d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Hammonds, Bundys, Oathkeepers, Militias
Prev123423Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 66,064
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Jan 3 2016 10:57pm
Quote (tman65ky @ 4 Jan 2016 05:50)
a lot of people are griping that its the same situation that happened in Nevada ref the grazing rights etc and its not. I think these people have a legitimate gripe this time but the action they've taken....extreme to say the least. This will not end well for them especially if they start shooting. I can assure you that the BLM will not come under gunned/manned this time.


recently read since 2008 20% of americans are living on federal social help, i guess some people have to pay
problem is the very very rich ones, close to the political power, are maybe paying less...
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jan 3 2016 10:59pm
Quote (tman65ky @ Jan 3 2016 10:50pm)
a lot of people are griping that its the same situation that happened in Nevada ref the grazing rights etc and its not. I think these people have a legitimate gripe this time but the action they've taken....extreme to say the least. This will not end well for them especially if they start shooting. I can assure you that the BLM will not come under gunned/manned this time.


Does anyone else see the problem with how the Bureau of Land Management could be considered "under gunned"?
Member
Posts: 77,539
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Jan 3 2016 11:00pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jan 3 2016 10:06pm)
Why does the federal government need to own 53% of Oregon?


the government is the people my friend
Member
Posts: 13,313
Joined: May 20 2004
Gold: 253.00
Jan 3 2016 11:11pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jan 3 2016 11:59pm)
Does anyone else see the problem with how the Bureau of Land Management could be considered "under gunned"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Quote
On the morning of April 12, an armed crowd rallied under a banner that read "Liberty Freedom For God We Stand". Most had signs, many of which chided "government thugs". Addressing the protestors, Bundy said, "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way" and "We're about ready to take the country over with force!" After the BLM announced a suspension of the roundup, Bundy suggested blocking a highway.[66] Armed protesters blocked a portion of Interstate 15 for more than two hours, causing traffic backups for three miles in both directions.[77] Protesters also converged at the mouth of Gold Butte, the preserve where the cattle were corralled, and a tense, hour-long standoff ensued. BLM rangers warned over loudspeakers that they were prepared to use tear gas.[66] Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who was with the protesters, said that they were "strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it's going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers".[25] Protestors took positions on a highway overpass, seemingly offering cover as horse-mounted wranglers led protesters to face off against heavily equipped BLM rangers and snipers.[66] Utah Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox, who officially traveled to the Bundy standoff to convey that Utah did not want the cattle, put the number of federal agents present at over 200.[78] According to Las Vegas assistant sheriff Joe Lombardo, there were 24 BLM rangers and Las Vegas deputy sheriffs present at the standoff.[79] Las Vegas police were not allowed to wear protective gear because of fear that it would be seen as a provocation.[80] Clark County Sheriff Gillespie blames the escalation of the situation on the BLM, stating to the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the BLM has lied to him about having a place to take the cattle and the BLM did not attend town-hall meetings and disregarded his advice as County Sheriff.[81]


I can assure you this time all their fellow three letter abbreviation federal agencies are coming to the party. Seizing government property and stopping a controversial cattle roundup are two very different things, some are classifying this as an act of terrorism.
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jan 3 2016 11:13pm
Quote (tman65ky @ Jan 3 2016 11:11pm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff



I can assure you this time all their fellow three letter abbreviation federal agencies are coming to the party. Seizing government property and stopping a controversial cattle roundup are two very different things, some are classifying this as an act of terrorism.


That wasn't my point. The issue is that the BLM even needs a weapons arsenal to begin with.
Member
Posts: 13,313
Joined: May 20 2004
Gold: 253.00
Jan 3 2016 11:20pm
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jan 4 2016 12:13am)
That wasn't my point. The issue is that the BLM even needs a weapons arsenal to begin with.


Ah gotcha

I'm pretty sure that they do act as some form of law enforcement. and my tablet is screwing up my link post lol





Member
Posts: 15,960
Joined: Nov 29 2008
Gold: 40.64
Jan 4 2016 12:31am
The battle over public lands has been going on for over 100 years. BLM tries to balance the use with everybody, and rightfully so since it belongs to ALL of the people, including you. It's been a turbulent issue several times in the past. Some people want to use the land for mining, cattle grazing, logging, oil, gas, coal, recreation, conservation, or preservation. And the government does issue permits to do all of those things on public lands.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 - In this law, congress created a unified bureau mission and recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. The law directed that these lands be managed with a view toward "multiple use". 'Multiple use' is defined in the Act as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."

I dont know what these militants and protesters think they are going to accomplish by occupying that building. But i think their continued occupation will be a violation of the above mentioned Act. That is public land and they are unfairly taking it for their own personal use without a permit. It will be up to the attorney general to take action. But no need to get in a hurry. I would guess the government will cut off the electricity, water, and supply lines to the building. I think the FBI could surround the property and not let anybody in because they are conducting an investigation, serving warrants, surveying a crime scene, or some other excuse. Then its only a matter of time before hunger and thirst sets in.

This post was edited by NatureNames on Jan 4 2016 12:36am
Member
Posts: 15,114
Joined: Nov 18 2005
Gold: 89,176.00
Jan 4 2016 03:33am
Quote (tman65ky @ Jan 3 2016 10:39pm)
I don't know enough to form an opinion but from what I read they where arrested for doing an "unauthorized" control burn to protect their winter feed from wild fires in 2001. Federal firefighters saw them and the fires they set spread to public land under the control of the BLM. The big stink about this is they where already convicted and served a year in jail and now the courts have thrown that sentence out and imposed a new one of 5 years. That part seems shady as fuck. I did also read the story of how they supposedly massacred a deer heard and set the fire to cover the evidence but I don't know if they where convicted for poaching.


The first judge violated the 5 year minimum sentencing required by law.
Judges aren't allowed to overrule mandatory sentences, even if they're grossly unfair in the situation.
The prosecution appealed and won.

These kinds of injustices happen all the time due to mandatory sentencing laws (most commonly in cases involving nonviolent drug offenses).
We need bipartisan support to gut those minimum sentences and clear out the millions of nonviolent offenders that have been in our prison system for way too long (and costing taxpayers a fortune).
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jan 4 2016 06:01am
If a piece of land is physically open and nobody is using it, and there is literally nothing on it, it isn't owned by anybody and anybody can use it.

This is the only reasonable natural law.
Member
Posts: 10,522
Joined: Jun 2 2008
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 40%
Jan 4 2016 06:22am
Quote (Skinned @ 4 Jan 2016 13:01)
If a piece of land is physically open and nobody is using it, and there is literally nothing on it, it isn't owned by anybody and anybody can use it.

This is the only reasonable natural law.



Says all the less intelligent nonsense communists.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123423Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll