Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[Expat]

I wouldn't think there would be any good looting at a wildlife refuge.

 

[cobber]

I wouldn't think there would be any good looting at a wildlife refuge.

True that. Maybe a few trail maps.

 

[Expat]

True that. Maybe a few trail maps.

But I thought it was decided that looting was the only acceptable form of social protest now.... What's wrong with these guys?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Don't these people have jobs? It's Monday! These guys must be professional ter...I mean militia.

 

[cobber]

But I thought it was decided that looting was the only acceptable form of social protest now.... What's wrong with these guys?

They didn't get a Soros grant? I think those come with all the instructions on necessary conduct for your social disorder event.

 

[Expat]

They didn't get a Soros grant? I think those come with all the instructions on necessary conduct for your social disorder event.

I suppose that makes sense, but they are leaving a lot of free stuff on the table with an attitude like that... and we know that free stuff is all that matters to people now.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If they are totally doing this on their own, they're doing it the wrong way.

That leads into the next issue: If a century of doing it right has yielded only a combined loss of leased land, confiscated water rights, and getting driven off their own lands, it gets difficult to criticize them for, well, coloring outside the lines.

 

[Expat]

It is interesting how the Obama/Lynch DOJ is wanting to round these guys up to serve additional time when they just got done letting out all those crack dealers early. Did they feel they had too many vacancies now in prison?

 

[cobber]

That leads into the next issue: If a century of doing it right has yielded only a combined loss of leased land, confiscated water rights, and getting driven off their own lands, it gets difficult to criticize them for, well, coloring outside the lines.

Not exactly arguing, but it may be better to pick your battles wisely. This issue is not a 2d Amendment issue, but the bloviator-in-chief will make it one.

It is interesting how the Obama/Lynch DOJ is wanting to round these guys up to serve additional time when they just got done letting out all those crack dealers early. Did they feel they had too many vacancies now in prison?

Special exception for crazed white militia domestic terrorists. Haven't heard the 'workplace violence' narrative yet?

 

[Punkinhead]

The worst punishment the feds could dole out to these clowns is silence. They're there for the attention. Without it they're failures. It's an empty building in the middle of nowhere so just let them freeze in isolation.

 

[dusty88]

That leads into the next issue: If a century of doing it right has yielded only a combined loss of leased land, confiscated water rights, and getting driven off their own lands, it gets difficult to criticize them for, well, coloring outside the lines.

Yes, there is an underlying cause here that I am sympathetic for. And I get why they have reached the end of their rope. But without much local support or a particular case to protect, they appear to be the aggressors.

 

[Expat]

The worst punishment the feds could dole out to these clowns is silence. They're there for the attention. Without it they're failures. It's an empty building in the middle of nowhere so just let them freeze in isolation.

That's why looting works better. I agree with you that if no one shows up to look at them, they would quickly get bored and go home (unless they still have some hunting season going on of course... then I would tell the wife had to keep protesting.) But if they were engaging in the more socially acceptable looting and police and the media don't show up, at least you still get free stuff.

 

[dusty88]

The worst punishment the feds could dole out to these clowns is silence. They're there for the attention. Without it they're failures. It's an empty building in the middle of nowhere so just let them freeze in isolation.

Yep. I think these guys actually put the feds in the drivers seat and the feds can now look good by NOT hurting them.

 

[dusty88]

Anybody fact checked any of that information?

I tend to think the truth probably lies somewhere between the favorable article and the government's story.

Fact-checking decades of details would be a full-time job you know, like for a creature we used to call "investigative reporter". That creature is largely extinct has been replaced by people who find the most sensational photo and start the story with "heavily-armed men" before a person even has a chance to use their brain cells.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not exactly arguing, but it may be better to pick your battles wisely. This issue is not a 2d Amendment issue, but the bloviator-in-chief will make it one.



Special exception for crazed white militia domestic terrorists. Haven't heard the 'workplace violence' narrative yet?

Yes, there is an underlying cause here that I am sympathetic for. And I get why they have reached the end of their rope. But without much local support or a particular case to protect, they appear to be the aggressors.

Good points, but they are getting starved out today. Not much leeway for 'picking battles'.

 

[jamil]

Can an INGO attorney share some insight for why this was prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

 

[JTScribe]

Can an INGO attorney share some insight for why this was prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

Kurt Schlichter is an attorney and he's been sounding an alarm bell about the particulars of the case FWIW.

Two Military Strategists Debate The Bundy Oregon Occupation

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think this issue has two fronts. 1) a long history of clashes between the Hammonds and the feds. 2) the "militias'" involvement. The two really are fairly separate. I think some tin foil hatty folks are using this to spark some kind of revolution and it's the sideshow of the latter that obscures the former.

The underlying issue was explained to me this way. It's mostly didty tricks over land and water rights. The feds want more "cattle free" lands. They want trees and shrubs and wildlife to fill the areas which are now grazing land. They don't want federal lands leased for grazing, because grazing land is cleared by ranchers of the stuff the feds want growing there. The feds also want the Hammond's private land (12,000) acres to be added to the rest of its holdings and "preserved". The methods the feds used to acquire other rancher's land in the area, over the years was, let's just say, pragmatic. But the Hammonds are about the last of the holdouts. So, more dirty tricks.

From what I've read, between this and what Dusty has posted, I think sum up the situation pretty well. The sad thing is about this whole thing now is the .gov will be completely let off the hook for their "negotiating" tactics and ranchers will be driven off their land so that the green church of environmentalists can make their sanctuary ever larger.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kurt Schlichter is an attorney and he's been sounding an alarm bell about the particulars of the case FWIW.

Two Military Strategists Debate The Bundy Oregon Occupation

That's a pretty good take by two really smart guys. Both sides have merit, but I'm in agreement, that this probably would have occurred no matter who was in office, and the offenders are playing up a sham by invoking the Constitution. They don't care about the Constitution, they just care about getting their way.

 

[dusty88]

That's a pretty good take by two really smart guys. Both sides have merit, but I'm in agreement, that this probably would have occurred no matter who was in office, and the offenders are playing up a sham by invoking the Constitution. They don't care about the Constitution, they just care about getting their way.

Funny, because I just read that and was going to comment that was the one part I don't agree with: the statement that these guys don't know or care about the Constitution. (I do agree it probably has nothing to do with who is in office. This has been progressing in 1 direction for decades).

I don't know any of these men personally, but I've listened to arguments from Bundy and some of his associates. Their interpretation of the Constitution may differ from the courts, but they make some valid points. The western states should have never been established with this level of federal land ownership, and that is a constitutional issue. No one really addressed it because it wasn't originally done with the intent of the feds acting like the government itself owns it. The government was more of a land manager before. The locals settled it with grazing and water rights, and that was akin to ownership. Now that it's being treated differently, it appears to have been a mistake to have ever made so much land "public land".