Gun control/confiscation is a good thing for a government prepared to use violent and/or deadly force against a citizen. Well the confiscation of firearms is not law just yet. Perhaps the government will move more cautiously until then. One rancher faces the wrath of the US government. Seizure of State land, EPA and the 10 Amendment, any conflict? Do they all play a part? Funny how an administration picks, very specifically, who they will enforce regulations against over constitutional duties and limitations http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/11/nevada-militia-to-feds-control-our-borders-not-our-ranchers/
Isn't the exact same behaviour evident regarding some voter fraud and voter intimidation case(s) where the US Dept of inJustice refuses to prosecute? Or the continual capricious and arbitrary changes of the Obamacare law. Or backdoor attempts of a presidential originated de facto immigration law or recess appointments when Congress is in session, etc.? If this rancher is wrong whose example has he followed? Finish control with firearm confiscation ASAP and government can ride roughshod over the defenseless subjects. Thinking the only reason that hasn't happened in Nevada yet is due to the firearms that may be in and about that scene that are not toeing the federal agenda. See how I've assigned some self determination to firearms (in the citizens hands) in the preceding sentence, not unlike the gun control crowd believing inanimate objects (specifically firearms) have a personal agenda (except when held by government i.e Waco, Ruby Ridge) and are therefor accountable for the crimes they commit. How did the federales originally seize control of the State of Nevada Sovereign land? Is it forever or can a State reclaim land within its border? Seems things are slowly changing to a revolutionary flavor not tasted in this country for some time. Maybe its the influence of the Blood moon rising? Wow that kinda adds a pulp fiction coloring, don't it?
