• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’[W:254:298:850,989]

Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Unitedwestand13 said:
OWS did not bring armed militias and threaten federal agebts.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, the discussion point is breaking the law and criminality.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

NIMBY said:
Since you ignore these terrorist snipers and other armed cowards hiding behind their kids, no .
Click to expand...

I see. What constitutes a "sniper" rifle? Do you know?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Kobie said:
It's good to know you're OK with people breaking the law as long as they're not liberals.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have no problem with people breaking the law so long as it's for something you like.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

mac said:
I'm sure you have no problem with people breaking the law so long as it's for something you like.
Click to expand...

And you drew that conclusion based on what?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

AJiveMan said:
When a militia group shows up armed to their calling,
federal people perceive that as a threat.
(intimidation)
Click to expand...
I can't make it any plainer than that.

I hope you understand that. I do. I'm not so sure of your reference to democrats or Holder.
As far as I know, federal agencies send people into the field without political bias,
Click to expand...
they have but one thing on their minds in the field, enforcement of law.



FBI — Terrorism Definition
Click to expand...

Given the definition of Domestic terrorism, you have it backwards.
The threat needs to be undertaken, initiated or planned by someone against someone before law enforcement is involved.
Like McVeigh or in Boston, for example.

There was no danger to human life on the Bundy Ranch ... just a grazing fee violation and someone with a motive of their own set a swarm of heavily armed BLM officers on Bundy.
Bundy wasn't intimidating or coercing anyone and there was no mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ... expect of cattle by the Government.
But it was within the territorial jurisdiction of the US ... you get that one.
Again, it doesn't come close to domestic terrorism.
But I'll say this much ... Harry Reid appears to be looking to incite violence and by definition he satisfies one of the elements.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
◾Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

bubbabgone said:
Given the definition of Domestic terrorism, you have it backwards.
The threat needs to be undertaken, initiated or planned by someone against someone before law enforcement is involved.
Like McVeigh or in Boston, for example.

There was no danger to human life on the Bundy Ranch ... just a grazing fee violation and someone with a motive of their own set a swarm of heavily armed BLM officers on Bundy.
Bundy wasn't intimidating or coercing anyone and there was no mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ... expect of cattle by the Government.
But it was within the territorial jurisdiction of the US ... you get that one.
Again, it doesn't come close to domestic terrorism.
But I'll say this much ... Harry Reid appears to be looking to incite violence and by definition he satisfies one of the elements.
Click to expand...

:agreed: Why is this being hyped and mischaracterized by Reid? And why is it okay to tase people who object to having their possessions - in this case cattle - taken from them? What is the reason behind this?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
:agreed: Why is this being hyped and mischaracterized by Reid? And why is it okay to tase people who object to having their possessions - in this case cattle - taken from them? What is the reason behind this?
Click to expand...

It's ok to tase someone who physically tries to prevent a lawful seizure of property or arrest. (subject to the usual continuum of force)
 
Last edited:
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Kobie said:
Of course, the number of people that actually do this is infinitesimal.

Bundy is trying to graze on federal land for free. He's a deadbeat.
Click to expand...

Armed Federal agents are deployed because someone is delinquent in paying some fees? c'mon. Kobie. You can't be serious!

As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the Feds even own the land in question. This will be interesting...

Greetings, Kobie. :2wave:
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
Armed Federal agents are deployed because someone is delinquent in paying some fees? c'mon. Kobie. You can't be serious!

As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the Feds even own the land in question. This will be interesting...

Greetings, Kobie. :2wave:
Click to expand...

and for ignoring a federal court order.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
Armed Federal agents are deployed because someone is delinquent in paying some fees? c'mon. Kobie. You can't be serious!

As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the Feds even own the land in question. This will be interesting...

Greetings, Kobie. :2wave:
Click to expand...

He was delinquent in paying fees for 20 years and for ignoring two federal court orders.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Deuce said:
It's ok to tase someone who physically tries to prevent a lawful seizure of property or arrest.
Click to expand...

From what I've been reading, this may not have been a lawful seizure. Who in the BLM ordered this?

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
Armed Federal agents are deployed because someone is delinquent in paying some fees? c'mon. Kobie. You can't be serious!

As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the Feds even own the land in question. This will be interesting...

Greetings, Kobie. :2wave:
Click to expand...

There isn't any question. The Feds own the land. Bundy is just arbitrarily claiming the land because of some ancestry bull****.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
From what I've been reading, this may not have been a lawful seizure. Who in the BLM ordered this?

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:
Click to expand...

It was lawful seizure, court order and all. But that's not relevant.

If a seizure or arrest is unlawful or unjustified, you do not have any redress at the scene. It doesn't matter if the officer is obviously in the wrong, if he says you are under arrest, you are under arrest. Your redress is down at the station and in the courtroom. Resistance at the scene, even if you really really really think the officer is wrong, is a good way to get shot. It's a crappy system when the officer is legitimately abusing their power, but that's the system. The alternative is to give people leeway to say "Nuh uh" when told they are under arrest, and that can only lead to more violence.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Deuce said:
It was lawful seizure, court order and all. But that's not relevant.

If a seizure or arrest is unlawful or unjustified, you do not have any redress at the scene. It doesn't matter if the officer is obviously in the wrong, if he says you are under arrest, you are under arrest. Your redress is down at the station and in the courtroom. Resistance at the scene, even if you really really really think the officer is wrong, is a good way to get shot. It's a crappy system when the officer is legitimately abusing their power, but that's the system. The alternative is to give people leeway to say "Nuh uh" when told they are under arrest, and that can only lead to more violence.
Click to expand...

This is so unbelievable to me! Not too long ago, garnishing wages, or withholding an income tax refund for the amount due, would have sufficed. Why is this drama now necessary? It's like making a tempest in a teapot - but why? We're all supposed to be living in fear of our government now? They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters!

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Kobie said:
And you drew that conclusion based on what?
Click to expand...

From reading your posts. I could be wrong, you may have been in complete opposition to, say, the ows illegal camping, I dunno. I'm sure you characterized them as criminals and terrorists. :shrug:
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
This is so unbelievable to me! Not too long ago, garnishing wages, or withholding an income tax refund for the amount due, would have sufficed. Why is this drama now necessary? It's like making a tempest in a teapot - but why? We're all supposed to be living in fear of our government now? They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters!

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:
Click to expand...

the land that the cattle was grazing on was federal land that belonged to the public. Bundy is openly voicing his contempt of federal law
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Deuce said:
There isn't any question. The Feds own the land. Bundy is just arbitrarily claiming the land because of some ancestry bull****.
Click to expand...

The American public owns the land.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Unitedwestand13 said:
the land that the cattle was grazing on was federal land that belonged to the public. Bundy is openly voicing his contempt of federal law
Click to expand...

So? He wouldn't be the first person to find some law contemptable.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

mac said:
From reading your posts. I could be wrong, you may have been in complete opposition to, say, the ows illegal camping, I dunno. I'm sure you characterized them as criminals and terrorists. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The people who committed crimes were criminals, just like Mr. Bundy is a criminal. I haven't characterized anyone as a terrorist.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

mac said:
So? He wouldn't be the first person to find some law contemptable.
Click to expand...

His argument of acknowledging the state law but not the federal law violates the Nevada's constitution.

Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
Click to expand...

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html#Art1
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Unitedwestand13 said:
the land that the cattle was grazing on was federal land that belonged to the public. Bundy is openly voicing his contempt of federal law
Click to expand...

But why? He must feel he's in the right somehow on whether or not it is in fact Federal land. Was it really necessary to tase him and his wife because they owed some fees to someone? Maybe he didn't pay those fees because he didn't believe the government owned the land? Had he even paid them one time, wouldn't that have been an admission that he thought they had the right to collect fees from him? I wouldn't be surprised if this matter went to the Supreme Court for a ruling, since the law seems to be a bit hazy on this, judging from what I've read!
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
But why? He must feel he's in the right somehow on whether or not it is in fact Federal land.
Click to expand...

That's nice.

polgara said:
Was it really necessary to tase him and his wife because they owed some fees to someone?
Click to expand...

They didn't tase him and his wife. His son was tased.

polgara said:
Maybe he didn't pay those fees because he didn't believe the government owned the land?
Click to expand...

Doesn't justify it.

polgara said:
Had he even paid them one time, wouldn't that have been an admission that he thought they had the right to collect fees from him?
Click to expand...

They do.

polgara said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this matter went to the Supreme Court for a ruling, since the law seems to be a bit hazy on this, judging from what I've read!
Click to expand...

Not particularly hazy. I don't know what you've read.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

polgara said:
This is so unbelievable to me! Not too long ago, garnishing wages, or withholding an income tax refund for the amount due, would have sufficed. Why is this drama now necessary? It's like making a tempest in a teapot - but why? We're all supposed to be living in fear of our government now? They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters!

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:
Click to expand...

You really need to read up on the history behind this. The penalties owed ended up topping a million dollars. You think a tax return is going to cover that? Additionally, it's not just about the money. The man had been ordered by the courts more than once to get his cattle off federal lands. He refused. What else are the feds supposed to do? Ask the cows nicely to leave? Send the cows a letter? Demand the cows pay the fine? The cows were being allowed to wander all over federal lands. The only way to stop that is to round them up. And you want to talk about drama? How about the guy who called in the tristate redneck brigade to drive off law enforcement officers who are only trying to do their very-much-justified job.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

mac said:
The American public owns the land.
Click to expand...

And until he pays me his ****ing fees he needs to stay off my damned land. Who the **** is he to think he can eat my grass for free?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom