• 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!

Militia around Bundy Ranch set up checkpoints, demand papers, control taffic flow

Lachean said:
What makes you think they wanted to shoot feds?
Click to expand...

I don't know, lying down on a bridge, aiming a rifle at the feds, all the incendiary talk, etc.
 
apdst said:
Anyone that owns a gun wants to shoot Feds.
Click to expand...
What a bizarre statement. You do a great disservice to your mentally stable gun owning counterparts.
 
a351 said:
What a bizarre statement. You do a great disservice to your mentally stable gun owning counterparts.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that I'm mentally unstable?
 
Paleocon said:
Detention without sufficient authority.
Click to expand...

No one has been detained. If that were the case, thousands of Occutards are guilty of the same crime, but...that's not the case.
 
apdst said:
No one has been detained. If that were the case, thousands of Occutards are guilty of the same crime, but...that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that all of the reports to the Sheriff's department were false?
 
FinnMacCool said:
People in this country have a right to peaceably assemble, which they did.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
But, they don't have the right to break the law in the process.

This is just another example of how Libbos are all about the law of the land, until those laws are no longer convenient....
Click to expand...

apdst said:
The OWS'ers are endangering the environment. That's why they were attacked.

How much green space has been destroyed by the OWS'ers?

Free speech doesn't over-rule enviromental safety goddamit!!!!!!
Click to expand...

:thinking
 
jonny5 said:
Its not about 'this' guy. Its about federalism. Unlike 'very liberal' posters, we 'usual people' dont make everything personal.
Click to expand...

It's not about this guy? Lol, alright - what is it about? Your right to graze on land you don't own?
 
beefheart said:
I don't know, lying down on a bridge, aiming a rifle at the feds, all the incendiary talk, etc.
Click to expand...

That guy? The alleged "sniper"?

That guy was over 500 yards away with a rifle without a scope, an AK (not known for accuracy) no less, he had no optics of any kind:
Protester+Eric+Parker+from+central+Idaho+aims+his+weapon+from+a+bridge+next+to+the+Bureau+of+Lan.jpg

He couldn't even hit the bridge in front of him if he wanted to:
lead.jpg

Just because he was in the prone position doesn't mean he was aiming at the feds, he couldn't even see the feds let alone aim at his own militia men in front of him.

No one was aiming at the Feds, the Feds however were ALL taking aim. They were the ones with snipers, threatening to shoot people.
 
Paschendale said:
Right, because violence is clearly solved by the application of more violence. Your solution to stop these people who think themselves above the law and everyone else is to act just like them. That's really the moral high ground.



Which is exactly what the armed "patriot" community is always saying it wants to do. It wants to attack the rest of the country to get its own way. This is that "second amendment solution" that we were threatened with.



Not really. Both are criminal and anarchist. Both destroy the rule of law for the personal gain of the people doing it. This is no different from how the mafia acts.

------------------------

This seems to me to be exactly what the armed fringe has been crying out for. This is that "second amendment solution" they were talking about, where people who don't like that they have to pay for the benefits we reap in this country wave their guns around and refuse to pay their taxes. They have taken over this area and are threatening innocent people with violence. These people, the supposed "patriots" who just "love freedom" are criminals. They want to use violence and force to control others. This is the culmination of all this pro-arms and anti-government nonsense. This is an attack on the fundamental rule of law by people who think their guns put them above it. The political engines that have been enabling and lauding this kind of behavior when it was hypothetical should be ashamed of what they have brought about.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a large difference. One is defending yourself and having the capability of doing so effectively. It insures the rule of law in a fair manner or more to the point it insures that the law being enforced is important enough to warrant confrontation with high potential of loss of government personnel and equipment. It helps to prevent the use of harassment by the law. The other are thugs harassing people going about their business. They are no better gang members.

The law is a tool. A tool of the mind. No more no less. It can be wielded like any other tool including the gun in a manner that is beneficial for people or it can be used in a manner that is unbeneficial. Like any other tool, there are well formed and exquisitely crafted laws, and there are crap laws not worth the paper they are written on and worth ignoring in their entirety. I believe in the rule of law when the laws are few and are known and properly wielded. What we have now is a bastardization of the rule of law. It is anarchy under the cover of law.
 
Lachean said:
That guy? The alleged "sniper"?

That guy was over 500 yards away with a rifle without a scope, an AK (not known for accuracy) no less, he had no optics of any kind:
View attachment 67165667

He couldn't even hit the bridge in front of him if he wanted to:
View attachment 67165668

Just because he was in the prone position doesn't mean he was aiming at the feds, he couldn't even see the feds let alone aim at his own militia men in front of him.

No one was aiming at the Feds, the Feds however were ALL taking aim. They were the ones with snipers, threatening to shoot people.
Click to expand...

Wrong on the distance from his location to the fence where the BLM personnel were standing - it is 100 yards.

BLM people can be seen in your second photo, just beyond the shadow thrown by the overpass

So the 'sniper' is just another macho man with a gun, doing nothing more than posing as a 'stand-up' guy facing down the jack-booted federalist thugs - amirite?
 
Jerry said:
You think I would go there without a plan? I don't live in Nevada, the only reason I would be in the area is to provoke an armed confrontation. No, if I'm there, it's by design, and part of that design probably involves a bus, not a car, full of armed like-minded people.
Click to expand...

THat would be murder dude, knowingly and intentionally planning to create a situation where you can kill someone under a specific circumstance is pre-meditated murder.
 
Somerville said:
Wrong on the distance from his location to the fence where the BLM personnel were standing - it is 100 yards.
Click to expand...

Source for that claim? Also FEW BLM were at the fence. Most of them, including their snipers were FAR back.

Somerville said:
BLM people can be seen in your second photo, just beyond the shadow thrown by the overpass
Click to expand...

Seen yes, accurately sniped no.

Somerville said:
So the 'sniper' is just another macho man with a gun, doing nothing more than posing as a 'stand-up' guy facing down the jack-booted federalist thugs - amirite?
Click to expand...

Given the old ladies around taking his picture, seems like a poser to me.
 
Wiseone said:
THat would be murder dude, knowingly and intentionally planning to create a situation where you can kill someone under a specific circumstance is pre-meditated murder.
Click to expand...

Not if you can SYG.
 
Lachean said:
Just because he was in the prone position doesn't mean he was aiming at the feds, he couldn't even see the feds let alone aim at his own militia men in front of him.
Click to expand...
When interviewed, this guy said he wasn't with a militia, he said "I'm an independent".

Just a random guy with a rifle, not operating in any organisation, certainly not under the authority of a comissioned officer, as militias are supposed to.
 
This is all a dishonest scheme that has very little to do with the law or "deadbeats" people. For two decades Bundy has not been paying, not due to him somehow not wanting to pay, but because of how the federal government altered the terms for grazing in such a way that it has apparently driven out every other rancher in the county. Before that he actually did pay grazing fees. For 20 years this has been going on without any massive crackdown. What has prompted this seizure is the fact that a bunch of big corporations with lots of personal and financial connections to Democratic politicos, especially Harry Reid, have been brought in to establish solar plants on various plots in the area. To compensate for the environmental damage such projects would yield, the emphasis has been on strengthening protections in areas not getting such plants and even relocating protected species to those areas. Bundy just happens to have his cattle grazing on one of those areas where there is a need for "mitigating" all the environmental damage Reid's corporate backers are going to cause in the region. More importantly, the crackdown began in earnest after one of Reid's former policy advisers rose to the top position in the relevant agency, an adviser whose entire rise to power there basically centered on the expansion of solar energy in the region.

None of this is about the law, except in so much that the law can be used as a crutch. It is all about corrupt state corporatism and federal thuggery. They are actually spending more money going after Bundy than they would get if he actually paid the exorbitant amount they are demanding. From what I can tell, his lack of payment has nothing to do directly with the large expense. Grazing fees are about a dollar per cow each month. His costs are overwhelmingly the product of a single court case over 15 years ago, which was a decision by a judge Reid himself nominated in the same year Reid began pushing through legislation to ease the selling of private developments rights on federal conservation areas in Clark County. This is all about corruption and abuse of power. All of the rest is just a cover.

I do not doubt that they have good cause to suspect there may be attempts to infiltrate the area. Hardly unusual for various federal agencies to sneak into dissenting political movements to sabotage their activities or provoke them into actions that can then be used as a basis for tougher action by the government. Such tried and true tactics have worked in the past.
 
Wiseone said:
Concerns growing about militia members at Bundy ranch - 8 News NOW

So like I said in other topics about this developing story, its gone beyond the unpaid fees for gazing on Federal land and turned into a question of whether or not we are going to allow an active insurgency to operate within this country.

Also, is it more ironic or sad that these folks who claim to want freedom are acting in exactly the manner of an authoritarian?
Click to expand...
A clerical branch of the government can casually mount a quasi-military operation with firepower sufficient to massacre hundreds of people instead of filing a lien at the local courthouse, and you're worried about some bloviating cowboys?


By the way, do you have the foggiest idea of how the country came to be? Insurrections are, and quite frankly always should be an available reaction to tyrannical government overreach. Read up on your Jefferson sometime.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
A clerical branch of the government can casually mount a quasi-military operation with firepower sufficient to massacre hundreds of people instead of filing a lien at the local courthouse, and you're worried about some bloviating cowboys?


By the way, do you have the foggiest idea of how the country came to be? Insurrections are, and quite frankly always should be an available reaction to tyrannical government overreach. Read up on yuor Jefferson sometime.
Click to expand...

*snicker*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom