Militia occupies federal building in Oregon

[HHSHOG62]

There are the legit protesters in Oregon, then there are the others using this as a ruse to rally support.

 

I agree on the weapons deligitimizing.

 

Hmm where have I heard that before??

[THE SHERIFF]

The federal government owns the vast majority of the western United States, including about 85 percent of Nevada. Corrupt land aquisitions and bullying tactics have been going on for decades and continue today. If the Bundys were in the wrong when they faced off against the Feds (they were armed and ready to die) why did the Feds turn and walk away with no questions asked?

 

As the federal government encroaches on the lands that many of these ranchers have been grazing their cattle on for over 100 years you will see more and more of these disputes. Just cowboys being cowboys.

[Clyde]

The federal government owns the vast majority of the western United States, including about 85 percent of Nevada. Corrupt land aquisitions and bullying tactics have been going on for decades and continue today. If the Bundys were in the wrong when they faced off against the Feds (they were armed and ready to die) why did the Feds turn and walk away with no questions asked?

 

As the federal government encroaches on the lands that many of these ranchers have been grazing their cattle on for over 100 years you will see more and more of these disputes. Just cowboys being cowboys.

 

Again, as right as you may be there's a right way and a wrong way.

[BirdBrain]

Again, as right as you may be there's a right way and a wrong way.

 

...and then there is "it goes both ways"...unless you are the government, then it goes the government's way. Being armed does not have anything to do with the legitimization of this protest.

 

Do we think that the government is going to go in unarmed and negotiate a peaceful resolution ? No, they are going in full on assault prep.

 

I agree with @PurplePride92....this isn't an Obama thing, this is a corrupt government thing. The names are changed, the party designations are different, the over reach is exactly the same.

[BirdBrain]

But regardless if someone wants to believe the truth or not, there are some very simple facts:

 

1) The ranchers do not want the Bundy's there. So why are they there? It's has nothing to do with the ranchers.

 

2) The penalty for burning federal land is 5 years, regardless of what a lower court says.

 

Wrong...the penalty for arson on Federal land is a minimum 5 year sentance. The BLM allows for vegetation management in the exact same manner these guys used. It was not arson, to continue to attempt to make this be an arson issue is ludicrous....but keep on going with that.

[Clyde]

...and then there is "it goes both ways"...unless you are the government, then it goes the government's way. Being armed does not have anything to do with the legitimization of this protest.

 

Do we think that the government is going to go in unarmed and negotiate a peaceful resolution ? No, they are going in full on assault prep.

 

I agree with @PurplePride92....this isn't an Obama thing, this is a corrupt government thing. The names are changed, the party designations are different, the over reach is exactly the same.

 

The govt will go in with guns as they should. However, when you protest and are armed you are escalating the situation. If you're willing to die...cool ...but it's on you if you do.

 

I am not saying the govt is correct in how these guys were sentenced.No clue. Haven't read enough about it.

 

There are proper ways to protest. This isn't it.

[BirdBrain]

The govt will go in with guns as they should. However, when you protest and are armed you are escalating the situation. If you're willing to die...cool ...but it's on you if you do.

 

I am not saying the govt is correct in how these guys were sentenced.No clue. Haven't read enough about it.

 

There are proper ways to protest. This isn't it.

 

Why should they ? Why should we blindly accept that a government entity, better armed (conceivably), should go in with guns to settle this ? Because we accept it as the norm.

 

I do not believe that any citizen with a firearm, in any situation, is escalating a situation by possession of a firearm. Can we not call it "equalizing" the discussion ? What exactly are the rules for a "proper protest" that would govern this particular situation ?

 

The argument you make is exactly why this thing is going on. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but to say that the citizen is escalating the situation because they carry firearms is a little slanted.

 

Because we can have these kinds of discussions, let me ask this: Would Randy Weaver be alive today if he had not had guns in house ? I believe that answer is no.

[Dlbdonn]

These are paranoid idiots who believe all the lies told about the federal government .I say if they want an armed confrontation then do it . eliminate their treason . Paranoid tea party idiots .

[Dlbdonn]

Oregon ranchers do not want the Bundy's involved.

 

Papa Bundy refuses to be involved.

 

Anyone that thinks that these guys burned Federal land to cover up poaching is a tool bag and has no idea about how a poacher thinks / acts.

 

To date, no one from these groups has: burned a convenient store, looted any store, destroyed a police vehicle or assaulted any law enforcement officer.

 

Call it what you want, bring race / religion / sexual orientation if you have nothing else.....

 

Rest assured that this is about a government over reaching and not any of the more hip social unrest issues that so many would like it to be...

 

#Findyourowncause

So you know how a poacher thinks and acts .

[Clyde]

Why should they ? Why should we blindly accept that a government entity, better armed (conceivably), should go in with guns to settle this ? Because we accept it as the norm.

 

I do not believe that any citizen with a firearm, in any situation, is escalating a situation by possession of a firearm. Can we not call it "equalizing" the discussion ? What exactly are the rules for a "proper protest" that would govern this particular situation ?

 

The argument you make is exactly why this thing is going on. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but to say that the citizen is escalating the situation because they carry firearms is a little slanted.

 

Because we can have these kinds of discussions, let me ask this: Would Randy Weaver be alive today if he had not had guns in house ? I believe that answer is no.

 

They should go in because the people who are protesting are showing guns and they are using rhetoric that warrants it. Simple as that.

 

Is it legal to threaten govt officials/police officers? If not, then they are not "properly protesting."

[HHSHOG62]

These are paranoid idiots who believe all the lies told about the federal government .I say if they want an armed confrontation then do it . eliminate their treason . Paranoid tea party idiots .

 

^Tolerance and composure at its finest.

[Jesse James]

But regardless if someone wants to believe the truth or not, there are some very simple facts:

 

1) The ranchers do not want the Bundy's there. So why are they there? It's has nothing to do with the ranchers.

 

2) The penalty for burning federal land is 5 years, regardless of what a lower court says.

 

I would think that some form of "double Jeopardy" is in effect here. They were sentenced( they agree not to appeal) served the sentence. Case over? No. Then someone else got another judge to over rule what had been agreed on and now send them back. If I am those guys I am mad as Hades. Bundy is there for another reason, which I dont promote taking over a building armed either, but I do understand the frustrations they feel. I have read alot about this case and watched the Nevada Bundy Ranch deal unfold and read alot about it. I can see why both parties are mad, but you just cant take over a building......

[JDEaston]

No real reason to be concerned in the least. Oboma will swoop in and take these guys gun rights any moment now.

[SportsGuy41017]

But is it double jeopardy when the law states that for this crime you must serve 5 years no matter what and that a lower court had no right to give them less time? Maybe our members who are lawyers can weigh in?

[Clyde]

But is it double jeopardy when the law states that for this crime you must serve 5 years no matter what and that a lower court had no right to give them less time? Maybe our members who are lawyers can weigh in?

 

My non-legal scholar mind says this is not double jeopardy. Sentence was in place. A judge overruled it. It got appealed. Time will be credited for the time served.