ADVERTISEMENT

TO ARMS!!!

A

anon_xl72qcu5isp39

Heisman Candidate
Sep 7, 2008
11,031
4,355
113
Maybe you should show those nut jobs the part of the constitution in which the federal government is permitted to own around 30% of the total land mass in the country. Seriously. Show them exactly where that is.

Imagine how impressed they will be. You show up with your 30 guns and set up a gun show. You guys could talk guns, buy, sell, trade. Seems to me like you have a lot in common. You could call it the Gun Summit. It'll be awesome!

See you on CNN! Safe travels! Keep in touch!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
wyomingosualum said:
Maybe you should show those nut jobs the part of the constitution in which the federal government is permitted to own around 30% of the total land mass in the country. Seriously. Show them exactly where that is.
Click to expand...

Wtf are you even trying to say? Show me where the federal government can own any land. Or a national park. Or an interstate highway. Or a bunn coffee pot. Do you think your points through or just feel and type?
 
syskatine said:
Show me where the federal government can own any land.
Click to expand...

"(Congress shall have authority) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
 
syskatine said:
@MegaPoke are you heading to Oregon? Isn't this the realization of the armed resistance you've been waiting for??
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mi...s-building-in-oregon-after-protest/ar-BBo6RvQ


maybe you should go to Pryor and help this guy that was just defending himself?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382153/Teen-shot-arm-playing-ding-dong-ditch-game.html

You don't have to look real hard to see how stupid and alarmist these gun nuts really are....
Click to expand...

I'm glad this is funny to you. Also your association of me with wishing for armed resistance situations is weird. I guess you get that from me explaining the 2nd A to you over and over.
 
MegaPoke said:
I'm glad this is funny to you. Also your association of me with wishing for armed resistance situations is weird. I guess you get that from me explaining the 2nd A to you over and over.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else? Didn't we have a pretty heated thread where you said resisting the government was one of the reasons to keep to the second amendment's original intent? You don't believe that?

Incidentally, what would you do about those Hammond boys, if anything? http://www.occupydemocrats.com/oregon-ranchers-to-bundy-militia-go-home-we-dont-want-you-here/
 
syskatine said:
I've truly never heard anyone say that national parks are unconstitutional. You into the old posse comitatus stuff?
Click to expand...

I'm into playing by the rules.

There are a few places in the country that are so magnificent that they should go undeveloped and be preserved for future generations. It's a worthy concept. What harm would it have occurred for Yosemite or Yellowstone to have been preserved as a state park?

Alternatively, how difficult of a sell would it have been to amend the constitution to allow a proper foundation for our national park system?
 
Wyomings Alum, you are way, way off with your understanding of the Constitution. The provision you cite was to allow the newly formed Federal Govt the right to site and build a Capital City.

It in no way limited the right of the Federal Govt to own other land throughout the nation. In fact, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution there was a significant amount of land, in nearly every state and especially in the territories where new states were to be formed which were openly held in Federal Ownership.

The Northwest territory was first organized by Congress in 1787 (Under the Articles of Confederation) through the Northwest Ordinance. Once the new Constitution was enabled, the Congress acted to affirm the Ordinance. The State of Ohio was the first of the states to be organized within the Northwest Territory and the Federal Govt reserved about 2% of the land for its own ownership. As the Territories expanded westward, the Federal Govt tended to keep more of the land for itself.

But again, this issue has been litigated to the US Supreme Court numerous times and there has yet to be a single time the court has sustained a challenge to the Fed's ability to own and maintain land. In Nevada for instance, the State's Constitution acknowledges the Federal Govt's right to own and possess all of the land within the State's borders the state did not claim and even goes a step further, forever forfeiting their right to even challenge that situation.

So I don't know where you are getting the notion that somehow Federal Ownership of Land is Unconstitutional, especially when the first Congress to operate under that Constitution affirmed the Federal Govt's ownership to the entire Northwest Territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
hollywood said:
Wyomings Alum, you are way, way off with your understanding of the Constitution. The provision you cite was to allow the newly formed Federal Govt the right to site and build a Capital City.

It in no way limited the right of the Federal Govt to own other land throughout the nation. In fact, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution there was a significant amount of land, in nearly every state and especially in the territories where new states were to be formed which were openly held in Federal Ownership.

The Northwest territory was first organized by Congress in 1787 (Under the Articles of Confederation) through the Northwest Ordinance. Once the new Constitution was enabled, the Congress acted to affirm the Ordinance. The State of Ohio was the first of the states to be organized within the Northwest Territory and the Federal Govt reserved about 2% of the land for its own ownership. As the Territories expanded westward, the Federal Govt tended to keep more of the land for itself.

But again, this issue has been litigated to the US Supreme Court numerous times and there has yet to be a single time the court has sustained a challenge to the Fed's ability to own and maintain land. In Nevada for instance, the State's Constitution acknowledges the Federal Govt's right to own and possess all of the land within the State's borders the state did not claim and even goes a step further, forever forfeiting their right to even challenge that situation.

So I don't know where you are getting the notion that somehow Federal Ownership of Land is Unconstitutional, especially when the first Congress to operate under that Constitution affirmed the Federal Govt's ownership to the entire Northwest Territory.
Click to expand...

Hollywood, you are way way off on your understanding of my post. Clearly, the federal government is authorized to own land throughout the country, but only for specific purposes. I quoted the passage in the constitution which authorizes such action.

Perhaps you can direct me to the provision in the constitution which allows federal government ownership of unlimited amounts of land for any purpose it dreams up. I eagerly await your response!

(And please, confine your search of this authorization to the document itself. Thanks a million!)
 
Wyoming, the clause you cited (known as the "Enclave" clause, Art 1, Sec 8, clause 17) has nothing whatsoever to do with Federal Ownership of land, other than allowing the Federal Govt to basically negotiate with the states for one of several of them to surrender land to form the new national capital. It in no way restricted or inhibited the Federal Govt to secure land from places other than existing states, nor did it place limitations on that land/territories that were already under its control.

The Controlling Authority on the Federal Govt's ownership and usage of land is contained in Article 4, Section 3, clause 2: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Thus Congress is fully authorized to make such rules and regulations it wants in terms of land held by the United States (Federal) govt WITHOUT restriction. This means it can keep, grant, sale, set aside for public use, lease, etc. any lands to which it owns.

Here's some of the records reflecting the intentions of the Founding Fathers during the drafting of the Constitution. It's pretty clear that the intent was to allow the Federal Govt, even when allowing for the entrance of new states into the Union, that it was allowed to keep those portions of the land within those new state's borders as it saw fit.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_3_2s1.html

Here's a fairly thorough discussion of the matter: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
syskatine said:
Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else? Didn't we have a pretty heated thread where you said resisting the government was one of the reasons to keep to the second amendment's original intent? You don't believe that?

Incidentally, what would you do about those Hammond boys, if anything? http://www.occupydemocrats.com/oregon-ranchers-to-bundy-militia-go-home-we-dont-want-you-here/
Click to expand...

Being able to resist = Supporting everyone who resists? Interesting. Does that mean that supporting the 1A means that you agree with everything that everyone says?
 
hollywood said:
Wyoming, the clause you cited (known as the "Enclave" clause, Art 1, Sec 8, clause 17) has nothing whatsoever to do with Federal Ownership of land, other than allowing the Federal Govt to basically negotiate with the states for one of several of them to surrender land to form the new national capital. It in no way restricted or inhibited the Federal Govt to secure land from places other than existing states, nor did it place limitations on that land/territories that were already under its control.

The Controlling Authority on the Federal Govt's ownership and usage of land is contained in Article 4, Section 3, clause 2: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Thus Congress is fully authorized to make such rules and regulations it wants in terms of land held by the United States (Federal) govt WITHOUT restriction. This means it can keep, grant, sale, set aside for public use, lease, etc. any lands to which it owns.

Here's some of the records reflecting the intentions of the Founding Fathers during the drafting of the Constitution. It's pretty clear that the intent was to allow the Federal Govt, even when allowing for the entrance of new states into the Union, that it was allowed to keep those portions of the land within those new state's borders as it saw fit.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_3_2s1.html

Here's a fairly thorough discussion of the matter: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
Click to expand...


The context of that seems to be centered on the formation of states rather than ownership of the land itself.
 
wyomingosualum said:
Hollywood, you are way way off on your understanding of my post. Clearly, the federal government is authorized to own land throughout the country, but only for specific purposes. I quoted the passage in the constitution which authorizes such action.

Perhaps you can direct me to the provision in the constitution which allows federal government ownership of unlimited amounts of land for any purpose it dreams up. I eagerly await your response!

(And please, confine your search of this authorization to the document itself. Thanks a million!)
Click to expand...

Where does it say the federal government can own paper clips? Or a desk? Or an air traffic control tower?
 
MegaPoke said:
Seems obvious and self-explanatory doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Oh. A few weeks ago I swear you were really talking up the importance of resisting our government. Well, those guys are damned sure walking the walk -- fair question whether that's what you meant. I didn't hear any further details about at what point we're supposed to resist.

Those guys in Oregon sure seem like they agree with the second amendment arguments you've made on here.
 
A few points that I doubt the liberal junkie here will want to address...

Are you even familiar with what happened between the Hammonds and the US Government? I doubt the Constitution was designed to allow that kind of abuse by the government.

The Hammonds were sentenced and served their time. Now, because of "minimum sentencing," they have to go back to serve more time. How do liberals justify arguing against minimum sentencing for drug crimes and release convicted drug criminals early but believe that a couple of grass fires deserve nothing less than the minimum sentence? If the Hammonds were black Democrats the liberals would be squawking.

How is this takeover of a building any different than the Occupy movement? I didn't see liberals crying over that. Hypocrites?

A group of over 150 dudes with guns protest and nobody has been killed and no private or public property has been damaged. Contrast that to Ferguson Missouri if you're brave enough. Or Baltimore. Or Los Angeles.

It amuses me how teary eyed the liberals get when somebody other than a liberal supported group protests. I guess liberals now believe only they have a right to protest what they believe in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilPOKES, long-duc-dong and Bitter Creek
Medic,

1. I think several of the Minimum Sentencing Guidelines result in unjust outcomes.

2. Can you point to any specific cases where Minimum Sentencing Statute has been waived for drug dealers, etc.? You seem to think that is commonplace, do you have any facts to support it?

3. Have you even read the appellate case (which the Supreme Court upheld) which required the Hammonds to go back to prison to complete the entirety of their sentence? Do you understand the legal principles behind the fact that the Judge violated the law when reducing their sentence?

BTW, how much sympathy am I supposed to have for a couple of guys who set a fire (ARSON) on Federal Land to cover up their illegal poaching of deer? While, I will say that the Judge screwed up and caused them a significant amount of inconvenience, having seen what arson can do and the fact that several dozen firefighters ended up putting their lives on the line to put that fire out, I would say that 5 yrs is probably the right amount for committing arson on federal property.

4. The occupy movement "occupied" parks and other areas where the public is allowed access. Did any of them break and enter a federal building while armed and threaten to shoot anyone who tried to remove them? (If not, then that is what is known as a false equivalence, or colloquially as trying to compare apples to oranges. )

5. What the f does the Bundy Clan doing stoopid shit like breaking into a federal building have to do with the facts at hand in the Hammond case? The Hammonds have already stepped up, after exhausting their legal remedies, and are self-reporting to start the remainder of their sentence. They have repeatedly asked that the Bundy's stop talking for them and have made it clear that they disagree with the Bundy clan and their actions. Hell, even the Oath Keepers have said that the Bundys are acting outside the law and their actions are indefensible.
 
syskatine said:
Where does it say the federal government can own paper clips? Or a desk? Or an air traffic control tower?
Click to expand...

Mostly in the paragraph directly after the one I quoted you earlier (air traffic control tower excluded). Read it!

I'm not anti-federal government. I'm pro LIMITED federal government.
 
Hammond's were found guilty of arson - justly so. Motives be damned (whether they were killing Junipers, hiding their poaching, or going rogue with back fire burns). They were convicted by a jury of their peers - not a jury from PDX or Eugene but one from Pendleton....

The reversal of the reduced sentence is a cluster. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct in their ruling - just wish they would have found a creative way to enforce the sentence with something less than jail time given the circumstances. The judge who illegally sentenced them is accountable for that - not sure what happened to that judge need to do some research but I sure hope they have been sanctioned in some way. EDIT: Judge Michael Hogan retired just after this case was finalized and is now in private practice as a mediator - no sanctions, no consequences...

Statements that the Hammonds were "eco-terrorists" are overstated - but have some context. We have had a continuing issue of extreme groups damaging power distribution in the rural west which are labelled similarly. The judge was putting the arsons into a similar context - perhaps inappropriately. Of course that label is now being used out of context to build outrage on behalf of the Hammonds.

Everything going on at the refuge is about the Bundy brothers attempting to foment their cause. IMO, no reason to force the issue, rather just isolate them until they get bored or willingly surrender - not sure what to do with them when they do eventually walk out...
 
Last edited:
wyomingosualum said:
Mostly in the paragraph directly after the one I quoted you earlier (air traffic control tower excluded). Read it!
Click to expand...

wyomingosualum said:
"(Congress shall have authority) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
Click to expand...

Definitely doesn't say anything about paper clips or desks.... only realty. Maybe you could say an air traffic control tower is a "needful building" but not a paper clip.

So if the federal government owning a federal park is unconstitutional because the constitution doesn't expressly approve it, why isn't owning a paper clip also unconstitutional? Did I miss the express approval to buy chattels?
 
EvilPOKES said:
Joking?
Click to expand...

It sure sounds like it, doesn't it? Saying the federal government lacks constitutional authority to own national parks is about as compelling as saying it lacks constitutional authority to own a desk. Or at least, I'd like to hear the difference between the two from one of the board's resident constitutional scholars.
 
Medic007 said:
The Hammonds were sentenced and served their time. Now, because of "minimum sentencing," they have to go back to serve more time. How do liberals justify arguing against minimum sentencing for drug crimes and release convicted drug criminals early but believe that a couple of grass fires deserve nothing less than the minimum sentence? If the Hammonds were black Democrats the liberals would be squawking.
Click to expand...

The sentence was appealed as is perfectly appropriate - on appeal the mandatory minimum was enforced - not because of some technicality but in clear application of law. Disagree with that law? Then work to change it... optics are bad, but the legal process was fair and appropriate. Rip the initial judge who basically heeded his own desire over the law.
 
It was more of a slight toward you than you're interpreting. You're sensationalizing something that was never said, nor can be rightfully compared to the crap your bringing.
 
Medic007 said:
Are you even familiar with what happened between the Hammonds and the US Government? I doubt the Constitution was designed to allow that kind of abuse by the government.
Click to expand...
What abuses? These guys set fires on land they leased but did not own for their own purposes. They put the lives of firefighters and the public at risk. Can you summarize the abuse of the Hammonds for us?
 
EvilPOKES said:
It was more of a slight toward you than you're interpreting. You're sensationalizing something that was never said, nor can be rightfully compared to the crap your bringing.
Click to expand...

I got the slight if it makes you feel better - I just let it go because I don't give a shit.

I have no idea what you just said. What am I "sensationalizing" and what/who is comparing something to the crap I'm bringing?

 
I have to agree with David Allen on this one 100%. The real "f-up" here was on the part of the judge. He tried to use "discretion" when the law is clear he had NO DISCRETION.

If you don't like Minimum Sentencing requirements, then your complaint is not with the Judicial Branch (they, up to the SCOTUS followed the law as was required), but rather with Congress. If you want the laws changed, then complain to your Congress Critter.

Here's a list of them, see which ones you think should be eliminated. BTW, the Hammonds were sentenced according to 18 USC § 844(f)(1); §§ 2K1.4, 2X1.1 which from 1996 forward imposes a 5 yr minimum on those who Maliciously damages, or attempts to damage, property of the U.S. by means of fire or explosives.

http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf

Here's a sampling of the most applicable SCOTUS decisions on sentencing, including minimum sentence requirements.

http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/Supreme_Court_Cases.pdf
 
davidallen said:
What abuses? These guys set fires on land they leased but did not own for their own purposes. They put the lives of firefighters and the public at risk. Can you summarize the abuse of the Hammonds for us?
Click to expand...
Read up on the land surrounding the refuge and the actions the government took to force farmers out to expand it. Not pretty. Those actions are what caused the initial conflict between the Hammonds and the government. It only got worse over the years.
 
hollywood said:
4. The occupy movement "occupied" parks and other areas where the public is allowed access. Did any of them break and enter a federal building while armed and threaten to shoot anyone who tried to remove them? (If not, then that is what is known as a false equivalence, or colloquially as trying to compare apples to oranges. )
Click to expand...

The cracker heads in Oregon are occupying a public area as well. Does it really matter if it is a city, state, or federal public area? They are obstructing access just as the Occupy movements did.

I have read where they're armed but nothing about them threatening to shoot anyone. I have read quotes from the group that indicate they have no interest in violence.

I don't agree with what they are doing but then again I don't agree with what the Occupy movements did either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
syskatine said:
Definitely doesn't say anything about paper clips or desks.... only realty. Maybe you could say an air traffic control tower is a "needful building" but not a paper clip.

So if the federal government owning a federal park is unconstitutional because the constitution doesn't expressly approve it, why isn't owning a paper clip also unconstitutional? Did I miss the express approval to buy chattels?
Click to expand...

You goober! I said the paragraph following the one I quoted. This one:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Would you agree that if you're running an authorized ship yard that this paragraph would allow Congress the authority to purchase as many paper clips as necessary to run the place?
 
Comparing land ownership with owning a desk or paperclips? Brilliant.
 
wyomingosualum said:
You goober! I said the paragraph following the one I quoted. This one:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Would you agree that if you're running an authorized ship yard that this paragraph would allow Congress the authority to purchase as many paper clips as necessary to run the place?
Click to expand...

Maybe. So would the park service's paper clips be unconstitutional then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OrangeTuono

Kackles Harris to be Democratic Presidential Candidate

Replies
9
Views
805
24/7 Politics
OUSOONER67
OUSOONER67
Tulsaaggieson

FBI looking for an Iranian wanting to kill Trump

Replies
13
Views
366
24/7 Politics
N. Pappagiorgio
N. Pappagiorgio
Tulsaaggieson

Gina Corano

Replies
13
Views
754
24/7 Politics
Tulsaaggieson
Tulsaaggieson
A

Fair and balanced

Replies
1
Views
122
24/7 Politics
2012Bearcat
2
SquatchinPoke

Russian billionaire's audacious plan. Resurrecting woolly mammoths to combat climate change

Replies
1
Views
166
24/7 Politics
trapped_in_tx
trapped_in_tx
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back