Two things about the acquittal of Ammon Bundy and his armed followers should scare all America

[otherone]

Psshht! Of course not!

Obviously, the jury acquitted because they were right-wing extremist anti-government terrorists ...

hey, a peer is a peer.

 

[paleocon1]

jury nullification of the Regime? EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[paleocon1]

Jury nullification don't scare me. Thump winning does.

Trump winning is the one thing which might save Middle America.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Trump winning is the one thing which might save Middle America.

Every election is the most important election ever.

 

[scm]

Trump winning is the one thing which might save Middle America.

Dont get your hopes too high.

 

[HVACTech]

Interesting... I received positive rep from both Anti and HVAC on the same post. Does this mean I'm living in the matrix??

AF is just trying to cover his panty azz.

and hope that no one notices... that he agreed..
the CONstitution WAS a "bill of rights".

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Well I for one will be happy after election day so we can quit all these squabbles about Trump. After Billary takes over Trump will just be another footnote in history...

 

[PRB]

Yup, that.

These government bootlickers think things like this happen in a vacuum, as if a bunch of guys woke up one morning and just randomly decided to stand off the feds because they were looking for kicks.

For all my anger at BLM, the same thing applies to them.

so why just now, if not randomly one day?

 

[pcosmar]

AF is just trying to cover his panty azz.

and hope that no one notices... that he agreed..
the CONstitution WAS a "bill of rights".

NO.
It was not.

and you may enjoy pushing buttons,,, but it is clear the constitution is flawed.

or we would not have the contest presently in progress.
and the contests that should be,,, would have been several over the years.

 

[HVACTech]

NO.
It was not.

and you may enjoy pushing buttons,,, but it is clear the constitution is flawed.

or we would not have the contest presently in progress.
and the contests that should be,,, would have been several over the years.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

it should be noted friend. that this statement is in reference to the 1787 version. (the one AF despises)
the reason that this is notable. is that it was a full three years. before the "Bill of Rights" was tacked on....

the CONstitution that we have today... in 2016. is in fact. the original 1787 version.

recognizing, that posterity should be granted an "Amendment" process....
they introduced the first 10 examples. as guidelines, for amending the original document.

(and then we fucked it up from there)

 

[HVACTech]

Well I for one will be happy after election day so we can quit all these squabbles about Trump. After Billary takes over Trump will just be another footnote in history...

hell, I am already happy.
everything is right out there on the table... for all the connoisseurs to peruse and sample at their leisure.

our media is controlled. we are behind the "iron curtain". collusion is rampant at the high levels.
this is now readily apparent to all.

how cool is that!

we got the ball rolling... Trump picked it up... and put it on a "T".
we can get all "intellectual" that we want to.
this is T-ball for the sheeple. LOL!

 

[DamianTV]

I dont get it, why exactly am I supposed to be afraid of Jury Nullification? Author of the article is another fucking ass hat Fearmonger who continues to push the same message forward: "You need us to tell you how to live". Soon will come the day when people figure out that not only do we NOT need them, but we are far better off when we are free to make our own decisions.

 

[HVACTech]

I dont get it, why exactly am I supposed to be afraid of Jury Nullification? Author of the article is another $#@!ing ass hat Fearmonger who continues to push the same message forward: "You need us to tell you how to live". Soon will come the day when people figure out that not only do we NOT need them, but we are far better off when we are free to make our own decisions.

not to get all Religious on you... but Jesus himself would approve of this message...

this was contained in a parable... concerning free will and personal responsibility....
if I am not mistaken...

it goes something like, if you have the ability to understand something... you have a duty to share?
or, you are not worthy of "free will"?

 

[DamianTV]

not to get all Religious on you... but Jesus himself would approve of this message...

this was contained in a parable... concerning free will and personal responsibility....
if I am not mistaken...

it goes something like, if you have the ability to understand something... you have a duty to share?
or, you are not worthy of "free will"?

In order to defeat a truly honest market, people need to be denied their ability to both think and act as Free Men do. Once those men are taught to be obedient to whatever system governs their minds and bodies, they will willingly turn against any who oppose the will of the Empire, in what ever form it may take.

 

[DamianTV]

NO.
It was not.

and you may enjoy pushing buttons,,, but it is clear the constitution is flawed.

or we would not have the contest presently in progress.
and the contests that should be,,, would have been several over the years.

I will agree that the Constitution does have some flaws. So does the Bible and every State Constitution and the Magna Carta and every special piece of paper on the planet.

The trouble is that we should not be behaving in a way that is not ruled by words on these papers. The truly Free Men would not care if some doctrine had a few issues as long as they choose to be responsible for their own behavior in how they treat others. A typo here or a misinterpretation there is not an authorization to behave immorally in the things that were not covered.

(I should have just edited my last post instead of doubling, my bad)

 

[HVACTech]

I will agree that the Constitution does have some flaws. So does the Bible and every State Constitution and the Magna Carta and every special piece of paper on the planet.

The trouble is that we should not be behaving in a way that is not ruled by words on these papers. The truly Free Men would not care if some doctrine had a few issues as long as they choose to be responsible for their own behavior in how they treat others. A typo here or a misinterpretation there is not an authorization to behave immorally in the things that were not covered.

(I should have just edited my last post instead of doubling, my bad)

I approve of this message.
(and I am out of rep)

 

[Ender]

I dont get it, why exactly am I supposed to be afraid of Jury Nullification? Author of the article is another $#@!ing ass hat Fearmonger who continues to push the same message forward: "You need us to tell you how to live". Soon will come the day when people figure out that not only do we NOT need them, but we are far better off when we are free to make our own decisions.

AMEN.

 

[Contumacious]

Two things about the acquittal of Ammon Bundy and his armed followers should scare all Americans

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/oregon-standoff-acquittal-scare-americans-article-1.2848280

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Friday, October 28, 2016, 5:00 AM

So it turns out that — if you get the right jury, anyway — you can occupy a federal wildlife refuge for nearly six weeks, can have multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition in your possession, and can use those weapons and ammunition to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs.

There are at least two things about the verdict in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge trial that ought to frighten any American — including those jurors who issued the acquittal.

The first is that it was a clear case of jury nullification. The jury plainly failed to enact their Constitutional duty to apply the law rather than their opinions, and speaking as a professor of politics and government as well as a citizen of the United States, that's scary.

(Show me where it says that in the CONstitution. - AF)

If juries follow their opinions and not the law, then we don't have the rule of law anymore.

We have a series of ad hoc popularity contests. That's bad.

But beyond the Constitutional problem, we are living in a politically frightening moment. We have a presidential candidate who has said that he might not accept the results of an election (but only if he loses).

A former U.S. Congressman, Joe Walsh, has recently insisted that if Donald Trump loses the presidential election, he'll break out his musket to, he no doubt fantasizes, fight off the coming hordes of Hillary Clinton re-education camp guards.

Trump supporters are threatening to target "certain" precincts in cities like Philadelphia. And violence and threats of violence have been a regular feature of Trump rallies.

Beyond the headlines, we are seeing a resurgence of the violence that was once endemic across the American West.

The 1970s saw the Sagebrush Rebellion as states across the west fought to reduce the federal presence in their areas.

The 1990s saw the rise of the militia movement, some of whose members and sympathizers shot at and otherwise made it difficult for federal agents to patrol the properties they oversaw.

The ‘90s also saw the emergence of the sovereign citizens' movement, a group that claimed that some Americans — basically white men — had the right to reject federal laws they found offensive or repressive.

More recently, the Constitutional Sheriffs movement currently insists that county sheriffs are the primary legal agents of their community, and are not subject to federal or other restrictions on their powers.

And now, a jury has decided that because its members don't like the federal government's presence in their lives, it is acceptable for a group of regular people to occupy a federal property, intimidate federal employees and abuse the local environment all at the same time.

It has decided that because its members do not like the federal government, the politics of personal outrage matter more than the rule of law.

Such emotional outbursts always feel good. But it is also true that those who sow chaos usually reap the whirlwind. The jury just sowed chaos. We will see what we reap.

I agree the Bundys were very very lucky.


But the Bundys are 1000% correct. Fedgov has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO OWN THOSE LANDS.


NONE.


.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Probably the same jury that acquitted Timothy McVeigh.

And the surviving Branch Davidians.

 

[Anti Federalist]

AF is just trying to cover his panty azz.

and hope that no one notices... that he agreed..
the CONstitution WAS a "bill of rights".

If the CONstitution was Bill of Rights, then why do we have a tyrannical President/King?

And you never did answer the question: where does it say a jury must apply the law and not their "opinions"?