“The rest of your post is filled with nonsequiturs. The Founding Fathers weren’t as “pure as the driven snow” either (no man is), but they had faith in God, which is the key here. “This isn’t 1776”, so submit? What makes 1776 different from any other revolution of the planet?Don’t speak about the “current rule of law” when those at the top rule by fiat.”
Wasn’t talking about the founding fathers. Cliven Bundy isn’t blameless. He obviously felt as if he had reasonable case. He went to court. He lost. He went to court again. He lost again.
This started years and years ago. He was aware he was considered in breach. It’s not like he was suddenly ambushed and had his property taken.
It’s not 1776 and taking a rifle out to join the fray is no longer an optimum or even workable position. We’re all wired together whether you like it or not.
That’s the reality.
The same way matters of personal honor aren’t settled with duels anymore.
Civil law and the court system are how things are settled now.
I was heartened to see the Feds back off. I don’t think anything was actually “Won” from that action, but it did probably save a lot of fruitless bloodshed.
Now you’re defending the courts as something infallible and always correct, and as though the USA has never suffered from judicial activism. The status quo of this country is greatly due to judicial activism and corruption in the courts. That nonsequitur can also be brushed aside.
Never mind your deliberate mischaracterization of the events of 1776 and afterwards.
The Founding Fathers established civil law, and here you are implying that what they established was neither civil nor law.
Absolutely disagree.
Resistance to tyranny is eternal. Tyrants only stop being tyrants when confronted. To not do now what they did in 1776 would make 1776 meaningless. I am not saying that we're at the same point as 1776, but if and when we are, free men have a duty to fight tyranny.