Yes, Stevens wants to enact a Constitutional change....but the government has been endeavoring to enact much of these policies without such, and they are unconstitutional.

"your oath to support and defend the Constitution would obligate you to honor this amendment, properly enacted, just like any other part of the Constitution"

Yes, if they actually fairly passed this as a Constitutional Amendment rather than their present means. We would be obligated to uphold it.

But crap like the NSA violating the 4th Amendment in no unquestionable ways. They're a clear and present threat. And all servicemen are duty bound to oppose. Presently, I still feel I can do so through the system. I believe every service person is bound by their oath to oppose any incumbent who supports the NSA's blanket monitoring.

a) !@#$ Reagan, I'm not a big fan

b) many laws that are abused today were passed decades ago, and get perverted and twisted and used for unintended consequences.

"Terrifying. Unaccountable quasi-military organizations that tend to be high on ideology and low on reason."

I'm confused, are we talking about Nevada or the NSA & TSA?

"just allowing a freeloader to not pay for grazing rights?"

Please note this was not about freeloader grazing, this was about the Feds demanding he shrink his herds (and all other ranchers their herds) by 90% so that precious water would not be used for agricultural reasons and more can be diverted to urban California residents (larger voter pool).

Go read....you'll learn that if this was just about the $1/head of cattle, there would be no issue. But it wasn't. And if you think it was, you need to STFU because you haven't read enough of this to even have two bits worth of awareness about what is going on.

"Managing land to keep it from being destroyed like it was during the Dust Bowl is important and costs money."

That is NOT what they're doing. In fact, ruminant grazers are important for preventing the dustbowl type scenarios.

"but your rationalizations are arbitrary and capricious"

My rationalizations are far less arbitrary and capricious than .gov

"somehow you use that to justify murdering people (or at least threatening to.)"

No, you seem to have things reversed. I'm arguing for people's rights to defend themselves against arbitrary and capricious government thugs who are threatening to murder people.

Capiche?

Then you need to read more sir.

If I told you that in order to file your next W2 you had to sign a form. That form stated that from henceforth, you can only earn 10% of what you are currently earning. You refuse to sign, cause that's ridiculous.

Then I claim the reason we're arresting you is because you failed to pay taxes. BS. You failed to basically be put out of business.

And please realize this has NOTHING to do with tortoises, just like California Central Valley issue had nothing to do with a tiny fish. This is ALL about water for urban Californian cities. That is why the Federal government used an environmental law to shutdown ranching in a huge portion of Nevada. In order to reduce the water usage so more was available to California.

Regardless, the Declaration of Independence not only affirms one's right, but admonishes one's duty to do so. No it is not law.

Rather it is the one document higher than the Constitution, the document that affirms that none of these rights are provided by laws. And that one always has the right to replace the government or constitution when it fails to work.

Which may be very soon...

You really think most of the 1,000 folks there were wealthy?

You can buy a decent 22 caliber semi-automatic rifle for $100. It's getting hard to do that for a pair of shoes.

Right, but find me ANY pre-1800 discussions on the 2nd Amendment which purport it to not be a right of individuals, and solely for an organized active militia. Find them. Post them. Or STFU.

Actually, you're quite misinformed.

a) the NRA is often outspent by Mr. Bloomberg alone (one rich fat ugly 1% crap outspends the entire NRA)

b) the NRA is often forced to drag gun manufacturers kicking and screaming to the fight (not the other way around)

c) the NRA is actually far milder than it's 4 million members, and 20 million ad-hoc supporters.

Do you know the number one reason why gun owners do not join the NRA? The number one reason I hear, "Won't join them, they compromise too much."

Really, did you not see the standoff in Nevada? First time in probably over a hundred years that a Battalion size militia was formed.

Oh, you mean only for the likes of the rich and powerful who can afford body guards...

We do....

Swords should NOT be prohibited. In fact, they are "arms" and should be recognized as protected by the Constitution. In fact there is even an organization kniferights.org, that was recently started to help restore such rights.

Really, what were they doing?

What about Ruby Ridge? There is a reason we paid that family millions of dollars in compensation.

Not saying either were great people. But look at Nevada, a 1,000 man militia. Probably the first time a battalion size militia has been active in the U.S.

Sure you can argue Mr. Bundy was breaking the law. But one can also argue the Feds enacted unethical policies and mis-used laws, in an abusive way.

Remember EVERYTHING the British did to the colonialists was 'legal'. The point of the Second Amendment is for those times when what is legal (or what is illegal) is WRONG!!!!!

And lest we forget, the militia was the defense, that overthrew the British regulars (trained).

Hence it is stated the need for a well regulated (trained) militia capable of countering an army of "regulars" (or what we would call "professional" soldiers).

No, because then they cease to be militia and have become regulars.

Oh, btw, why a well regulated militia? so that they were capable of holding their own against regulars. Just an FYI.