It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So..you are advising me...as a Woman. To run and hide and shake in my little boots, based on horribly bad decisions by my government in the past?
you already did and i told you how i felt about it. i'm a woman. you threaten my family, you bet i'm gonna try to defend them. doh. what kinda wacked out place are you coming from that you think women wouldn't defend their families? i'm not some wilting flower, afraid of her own shadow. i don't own a gun but son of a turkey brain, i would not let you kill my husband or children without defending them.
it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
The sheriff can answer some of those for you..
"To show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot."
I would have put my wife and daughters there and I would be screaming bloody murder to watch them die"
I'm not afraid to die here, but the best ploy would be to have women at the front"
reply to post by AlphaHawk
shut up and go sit in the corner. this isn't yours (or my) business, nor is it the business of any who are not the actual family members of the people being threatened.
edit on 15-4-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)
reply to post by blupblup
i realize this but the underlying psychological warfare is that
1. militas are cowardly wussies that use women like "terrorists" do, thus allowing them to be associated psychologically, with terrorism.
reply to post by AlphaHawk
First...I don't have a husband to stand behind me. If I did have a husband, I'd expect him to stand beside me.
Second...it's more than turtles or cattle at stake here...you appear to only want to look at a microscopic picture. I'm looking at the the big picture.
Sure, I'd be proud to stand with them...damn proud.
Glenn asked him to clarify since in the Nevada State Constitution that land Bundy’s cattle are grazing on was given over to the federal government.
Essentially, Bundy is saying this conflict isn’t inherently about grazing fees or water rights, but that he ultimately does not recognize the lands to be federal and the United States government or the BLM do not have jurisdiction on the land.
“So I think this is very clarifying to people,” Glenn said.
“It’s not BLM land. It’s Nevada land,” Bundy said.
“That is a different point of view than everybody else that is a rancher that I know,” Glenn said.
Based on the conversation on the radio show, Bundy’s fundamental issue isn’t with an out of control government taking control of his personal land, but that he disagrees with how that land became federal land when Nevada was founded in 1864.