Nevadan Farmer not allowed to use public land for his grazing cattle

[Imari]

So they are not as easily silenced.

So you actually think that the protesters getting into a gun battle with the authorities is a positive outcome? More positive than media coverage of unarmed protesters being dragged out of the building by force, or worse, being assaulted or shot by armed authorities?

I'm afraid I don't see the logic. If the point is to get the message out and gain sympathy for their cause, I would have thought that would be done better by emphasising the relative powerlessness of the common man against the authorities. If the protesters stand up to them with force, all it does is strengthen the argument that these were terrorists that needed to be dealt with before they got out of hand.

There's a reason why non-violent protest is a thing, it means that everything that the authorities do to try and silence you only strengthens the argument that the authorities are violent and oppressive. There is no win for the authorities against non-violent protest other than by negotiating.

Unless the protesters actually want to create martyrs of themselves, in which case there are far better ways of going about that too.

 

[FoolKiller]

I said it opens the door, I didn't say I'd walked through it.

Trespassing/breaking and entering to terroristic threatening is a very large threshold in that door.

Still dosent change the fact they are in a government building wi guns making demands of the government. They want the Feds to hand over land to the farmers and such in Oregon. What is the point of the guns? What if the government decides to arrest them all for trespassing? Do you not see how this could not end well? They are using the Feds fear of another Waco to defend themselves and the public isn't on their side.

I've seen unarmed protesters who were sitting on the ground have it not end well. To be honest, I'd rather protest with the ability to fight back against an aggressive officer than just hope I don't get tasered, or get pepper spray or a baton to the face.

I also don't see how having guns to defend yourself as a protester is different than being willing to go down fighting with rocks, bricks, fists, feet, and teeth. You don't have to be armed to be deadly. Why does the type of weapon make one terrorism and the other not?

Like I said though, until someone has a gun ready to kill a hostage or target with demands being made to save their life or they begin an offensive assault I only see a sit-in held by people who were ready to defend themselves after learning the lesson of what happens when you protest this government organization while unarmed.

Let's refresh, shall when?



Ammon Bundy was on the other end of those tasers and women were being verbally threatened with dogs.

So, why the guns? Because getting tasered four times in a row isn't fun.

 

[niky]

Reading through the history of the case, it's a lot of "He Said, She Said" between the rancher and the Federal Government. I was going to cite this, but Omnis beat me to it:

This is the most important article written on this matter: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...on-mandatory-minimums/422433/?utm_source=SFFB

A fairly even-handed article on it.

I've been reading up on the history of the case. Some sources point to the father being prickly and combative with the BLM and Federal government... even supposedly firing warning shots in the vicinity of hunters on Federal land bordering his property, because he was disgruntled that they could hunt game that wandered out of his... and some of these actions have led to previous arrests. The questions of the fires themselves and the motivations seem a very deep sticking point in the Federal government's case, however, since the validity of the earlier charge hinges upon whether a phone call was made before or after the fire, and the validity of the second one is entirely questionable, since it was more of an operational gaffe than one with clear criminal intent. But it seems very clear that he doesn't like the Feds, and that there is friction due to his land bordering Federal land. While he has a history, it doesn't paint him as a revolutionary or a reckless arsonist.

Conservative sources paint a picture of the BLM trying their best to edge the family off the land by denying access routes, revoking grazing rights* and inserting a clause in the court agreement that gives themselves first dibs at any land the family will sell off to pay their fines.

They also painted a very dark picture of the first judge... which seems a bit unfair, as the judge did his best to minimize sentencing, and he was tied down by the letter of the law, even lashing out against the arbitrarily steep minimum sentence for what he saw (rightly) as a simple misdemeanor.

-

It's the first-dibs clause and the issue of arbitrary minimum sentencing laws, that are a big sticking point. And I agree that it's foul of the BLM to prosecute a case potentially to its own benefit, if only because of the political backlash that could occur. But the problem here is that everything they're doing is entirely legal.

And it's not something that the Bundys can change... and perhaps it's best they not get involved in the manner they have. By grandstanding in the name of people who don't really want them grandstanding on their behalf, they're detracting from the most pressing issue: which is that mandatory minimums are essentially unjust.

They could take a page from the radical rulebook. The white shirt rule. Present yourselves as unthreatening and unarmed during a sit-in, and any blood that's spilled in the dispersal will seem to be yours. Right now, the left doesn't see them as protesters against civil injustice, but an armed mob protesting the rule of law.

You have a right to carry. You also have a right to wear White Supremacy / Black Supremacy / Whatever shirts and slogans and to burn effigies of the President. But the manner in which you carry out your protest dictates how the media and public will see you. I've learned this from watching radicalist propaganda up close. You present an innocent face to the camera, and make sure there are a lot of cameras, and make bloody sure that it's the authorities that overstep their bounds where the cameras are rolling. A successful protest will have you painted as martyrs for your cause in the eyes of the media.

Well, that's how it works here. We've had protesters hold off M16s and tanks with nothing but flowers. And we've had protests where militants have provoked the police into a fight, hiding behind little old ladies and priests. The fact that the police were responding to remote violence by arresting innocent protesters is often lost on the media, but it's a dirty tactic that works. (I'm not condoning these underhanded methods, but there's a point to be made here, somewhere... )

I personally feel sorry for the ranchers, as the Federal case does seem a bit overblown, but I doubt many people will dig any further down into the case than the "armed militia" headlines. And that does a great disservice to the Hammonds.

-

Then again, we're talking about this, right? So it's not a total loss. But I doubt it will swing public opinion in the right way. At least not as things are currently.

---

*grazing rights which were then renewed with the purchase of another parcel of land, then revoked again... it would be tiresome to dig into the technical reasons and justifications why the BLM might revoke grazing rights and whether or not there is justification from a conservation standpoint... but it's clear that they would rather not have private land mixed with public, and are constantly looking to make the entire tract theirs.

Whether they should or not, is another matter... but in the end, it's still Federal land, and its use is only granted at the whims of the Federal government.

 

[squadops]

So you actually think that the protesters getting into a gun battle with the authorities is a positive outcome?

Nope, who said anything about a gun battle?

 

[McLaren]

I don't think so but now that you bring up the BLM protests I find it hilariously funny the media called BLM a terrorist group and a hate group even though they've never called for violence against the police and have never had guns at their protests and have never taken over any government facilities wether they be occupied at the time or not.
We have this yokels holed up in a government building armed to the teeth saying they will defend themselves against the government and are willing to die, yet they are peaceful.

Before someone brings up the Baltimore and Fergusen riots, those were random people not the actual BLM movement. Not every black person represents BLM.

They have become a group for blacks to spew racism whilst appearing as "protesters". It no longer retains any positive message for black people after the library incident where they specifically targeted white people; sounds like a hate group.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/16/black-lives-matter-protesters-berate-white-student/

The key word there is defend. You can stay peaceful until someone provokes you to defend yourself. That's part of their goal; remaining calm.

 

[niky]

Nope, who said anything about a gun battle?

If you won't and can't use your gun to defend yourself, how will it keep the authorities from arresting you for tresspassing and silencing you by throwing you in the clinker?

All the guns mean, in the event of a possible arrest, is that there's a higher likelihood of agents using more than just handcuffs and tasers. At which point, you've got your point across. But you will also likely be dead.

There's a reason why non-violent protest is a thing, it means that everything that the authorities do to try and silence you only strengthens the argument that the authorities are violent and oppressive. There is no win for the authorities against non-violent protest other than by negotiating.

While this is the way I feel, as well, it's worth noting that at almost every single APEC / Group of Whatever Economic Conference, where ostensibly peaceful protests occur, violent dispersals quickly follow. While it's enough to drum up support from those who already support the protesters' views, it doesn't really change the views of the mainstream media (and those on the other side of the political spectrum) on whether or not the protests are justified.

Which is a roundabout way of saying... whether or not these protesters are armed, I don't think it's going to win them any sympathy from outsiders. But the mere fact that they are armed and have illegally seized Federal property is making local sympathizers, and even other militias shy away from the protest.

The worst thing that can happen for Bundy, I think, is that the Federal government shrugs its shoulders, goes about its business, and sends a negotiator or two down to the protesters for a cup of coffee every few days. Which is probably what they are going to do.

 

[Imari]

Nope, who said anything about a gun battle?

If the protesters don't use the guns, then the guns make no difference to how easily silenced they are. They might as well have been party poppers or lollipops.

If they do use the guns against the authorities, it'll be a gun battle.

Your statement that guns mean that the protesters are less easily silenced assumes that the guns are used implicitly.

 

[squadops]

Nope, it hopefully forces the authorities to behave. Of course if they just storm 'em anyway then sure, a gun battle may occur. In that case, we have a right to protect ourselves. Notice how I never consider the 'sit in' folk using force first.

The right to arms is fundamental in keeping our government in check, why do you think they wish to restrict that freedom?

In any event I'm sure they'll all be arrested and the armed one's will face stiffer penalty. What ever happened to voicing grievance?

...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I wonder what happened to that exactly?

 

[niky]

I wonder what happened to that exactly?

You do have the right to peaceably assemble. Within public spaces. (That whole stupid (yes, stupid) Occupy Wall Street thing).

Within a government building? Not so much.

 

[squadops]

I never said they were not breaking the law as they obviously are. Charge them with trespass or whatever but not terrorism and multiple felonies which will most likely be the case.

They've been bullied to this point, I don't know all the details but I'd say there is a good chance of a legit grievance. If that's the case then maybe they can gain enough support to right the wrong. Doing it the legal way of course

 

[Imari]

Nope, it hopefully forces the authorities to behave.

It doesn't force them to behave if you're not prepared to use it.

Of course if they just storm 'em anyway then sure, a gun battle may occur. In that case, we have a right to protect ourselves. Notice how I never consider the 'sit in' folk using force first.

Neither did I. The question is that if the authorities are going to kick the protesters heads in regardless, do you want to swing your willy around and go down shooting (also ensuring that any police brutality is at it's maximum), or do you want to be the harmless martyrs that the police stomped?

It's pretty clear what your answer is, but you still haven't answered the question I asked. How does shooting back help the protesters achieve their goals?

The right to arms is fundamental in keeping our government in check, why do you think they wish to restrict that freedom?

As I've told you before, this isn't about gun rights. Stop trying to divert it into a discussion about gun rights. There's a whole thread for that.

In any event I'm sure they'll all be arrested and the armed one's will face stiffer penalty. What ever happened to voicing grievance?

And as I've told you before, I'm not questioning their right to voice their grievance. I happen to think that their grievance is a legitimate one, mandatory minimum laws are :censored:ed up. They've chosen a somewhat illegal yet still decent way to protest, apart from my opinion that having arms with them only hurts their chances of actually instigating change.

I'm simply questioning whether taking guns actually helps them instigate change, which is presumably the point. A question that you're apparently unable to answer without detouring into the whole prying your guns from your cold dead hands thing.

I wonder what happened to that exactly?

Trespassing on government property is not peaceably assembling. They're occupying a building illegally. I happen to think that it's a good way for them to get their point across, but let's not pretend that they're not breaking the law. The same law that has been around since pretty much the year dot.

The worst thing that can happen for Bundy, I think, is that the Federal government shrugs its shoulders, goes about its business, and sends a negotiator or two down to the protesters for a cup of coffee every few days. Which is probably what they are going to do.

Yeah, I suspect the same. Unless they actually need the building for something they'll just wait them out. Might as well. Park a few agents around the place, set them up with donuts and magazines and see who gets bored first.

I guess that's the problem. If the protesters take a useless government building then they probably just get ignored. If they take an important one they probably get stomped flat just to send a message. Tough one to pick the right target.

 

[squadops]

I'm not making it about gun rights, you are the one doing that, having arms with them should be of zero consequence as it's a fundamental legal right.

It's ok to petition in any legal fashion even if the activities partake of other First Amendment freedoms. Here is where it comes from...

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Now then, what is to be done if your petition is not heard? Well we know what our founders thought of that, these boys have decided enough is enough I guess.

Here is something from a patriot who didn't care much for the bill of rights, I guess he wanted to cut to the chase

The act, called the Bill of Rights, comes here into view. What is it but a bargain, which the parts of government made with each other to divide powers, profits and privileges? You shall have so much, and I will have the rest; and with respect to the nation, you shall have the right of petitioning.

 

[Imari]

I'm not making it about gun rights, you are the one doing that, having arms with them should be of zero consequence as it's a fundamental legal right.

You appear to simply be incapable of speaking about whether or not to carry a gun into a situation without making it about your right to bear arms. Even after I've spelled out that it's not about your rights, but the choices that you make.

You're like someone who has it stuck in their head that it's their right to use the public park, which it is, but can't comprehend why it might not be a brilliant idea to exercise that right during a hurricane.

Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you have to do it all the time. And it doesn't mean that it's necessarily helpful to your goals to do it all the time.

All actions have consequences, some greater and lesser. Carrying a firearm when you're partaking in somewhat justified but still illegal trespassing potentially has certain consequences that do not happen if you're not carrying.

If you can't speak about choices instead of rights, then I'll have to assume that you're simply not intelligent enough to grasp the difference.

Now then, what is to be done if your petition is not heard? Well we know what our founders thought of that, these boys have decided enough is enough I guess.

Ultimately, you wage war. You make change by force, either by removing opposition outright or hurting them until they do what you want. This is what terrorists do, they apply physical violence and the threat of physical violence until their political goals are met. Militia or guerrillas can simply wage war directly, against declared or undeclared targets.

But the protesters have specifically said that they're non-violently protesting. They do not, at this point, intend to wage war. So how do the guns help again?

 

[Denur]

The worst thing that can happen for Bundy, I think, is that the Federal government shrugs its shoulders, goes about its business, and sends a negotiator or two down to the protesters for a cup of coffee every few days. Which is probably what they are going to do.

I had exactly the same thought. Let them get bored, let the press get bored. And when they eventually leave, fine them for trespassing at a later time. I do hope though, that something gets done about those mandatory minimum sentences for petty crimes.

 

[DK]

You mean the video linked in the article that says this?:

My mistake, I thought that article was linking to this PasteBin file (language warning) made of the email exchange between the Minnesota shooters.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not making it about gun rights, you are the one doing that,

We have the right to bear arms, we also have the right to assembly, you can't do one while doing the other? LOL

Up until then, no one had said anything about whether they had the right to do both.

 

[Omnis]

Found this on twitter. Seems like a pretty comprehensive history. Wouldn't know where to find the actual text-- not about to go looking through 4chan or wherever.

 

[Sanji Himura]

It's the first-dibs clause and the issue of arbitrary minimum sentencing laws, that are a big sticking point. And I agree that it's foul of the BLM to prosecute a case potentially to its own benefit, if only because of the political backlash that could occur. But the problem here is that everything they're doing is entirely legal.

Agreed. A smart lawyer might argue double jeopardy since they are essentially being punished for the same crime twice, but if the Hammonds themselves are willing to serve the extra four years, who is to stop them? Certainly not the Bundys.

 

[G.T.Ace]

But the protesters have specifically said that they're non-violently protesting. They do not, at this point, intend to wage war. So how do the guns help again?

Dem guns pertect em from the govt forces duurrr.


Or so I heard, whatever.

 

[huskeR32]

So, quoting the Daily Mail is perfectly acceptable when it pushes your agenda.

Sigh.

There's a difference between quoting somebody's opinion or editorializing, and citing them as the source of a piece of factual information. I very clearly indicated that I was doing the latter.

As an alternate example, let's look at this article. If you cited that article as a source for the quote from President Obama in the second paragraph:

“Everybody should have to abide by the same rules,” Obama said.

I would have no objections. It's just a quote, who cares where you found it?

Now, if you had referenced the same article, paragraph 19:

The revived push to tighten America’s gun laws via executive action, however, has resulted in a backlash on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

Then I would question the veracity of it, especially the "campaign trail" bit. It's a vague claim (Whose campaign has felt the backlash? From whom?) that's lacking in supporting details (Has there even been any significant polling done among voters yet? If so, why not provide the results?).

Try actually just reading what I said rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to the words "Daily Mail."

Okay, two can play at that game. Every demonstration has one or two extremists that would like to convey the incorrect message.

Absolutely. The quote I was pointing to, though, came from Ryan Bundy. He's not exactly a fringe lunatic hanging onto this demonstration; he's leading it, along with his brother.

I would like to bring your attention to this gentleman here. His name is Jon Ritzheimer.

Yeah, I saw that video already. I'm not sure what your point is in posting it.

They will call the group as full of Nazi's because the man has a shaved head. They will call the group militant, because he is wearing camo (you can see it under the jacket). They will call the group suicidal, because of his statement that he would be willing to lay down his life.

Who is "they?" Why do so many of your posts seem contain this constant fear of vague nameless groups, and what they'll think/say/do?

I could not care less if "they" start claiming that the Oregon militia is a bunch of white supremacists, and it would take a lot more than the fact that one of them shaves his head to convince me that they were.

 

[ukfan758]

Could stun grenades and *tear gas work to clear out the building, both have been used to disperse riots.

 

[niky]

Could stun grenades and gear gas work to clear out the building, both have been used to disperse riots.

You want to use loud bangs and smoke on a group of armed people? Sure, you could (from a safe distance away), but that invites possible injury and death to the people inside if someone gets trigger-happy.

 

[ukfan758]

You want to use loud bangs and smoke on a group of armed people? Sure, you could (from a safe distance away), but that invites possible injury and death to the people inside if someone gets trigger-happy.

I meant from a long distance away. I'm just wondering how they're going to raid this building then.

 

[niky]

I meant from a long distance away. I'm just wondering how they're going to raid this building then.

They won't. Or, more accurately, they shouldn't (because Waco).

What will happen is, if they really are planning to evict the squatters, as the Sheriff says, they will serve notice. Then a warrant. Then send in some polite, either lightly armed or unarmed deputies to escort the people out. If the people refuse to be escorted out and become confrontational, they'll exhaust all their options before resorting to the use of any non-lethal ordnance... because people can still be hurt or killed when you use stuff like tear gas.

The presence of cameras is a must. To prevent the use of excessive force on the side of the Feds. But if any shooting starts, you can bet they'll have the media moved out of the way so they won't interfere with operations.

 

[Rallywagon]

Another question before The resort to tear gas and flash bangs is if there are still children present. The use of both is highly unadvisable around kids.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Cut the power and other utilities, do not deliver food, and watch these tough guys sneak back home with their tails between legs in a week.

 

[Keef]

So this is the jist of what I've argued with people over this issue, particularly about Bundy's refusal to pay Federal taxes.

There is a legitimate constitutional concern in the Bundy case. That concern is over who actually owns the land.

The constitution does give the Federal government the power to administer land, in the form of territories. But once territorial land is granted Statehood, the Feds must cede administration of that land to the new State. The only constitutional ways for the Feds to acquire State land are to either be given it or to buy it.

This issue is related to the national parks movement. Remember how Yellowstone was the first legitimate national park because it was formed from territorial land before Wyoming was a state, and how Yosemite actually came years before Yellowstone but wasn't actually a national park because it was basically stolen by the Feds from California which was already a state at the time.

Texas was also already a State by the time the Feds started marking territorial lands for themselves and land-grabbing from already-existing States. Texas owned all of its land. Any land that the Federal government wanted either had to be donated to them or they had to buy it. Interestingly, Oregon was also already a State by the time the Feds started rounding up land. These land-grabs also happened after several homesteading acts of territorial lands.

Bundy believes that the Federal government simply cannot own the land they're trying to get him to pay for which is why he refuses to pay them. The questions here are, was Texas given administration of what are now supposedly Federal lands when Texas was granted Statehood? If so, how did the Feds come to acquire its lands in Texas? If they weren't given it or they didn't buy it then the lands cannot constitutionally belong to the Feds.

I don't have access to the documents to prove who owned the lands and when. All I know is that the Feds tried to confront the Bundys and eventually backed down for some reason. Was it actually because they wanted to protect their people or was it because they knew they were wrong, they knew the Bundys knew that, and they knew that if they took the land and then the truth got out they'd be screwed?

 

[niky]

Shots fired. People arrested.

http://katu.com/news/local/leader-of-oregon-occupation-ammon-bundy-three-others-arrested

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/two...n-bundy-is-in-custody-report/comments/#disqus

And it wasn't at the protest site, either.

It will be interesting to see which side will release video of the altercation, or if either has any video evidence of "who shot first."

 

[squadops]

I've read from a few dodgy sites that the FEDs were using agents posing as Bundy supporters to stir things up, a false flag sort of thing. I have no idea if it's true but, maybe they were the one's to open fire first

We will never know the truth but I hope no one is hurt and the legalities begin.

 

[niky]

I've read from a few dodgy sites that the FEDs were using agents posing as Bundy supporters to stir things up, a false flag sort of thing. I have no idea if it's true but, maybe they were the one's to open fire first

We will never know the truth but I hope no one is hurt and the legalities begin.

One dead. Supposedly has said in interviews that he'd "rather die than be arrested.".

Still in the dark about what happened, however. Rumors are flying far and fast, but I doubt we'll get much information until the morning over there...