Strictly Street

Yep, nice day. It'll be better on the way home.

Restating the statement

John Lott isn't a gun lobby person. He is/was a scholar trying to prove that guns caused crime. The data proved him wrong. Interesting story behind his book. Although it is true that govt studies have been limited by the legislature. As to why, I think it had something to do with who was doing the studies if I recall. Both sides of the debate charged the other with rigging the studies so in the end the idea was abandoned. Paying a person with a bias to do a study seemed like a bad idea to everybody, as they wouldn't get the answer they wanted, so just don't do it at all.

Studies have been done. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

A new twist on the "Lawsuit Against Religion" on government property. Not quite sure what the un-named "Animal Rights Group" is about. Perhaps they are claiming that they are a religion? Yes the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a real church. http://www.venganza.org/ They call themselves "Pastafarian's". Nope, not taking sides on this one, just thought it was an interesting twist on the standard legal claims.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Interesting. Most people don't use encryption even if they can. Too difficult or not compatible or whatever. You have to wonder why they did this.

Sounds like a good idea, but... The political availability of insurance companies to be manipulated by special interests in the government is not to be discounted. By this I mean sudden insurance increases that make gun ownership so expensive as to be impossible, legally. This of course would be accompanied by "Common Sense" laws to have all firearms insured. Once you start down that slope the ending seems pretty obvious. Edit: Come to think of it I'm pretty sure you are liable for your kid shooting another kid already. If not criminally I'm pretty sure you can be sued in civil court for it. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure there would be criminal charges as well as a civil action should you be unfortunate enough to have this kind of thing happen to you.

What you find when cleaning up an old hard drive...

Nothing more is going to happen for awhile in the media at this point, except things like this. The real action is now all behind the scenes. You won't see it in the media.

Opps! Sorry.

Is this to be considered as standard fare for the USA or has the LGBT community gone too far? I have often wondered if the gay marriage debate wouldn't end up at this point, looks like it has. Of course as soon as people are considered married without regard to gender the next question would be... How many wives or husbands would you want? Or maybe a little of both?

Still trying to stir things up? You just don't quit do you. Sure he tried to kick a helicopter so we had to shoot him. I'll post up something new you can rant at in a minute, it's a keeper, you'll love it.

The point was supposed to point out the differences between them not to say they were the same. Looking at the post I see it doesn't get that point across well. A bad post deserves a curt response. Posting in a hurry will always get you flamed. Your assumption of my point is incorrect and your assignment of my motives are also incorrect. I am not for or against the rancher. I have pointed out that he has legal claims that he is making.The BLM also has legal claims they are making. I have plainly stated several times in this thread what my main interest was. You might have missed it. I'll say it again, the politics behind the event. Politically there is a lot coming together in this one event. Examples: Militias. Heavily armed government troops. Civil disobedience. Land rights. Election Year. Foreign policy. National debt. Political cronyism. All this from an old rancher and a few cows? Not by a long shot. There is way more going on here than you see. Relevant historical stuff might be some of these or not. In 1812, The General Land Office (GLO) was established The Homestead Act of 1862 Bundy's claim of 1870 starting his ranch. Taylor Grazing Act 1934 Creation of the U.S Grazing service Bureau of Land Management (BLM) created in 1946 1976, Gerald Ford signed into law the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This is the kinda thing most of this thread has been about. What law, what treaty, He said, she said, who's offended by who's comments, kicking cows, threatened authority figures, threatened citizens. Non-payment of fees. None of that really matters. What matters is what they/us/them are going to do next. How will that be decided? Politics. What is going to effect your/my life the most over this incident? Politics. Who are the players? This is where it gets interesting. The alignment of the players is unprecedented in their scope. Never have so many of them banded together behind one cause against the players in power. Enough players are there, something is going to happen over this. What, is the question. Nope, I don't have any idea what is going to happen next. But it will be far reaching.

It doesn't make me angry. As you point out Nevada became the 36th state on October 31, 1864, as the second of two states added to the Union during the Civil War (the first being West Virginia) The feds don't claim 84% of West Virginia which was in the same time frame. Wonder if it had something to do with gold in the Utah territory while WV only had coal. The phrase "disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory" and "shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada" is just the kind of language that lawyers love. Wonder what their definition of "unappropriated" is/was and who got to appropriate it? That and the fact that all those states are getting together to see about doing something about it is another fascinating tidbit that did make it into the mainstream media for a second or two. Sorry you don't like the source. I find the mainstream media a little unresponsive. They make no secret of the fact that they don't have news programs. Even they call their own programming news and entertainment. Yes, there is a bias according to the source no matter where you go. Knowing that doesn't make me angry either. I just consider the source and read it with a eye towards who wrote it. We still claim to have a free press in this country so I expect different takes on the same story The only people shooting were the government agents from helicopters, unless you have a media source that I didn't see. Agreed, both sides had guns. That doesn't make me angry either. I do wonder why they set up snipers around his house though. I wouldn't think they could herd his cows very well like that. Nor do people standing up the the govt make me angry. If it makes you angry you might want to consider the civil rights movement. Does that make you angry? Same idea. There were guns also in that little dust up. Right here in Ohio at Kent State. I don't think Bundy is going to win in the long run. Sure he got a little breathing room. But he is fighting City Hall on a federal level. For that matter, as old as he is they can just wait him out for a couple of years and the problem will take care of itself. They let him go this long without doing anything about it, whats a couple of more years? The land isn't going anywhere unless they sell it to somebody. I'm still impressed that the media, any media source, pick one. All treated the militias as well as they did. No tin-foil-hat jokes, no camo jokes, no inbred hillbilly jokes. Most of them played down the militia angle and focused on the back rent angle. In any case to answer your other question, no I don't really care if he grazes his cows on my part of the Nevada land. I'm not using it right now so it's ok with me.

Correct

Great post! Linux is getting more and more popular. Pretty easy to use if you can un-learn Windows.

The flip side of your statement would be that the Federal Govt owns all land. Oddly enough some people have a problem with this idea. A new claim I hadn't heard before: Arizona Official: Cliven Bundy's Acts Are LegalThe only solution to this problem, Weller said, is for the government to follow through on the transfer of public land that was promised to all newly created states at statehood but honored only to the states east of Colorado. He added the government's actions against Bundy amount to a criminal shakedown for payment. "That was absolutely deadly force," Weller said. "I don't know that it's hitting the news out there, but [the BLM] were killing cattle, they shot his prize bull from a helicopter through the back of the neck and killed him. Several cattle were killed as they rounded them up and pulled them into the BLM pens. It's just a devastation of force." "The Bundys and the Hages are standing on what's called their water rights and their grazing rights," which, Weller said, "were pre-existing in territorial times, long before the government took over and these states became states and these water rights are mentioned, and any federal law or policy act that comes thereafter is always stated, 'subject to pre-existing rights.' Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Cliven-Bundy-Barry-Weller-Nevada-land/2014/04/21/id/566807#ixzz2zcRuri78 Ah, the plot thickens. I wondered why the feds owned essentially all the land in the west. How this came to be seems to be a matter of some pretty old paperwork. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. Yet that does seem to be what happened when the BLM was created. Anecdotal reports from Oklahoma, Kansas, Arizona, Idaho, Texas and of course Nevada are starting to snowball as public awareness grows. Not good press in an election year. This is getting more interesting all the time.

There's always a story. Even if you don't like the source. But you knew I posted this just for you.

Now Texas. From the non-mainstream media http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/21/The-Eyes-of-the-BLM-are-on-Texas After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners. No turtles this time and no land use fees either. Sure is a lot of land.

You may get your wish. In any case seems like a much needed review IMHO of just how these land deals are brokered is in the future.

Without going further down the path of defining the definition of a group and/or splitting hairs over those definitions. The Waco incident was not an overtly political event. The Bundy ranch was. Whether or not it started as such that is how it is ending. Very political. States rights vs, Federal rights. Both sides have legal precedent. And as far as I can tell this is a very grey area as far as supreme court law. Also is citizen rights vs government rights. This is going to be very interesting when it all shakes out.

Really? No he's not. He's was just a member of the group. From Wikipedia: Ron Cole is a Branch Davidian follower of David Koresh and a figure in the militia movement in the United States. He was the founder and leader of the Colorado Light Infantry and North American Liberation Army militia groups in 1993. Cole is the author of the book Sinister Twilight, in which he attempts to explain the Branch Davidian side of the standoff with federal authorities that took place in Waco, Texas in 1993. Cole became a national anti-government figure after the events of the Waco siege.[1] It says he founded militias not that the Davidians were a militia. I think the term militia would be best applied to a political organization rather than "some guy with a firearm" as you are using the word. Granted you are in lock step with the "Mainstream Media". All dogs are "Pitt Bulls" all guns are "assault weapons" which as you mirror them gives you the color of being correct but in fact both of you are incorrect in your alarmist speech. Branch Davidian Paul Fatta was a federal firearms licensed dealer and the group operated a retail gun business called the Mag Bag. Does this make anyone with a firearm a "militia"? Therefore a terrorist? Therefor a target for the government?

Care to explain the logic of this statement?