>14236
Does, and has the right to are not the same things.

>>14281
By which authority do you suggest they don't have the right? Can you cite to anything specific that aren't your feelings?

>>14235

Do you always talk like a retard?

The issue is mass shootings, people who have history of mental illness or extremism owning firearms and illegally owned firearms. The fact that measures already exist doesn't mean that those measures can't be improved.

>>14273
Layman's terms please

>>14000
Why would you even want this? Can't you look at the UK and see what a bad idea a gun ban would be? Criminals don't follow the law, and the number of illegal guns on the streets at the moment would make crime SKYROCKET in the months and years to come after a gun sweep was completed.

This does nothing but harm innocent gun owners, and put them at the mercy of criminals and thugs. Average police response time is ~15 minutes, and a Supreme Court decision declared that police have no responsibility to protect or save you, only to enforce the law.

>>14084
And who should pay for all of these guaranteed rights?

>>14320
>personal attacks

Why not just give up while you're this far behind?

>>14114
You are allowed to buy guns, so long as you do not use the gun to harm another person or property.

Same as buying a knife, car, or most other things.

>>14320
Mass shooting are extremely rare and a drop in the hypothetical body bucket in the grand scheme of things. The only reason they are even brought up is because it's easy for the media to latch onto the <10 a year and make it seem like no other issue is more important.

>>13721
Shiiiiiiit

>>14332
No.

>>14287
The Tenth Amendment ..."expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people."