Page 105 of 118 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105106107115 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,050 of 1177

Thread: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’[W:254:298:850,989]

  1. #1041
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Bundy gave a lot of interviews so which one did you have in mind?
    I was thinking of this one:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Link?

    Edit:
    At 4:30; http://danaloeschradio.com/the-weste...-federal-govt/

    Bundey: "It get's back to the ownership of this, who owns this land. Does the sovereign state of Nevada own this land within their borders, or does the United States own this land? If the United States owns this land then I guess I'm wrong."
    Well Mr. Bundy, the feds do own that land, so you are wrong. Pay your bill.

    And to the cops: just put a lien on the property, stop trying to confiscate cows with SWAT teams, that's just retarded.

    If the bullets fly, I'll only feel sorry for the children caught up in all the bull****. The adults on both sides can go ahead and kill each other; they're all retarded anyway, they can each have a Darwin award.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    You're playing semantics.

    The cops showed up with firepower because Bundy threatened a "range war".
    Of course Im playing semantics, this is a debate website.
    Last edited by Jerry; 04-26-14 at 07:44 AM.

  2. #1042
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Here's the real stupidity and hypocrisy of these anti-government simpletons.....Bundy says he doesn't believe in the federal government....only state sovereignty. So why is he standing by the American flag instead of the flag of Nevada? In fact I don't see one state flag in the entire bunch. But they sure are waving a lot of federal flags for a group that claim they hate the federal government. lol





    If Bundy doesn't believe in the federal government can he even claim to be an American?
    I'd never noticed that before, and you raise valid questions as to his and the followers patriotism.

  3. #1043
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yes I see him. It's not "armed resistance" until the trigger is pulled. Until that moment it's just preparedness.

    Given all the firepower the cops showed up with, which you conveniently forgot to include, I think a lone sniper is a demonstration of restraint.

    I'm not sure what that rifle is but it's not an AK or AR.
    Preparedness to me would be, not being there in the first place, and dragging my family along. I call that stupidity.

  4. #1044
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I was thinking of this one:

    Ah, so does Bundy think he owns the federal lands...or did actually admit he was wrong? Before 1976 anyone could homestead on federal land as long as they lived on it and made improvements to the land and after a few years the land was legally theirs. But that program got abused by cattle ranchers and so it was ended. I suspect that ending that program might have been the spark for much of the riff between the ranchers and the federal government.


    Of course Im playing semantics, this is a debate website.
    Playing semantics isn't debating, its equivocating and fallacious reasoning.
    Last edited by Moot; 04-26-14 at 07:58 AM.

  5. #1045
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Ah, so does Bundy think he owns the federal lands...or did actually admit he was wrong?
    His statement is closer to admitting to being wrong than claiming to own federal land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Playing semantics isn't debating, its equivocating and fallacious reasoning.
    Equivocation is going back on what you've previously argued, which I'm not doing.

    Semantics: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning." link

    "Armed resistance" has a meaning. That term is not casual, it carries a legal consequence. There were guns present at the protest, but no guns were used in the resistance, so it wasn't "armed resistance". It was peaceful resistance in much the same way http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=304 carries rifles while demonstrating.

    Although I can see where someone might argue that placing yourself as a shooter even-though you never actually fire could be seen as 'using a gun in a resistance'. If it could be proven that the rifleman actually sighted in on a cop, that person would be guilty of felony assault of a police officer, just for pointing the rifle at him from a long distance. If I were that person I would never admit to such a thing, and also 'dial-in' on an inanimate object instead of a person.

    #semantics

  6. #1046
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    His statement is closer to admitting to being wrong than claiming to own federal land.


    Equivocation is going back on what you've previously argued, which I'm not doing.

    Semantics: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning." link

    "Armed resistance" has a meaning. That term is not casual, it carries a legal consequence. There were guns present at the protest, but no guns were used in the resistance, so it wasn't "armed resistance". It was peaceful resistance in much the same way http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=304 carries rifles while demonstrating.

    Although I can see where someone might argue that placing yourself as a shooter even-though you never actually fire could be seen as 'using a gun in a resistance'. If it could be proven that the rifleman actually sighted in on a cop, that person would be guilty of felony assault of a police officer, just for pointing the rifle at him from a long distance. If I were that person I would never admit to such a thing, and also 'dial-in' on an inanimate object instead of a person.

    #semantics
    There is a legal difference between carrying a firearm and having it drawn ready to fire and aimed at a group of people. The guy prone on the bridge was clearly aiming his weapon at people not inanimate objects.

  7. #1047
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I was thinking of this one:

    Well Mr. Bundy, the feds do own that land, so you are wrong. Pay your bill.

    And to the cops: just put a lien on the property, stop trying to confiscate cows with SWAT teams, that's just retarded.

    If the bullets fly, I'll only feel sorry for the children caught up in all the bull****. The adults on both sides can go ahead and kill each other; they're all retarded anyway, they can each have a Darwin award.


    Of course Im playing semantics, this is a debate website.
    They didnt put a lein on his ranch, bevause it does't have a damn thing to do witj the money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #1048
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    His statement is closer to admitting to being wrong than claiming to own federal land.


    Equivocation is going back on what you've previously argued, which I'm not doing.

    Semantics: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning." link

    "Armed resistance" has a meaning. That term is not casual, it carries a legal consequence. There were guns present at the protest, but no guns were used in the resistance, so it wasn't "armed resistance". It was peaceful resistance in much the same way Texas | OpenCarry.org carries rifles while demonstrating.

    Although I can see where someone might argue that placing yourself as a shooter even-though you never actually fire could be seen as 'using a gun in a resistance'. If it could be proven that the rifleman actually sighted in on a cop, that person would be guilty of felony assault of a police officer, just for pointing the rifle at him from a long distance. If I were that person I would never admit to such a thing, and also 'dial-in' on an inanimate object instead of a person.

    #semantics
    That shouldn't be too hard to prove since there are plenty of witnesses and photos of the sniper looking through his gun sights through that little crack in the concrete wall right down on the base camp of the police officers. It's going to be very hard for him to prove that he wasn't aiming his gun at anything or anyone else but those police officers. He wasn't there to smell the roses.

  9. #1049
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    There is a legal difference between carrying a firearm and having it drawn ready to fire and aimed at a group of people. The guy prone on the bridge was clearly aiming his weapon at people not inanimate objects.
    Did he have a round chambered?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #1050
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    That shouldn't be too hard to prove since there are plenty of witnesses and photos of the sniper looking through his gun sights through that little crack in the concrete wall right down on the base camp of the police officers. It's going to be very hard for him to prove that he wasn't aiming his gun at anything or anyone else but those police officers. He wasn't there to smell the roses.
    Do you have photographs of his actial line of sight?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •