terrorists occupy gov't office in Oregon

[Shady]

Would you say the same thing if an First Nations group did that? See Caledonia.

Exactly. The hypocrisy in the forum is off the charts.

[Guest]

How can one trespass on public land? Occupying a Government building? Was it even locked? How is that different then a homeless person sleeping in a public park? I haven't heard anything about them hunting, do you have a source? None the less, if they are, and conforming with the hunting regulations, its perfectly legal to hunt deer, ducks, upland birds and migratory birds etc at said refuge........The US Fish and Wildlife service even advertises it a popular for hunters.

The city hall in my town is a public building yet I am not permitted to occupy its offices. Even if when I entered, everyone who normally works in the building was home for the holidays. Schools are public buildings but I am only permitted to enter it at certain times, under certain conditions. Provincial/Federal parks are public land but I am not permitted to live there, use the facilities for free, or hunt and fish as I see fit. I must follow the rules of the land owner/administrator. Failing to follow the rules would make me a trespasser.

The Bundy Clan doesn't even dispute the fact that they are trespassing and occupying land and buildings that do not belong to them. They are fighting the idea that governments can own and administer land.

Edit: Plus they are not waiving signs along the roadside, signing petitions, etc. Instead they have seized land and buildings, stated they will occupy them for a long time and have threatened to use force if anyone attempts to remove them from the land they are trespassing on.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

[Derek 2.0]

The ranchers who were poaching on federal land and then burned over 100 acres have even rebuffed the support of Bundy Clan. They are protesting the idea that the government can own and protect land, animals, minerals, water, etc.

No, they are protesting that the Federal Government and not local Government has control over land use.......The Federal Government grants the leases in the Western States to energy companies that make use of fracking, so suggesting the Federal Government is the protecting the environment is a stretch.....

[Derek 2.0]

The city hall in my town is a public building yet I am not permitted to occupy its offices. Even if when I entered, everyone who normally works in the building was home for the holidays. Schools are public buildings but I am only permitted to enter it at certain times, under certain conditions.

This isn't a city hall or school.

Provincial/Federal parks are public land but I am not permitted to live there, use the facilities for free, or hunt and fish as I see fit. I must follow the rules of the land owner/administrator. Failing to follow the rules would make me a trespasser.

Not in the United States, as cited, this refuge doesn't even require a permit for hunting.

The Bundy Clan doesn't even dispute the fact that they are trespassing and occupying land and buildings that do not belong to them. They are fighting the idea that governments can own and administer land.

The Bundy clan doesn't consider occupying public land as trespassing.......how can one trespass on what they own?

[Guest]

No, they are protesting that the Federal Government and not local Government has control over land use.......The Federal Government grants the leases in the Western States to energy companies that make use of fracking, so suggesting the Federal Government is the protecting the environment is a stretch.....

No stretch at all. The Bundy's have vowed to return the hunters, loggers and miners.

[Derek 2.0]

No stretch at all. The Bundy's have vowed to return the hunters, loggers and miners.

Hunters can already hunt the land........I provided you the the US Federal website.......and loggers log the land and miners mine the land, with the granting of leases handed out in Washington. The Bundy's, and many other Westerners feel said control of the land should be in the purview of local Government.......like it is in the rest of the United States.

[Argus]

I'm stating that the overbearing use of force used in Ruby Ridge and Waco led a disturbed man (with the help of several others) to blow up a Federal building 20 years ago.

And a talking dog led another disturbed man to murder couples in their cars in New York city a little while back. Do we ban dogs? Do we ban the playing of Beatles songs of Jody Foster movies for inspiring other disturbed men? I'm a firm believer in enforcing the law, particularly against violent offenders.

How are you going to "break up their groups" when their members and supporters inundate your Federal/State/County law enforcement agencies and State and Federal military?

Hell, half the male black population of the US has been in prison, mostly for petty drug crimes. Let them out and put your militia friends inside.

[Derek 2.0]

And a talking dog led another disturbed man to murder couples in their cars in New York city a little while back. Do we ban dogs? Do we ban the playing of Beatles songs of Jody Foster movies for inspiring other disturbed men? I'm a firm believer in enforcing the law, particularly against violent offenders.

I haven't suggested the banning of anything in regards to this story.

Hell, half the male black population of the US has been in prison, mostly for petty drug crimes. Let them out and put your militia friends inside.

Who exactly is going to "put them inside"?

Why did the Federal Government back down over the seizure of Bundy's cattle in Nevada in 2014?

[eyeball]

The Bundy group is really protesting the fact that federal land has rules. They chose a wildlife refuge because the land and animals are protected and then vowed to bring back all the "hunters, loggers and miners." Their idiotic point seems to be that if you've lived in an area for a long time you have a right to do whatever you want on the land, whether you own it or not. The original Bundy standoff with law enforcement stemmed from the fact that they were using federal land to graze their animals and refused to pay for the right to do so

It is idiotic to assume you can do anything you want but it wouldn't be idiotic to dial that expectation back and meet the federal government halfway and propose co-management of the region's land and resources by people who rely on them for their livelihoods. There should be room for establishing an adjacency principle whereby local people are given some meaningful say in how the region they call home is managed. And why shouldn't that be constitutionally protected? Co-management was proposed by people up and down coastal BC and might have gone a long way towards preventing Ottawa from obliterating BC's salmon.

Notwithstanding their methods or extreme free-for-all attitude I suspect there is a basis for a legitimate grievance here.

[Argus]

Who exactly is going to "put them inside"?

That would be the law and those who enforce it. Here's news for you, Derek. Just because the president is black doesn't mean the law no longer applies.

Why did the Federal Government back down over the seizure of Bundy's cattle in Nevada in 2014?

Because some dithering bureaucrat or politician was afraid to enforce the law.

Guys like this should have shot on sight.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bundy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4

I note that the report on the incident contained the following:

The SPLC report finds that this reawakened movement has drawn a very dangerous lesson from the standoff, which ended with the Bureau of Land Management backing off and leaving the ranch: a lesson that the federal government can be scared off by heavily armed militias.

And this

“Militia snipers lined the hilltops and overpasses with scopes trained on federal agents.

http://www.thenation.com/article/12-scariest-parts-new-report-bundy-ranch-standoff/

These people are not patriots, they're lunatics and anarchists and bible thumping rednecks with single digit IQs. If local authorities don't have the numbers and weaponry to confront large groups of them the feds should form large rapid response units under the FBI, or fund state governments to authorize creation of similar units formed out of their national guard units in order to immediately confront and subdue those large groups of armed lunatics.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

That would be the law and those who enforce it. Here's news for you, Derek. Just because the president is black doesn't mean the law no longer applies.

Who brought up skin color of the President?

Because some dithering bureaucrat or politician was afraid to enforce the law.

Guys like this should have shot on sight.

Actually no, because the Federal Government and its enforcement agencies didn't want to repeat the fiasco that was the Waco siege under the Clinton Administration.......which made the Davidians martyrs and resulted in the deaths and injuries of over 800 people exactly two years later in Oklahoma City.

These people are not patriots, they're lunatics and anarchists and bible thumping rednecks with single digit IQs. If local authorities don't have the numbers and weaponry to confront large groups of them the feds should form large rapid response units under the FBI, or fund state governments to authorize creation of similar units formed out of their national guard units in order to immediately confront and subdue those large groups of armed lunatics.

They already have such units.......the "problem" is that said units are inundated by the people that you seek to "punish", and if you start to use the Federal Government to kill "bible thumping rednecks", said "bible thumping rednecks" that just spent the last 14 years killing people and blowing things up overseas will start killing people and blowing things up in the United States.

Hence why the US Federal Government isn't going to confront this group in Oregon with violence...........there isn't even a State or Federal law enforcement presence outside the refuge for a reason.

[eyeball]

They have 300 million guns Argus plus the belief the Framers wanted them to be armed...to prevent the government from doing what you just suggested.

Get yourself some popcorn and watch and learn.

Then you'll know what to do when the Liberals take over the rest of the government. As you know they already have the CBC and Elections Canada.

You do realize just how conservative these ranchers are don't you? I'm really surprised you're not more supportive of them.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Get yourself some popcorn and watch and learn.

Don't Canadians always watch anyway...guns or no guns ?

[eyeball]

Don't Canadians always watch anyway...guns or no guns ?

Probably, but we're watching our best friends in the world -the shiniest beacon on the planet for liberty - arguing people need to be armed to defend themselves from their governments. Actually watching people put this conviction into action should be an exhilarating time for anyone who is concerned their own government is out of their control and out to get them.

We're deferential to authoritah in a far more thorough way than Americans.

[bush_cheney2004]

Probably, but we're watching our best friends in the world .....

We're deferential to authoritah in a far more thorough way than Americans.

Best friends ? Friends don't let friends drive to give up their guns.

[eyeball]

That's just a bumper slogan, friends let friend's do all sorts of stupid destructive things all the time.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's just a bumper slogan, friends let friend's do all sorts of stupid destructive things all the time.

See what I mean...you even know American slogans from our Ad Council, first created in 1942 to sell war bonds to Americans with gun rights.

Edited January 6, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

See what I mean...you even know American slogans from our Ad Council, first created in 1942 to sell war bonds to Americans with gun rights.

No I don't actually, what was it?

[bush_cheney2004]

"Remember, always...lock it up" (Ad Council public service message acknowledging American gun rights).

I would link the actual video but management has just declared that verboten.

[eyeball]

Do the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America sell war bonds in the event they have to go to war against their own government?

[On Guard for Thee]

Then you'll know what to do when the Liberals take over the rest of the government. As you know they already have the CBC and Elections Canada.

Careful, B_C will take you seriously on that.

[On Guard for Thee]

You do realize just how conservative these ranchers are don't you? I'm really surprised you're not more supportive of them.

Reality is problematic for conservatives at times it seems.

[bush_cheney2004]

Do the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America sell war bonds in the event they have to go to war against their own government?

No, they sell guns and dope to Canadians to raise money.

[eyeball]

Careful, B_C will take you seriously on that.

I actually directed that at Argus but I think he's under orders not to respond to me these days or something.

[eyeball]

No, they sell guns and dope to Canadians to raise money.

Now you're just being silly.