Terrorism in Oregon

[Canine]

I'm totally fine with armed seditionists- depending on the context of course. Can't just go waving guns around surpassing court remedies every time something doesn't go your way. If it is a situation similar to the Battle of Athens, then yes, I'm OK with it. Few would think those people were crackpots.

Or like in Hurricane Katrina when people were illegally and unconstitutionally disarmed. Many were, but not all. Quite a few stood their ground and said no. The law enforcement officers backed down to those few who stood up for themselves. Armed resistance in this case was a good thing and completely justifiable despite not having gone to court to pursue a remedy. This was an immediate emergency that could not wait for the courts to make a decision.

I hope I'm making a good enough apples to apples analogies why armed resistance can be justified.

I have tons of sympathy and strong support for those who use the minimum amount of force necessary to keep Federal, State, or local government in check. Sometimes lethal force is necessary and reasonable.

I am not saying the armed conflict in Oregon is justified or it isn't. What I am saying is that there are rare times when, as a last resort, armed resistance is justified.

States do not always submit to the Federal government; Federal does not always submit to State. The Federal government has a limited role in governing the U.S. There are many examples of where State has the authority over Federal.

I'm not sure what you are saying, gcal, but it does seem like you are saying that the Federal government almost always has sway over State and that armed resistance is inherently wrong. I'm glad you support non-armed resolutions such as voting or other legal resolutions, though; this is very important. We must use the least amount of force whenever possible. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

 

[gcal]

K

I'm totally fine with armed seditionists- depending on the context of course. Can't just go waving guns around surpassing court remedies every time something doesn't go your way. If it is a situation similar to the Battle of Athens, then yes, I'm OK with it. Few would think those people were crackpots.

Or like in Hurricane Katrina when people were illegally and unconstitutionally disarmed. Many were, but not all. Quite a few stood their ground and said no. The law enforcement officers backed down to those few who stood up for themselves. Armed resistance in this case was a good thing and completely justifiable despite not having gone to court to pursue a remedy. This was an immediate emergency that could not wait for the courts to make a decision.

I hope I'm making a good enough apples to apples analogies why armed resistance can be justified.

I have tons of sympathy and strong support for those who use the minimum amount of force necessary to keep Federal, State, or local government in check. Sometimes lethal force is necessary and reasonable.

I am not saying the armed conflict in Oregon is justified or it isn't. What I am saying is that there are rare times when, as a last resort, armed resistance is justified.

States do not always submit to the Federal government; Federal does not always submit to State. The Federal government has a limited role in governing the U.S. There are many examples of where State has the authority over Federal.

I'm not sure what you are saying, gcal, but it does seem like you are saying that the Federal government almost always has sway over State and that armed resistance is inherently wrong. I'm glad you support non-armed resolutions such as voting or other legal resolutions, though; this is very important. We must use the least amount of force whenever possible. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

From what I read of the Battle of Athens, first, the Federal government failed in its duty to the citizens of the state to address possible voter fraud. Second, the voters did not do their job, and repeatedly put corrupt politicians in office. The armed goal was to ensure that ballots were secured and counted properly and that the people who were actually voted in took office.  It was not, as it was in the Bundy circus, to impose their own policies in place of those of the legitimately elected government.

However, I am not sure, even under those corrupt circumstances, that I would condone the armed insurrection. Who is to determine when armed resistance is just? It is not a good idea to let just anyone who does not like public policy to decide that his rights have been violated and to react with force. That is what Bundy and his bunch did. They have, apparently, firmly convinced themselves that they are in the right. If you ask them, they will tell you that are as justified as the veterans in Athens.

There are remedies under the law. They may take time and persistence. But, in my opinion, they always are preferable to any loose cannon action by armed gangs in a representative government system.

 

[WriterMs]

The minute this group used force and guns, they lost any and all sympathy from me. AND from most of the country. Polls show even most of those who are generally anti-big government condemn this group because they are armed. Threatening to shoot people immediately DOES make them terrorists in most people's mind.

Those in this forum who are concerned about gun rights should be angry that this group is convincing more Americans that there are just too many "gun nuts" out there. NO, I am NOT saying most gun owners are hostile bullies...I do not believe that at all. I am saying guys like these damage the "image" of gun owners in the eyes of the general public.

The wildlife refuge exists to keep land and wildlife safe in sensitive areas. They do this for me and for the rest of our democracy (and for those of us who boondock now and then on refuge lands to enjoy the wildlife). The refuge folks are not being allowed to do their jobs.

What if I didn't like the way the Hammonds run their ranch? Can I get a group of folks together -- gather every gun we can find -- and go occupy their ranch house until they do things the way I want? I think this group needs to have every access cut off including jamming their cell phones... starve them out. If you behave like lawless thugs, you should expect to be treated as such.

 

[LeeRevell]

Lee, the government side is not any individual. It is the laws and policies of the country. They can be changed if enough people decide to do it. If the protesters had gone in there armed with protest signs and press releases instead of guns, they would have been allowed to stay until the day the sun explodes. No one would have dared to try to remove them. Their cause would have been aired and heard by the public without threats and intimidation, and the public would have considered it. Look at how long the unarmed Occupy Wallstreet protesters were allowed to stay, until they started making a sanitary and traffic nightmare of themselves. 

Bundy and his bunch may or may not have gotten what they wanted. The public has a right to decide against them. But their cause would have at least been heard and no one would have been arrested. It was their own choice for the presence of the guns and the open threats against public officials and law enforcement that doomed them. Most of us law abiding citizens are not at all hostile to our government. We generally have good experiences with it. We do not like to see its officials threatened and will instantly classify anyone who does so as dangerous crackpots. The second those threats start, we stop hearing anything else from those who make them.

Hehehe.  A humorous take on a bad situation for sure.  And it simply shows our completely opposite political views and philosophies.  You trust government implicitly.  Many of us don't, for glaringly obvious reasons.  But, though this entire situation is, at heart, a highly political thing, we need to avoid getting "political" in this website.  So, rather than take offense, I will have a good chuckle and move to better things.

 

[Canine]

I, too, am really disappointed in the mess in Oregon. I bet more than a few of the people who got involved got pretty embarrassed when they started realizing what was really going on. I'm all for standing up for what's right, but am not for using corruption to stand up to corruption.

 

[buckwilk]

K
From what I read of the Battle of Athens, first, the Federal government failed in its duty to the citizens of the state to address possible voter fraud. Second, the voters did not do their job, and repeatedly put corrupt politicians in office. The armed goal was to ensure that ballots were secured and counted properly and that the people who were actually voted in took office.  It was not, as it was in the Bundy circus, to impose their own policies in place of those of the legitimately elected government.

However, I am not sure, even under those corrupt circumstances, that I would condone the armed insurrection. Who is to determine when armed resistance is just? It is not a good idea to let just anyone who does not like public policy to decide that his rights have been violated and to react with force. That is what Bundy and his bunch did. They have, apparently, firmly convinced themselves that they are in the right. If you ask them, they will tell you that are as justified as the veterans in Athens.

There are remedies under the law. They may take time and persistence. But, in my opinion, they always are preferable to any loose cannon action by armed gangs in a representative government system.

I doubt the insurrectionists who became the founders of this country would agree with your stand. Armed gangs, as you call them, have stood against governments repeatedly and made life better for their people. "It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited federal government." Alexander Hamilton

 

[LeeRevell]

My main concern is the Bundys (the sons at least) used the Hammonds' woes to refocus attention on themselves, after the Hammonds quite clearly did NOT want the Bundys help or involvement.  The Bundys have themselves to blame for their hot water. 
While I have no liking for Big Government intrusion and jack-booted tactics with regard to We The People, this mess and the resulting violence and death could have been avoided.  Big_Gov is an attack dog, and noting to play around with.  When the time is right, I am all for defending our rights.  To the max, if necessary.  But the Bundy's, however well-intentioned they might have been, made a very bad choice, and their execution was all wrong.  They waved bloody meat in front of the attack dog.  Did they nothing from the Waco and Ruby Ridge atrocities?

 

[gcal]

My main concern is the Bundys (the sons at least) used the Hammonds' woes to refocus attention on themselves, after the Hammonds quite clearly did NOT want the Bundys help or involvement.  The Bundys have themselves to blame for their hot water. 
While I have no liking for Big Government intrusion and jack-booted tactics with regard to We The People, this mess and the resulting violence and death could have been avoided.  Big_Gov is an attack dog, and noting to play around with.  When the time is right, I am all for defending our rights.  To the max, if necessary.  But the Bundy's, however well-intentioned they might have been, made a very bad choice, and their execution was all wrong.  They waved bloody meat in front of the attack dog.  Did they nothing from the Waco and Ruby Ridge atrocities?

I do not think the Bundy's were well intentioned. I think it was greed and a feeling of entitlement. Wanting something doesn't guarantee that the public is going to agree to give up their rights to something so you can have it. The place to defend your rights is at the polls.

 

[oldnjung]

I do not think the Bundy's were well intentioned. I think it was greed and a feeling of entitlement. Wanting something doesn't guarantee that the public is going to agree to give up their rights to something so you can have it. The place to defend your rights is at the polls.

Exactly.  What if someone wanted to run a thousand sheep or hogs on the same public land as the Bundy's?  According to their way of thinking government regulation is only interfering with everyone's "freedom"!  They are really anarchists and thugs who want to control the land for themselves as if it were the "open range" in the old days.

 

[LeeRevell]

Mr. Finicum's own words on the Constitution and Rights:


It's a bit longwinded, but he discusses the BLM, and how they basically have 'stolen' public land.
I agree with him in principle, but believe they went about their 'protest' in the wrong way.  While it certainly is coming, the time is not yet here to begin "voting from the rooftops".

 

[mockturtle]

While I have nothing but contempt for the Bundys and their 'protest', I do not believe we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people"  as Lincoln proposed but rather a government controlled by special interests. More like a corporate oligarchy than a democracy.  To think otherwise is a bit naive, IMHO.

 

[Canine]

More like a corporate oligarchy than a democracy.  To think otherwise is a bit naive, IMHO.

When corporations were given the right to vote, that has diminished the value of a real person's vote. I call the United States of American, the Corporate States of America. :s

As far as changing government, I prefer petitioning as a way to redress changes in government. Voting is good, but I love that petitioning!

 

[gcal]

Mr. Finicum's own words on the Constitution and Rights:


It's a bit longwinded, but he discusses the BLM, and how they basically have 'stolen' public land.
I agree with him in principle, but believe they went about their 'protest' in the wrong way.  While it certainly is coming, the time is not yet here to begin "voting from the rooftops".

Can not watch that until I get up to Barnes and Noble. Video eats gigs like they are free and mine are limited. I will point out that the Federal government was the original owner of the land (after Mexico and the Indians). Ranchers and miners an lumbermen and states never owned the vast, vast majority of it. They used and exploited it, but they did not own it We the People did and it was supposed to be administered for us by the government. 

During the time that private commercial exploiters were allowed to use the land, unfetter by regulatory oversight, they ruthlessly despoiled it. Range wars, polluted rivers and stream, wholesale destruction of old growth forests, mining pollution (for which we are now paying 1 to 2 billion clean up), ramshackle dams that give way and cause flooding, overgrazing and more. It was not like the John Wayne movies, where the good guys always won and the deer and the antelope played, and Roy Rogers sang to the cattle. The golden age they are naustagic never existed off the silver screen.

Most of what I hear from this group confuses individual rights with public policies. People have a right to own guns and to vote. People do not have a right to point those guns at government employees to get their way by force because they do not like policies made by a government which was put in place by the voters. These people simply do not have a right to usurp public land which is not and never was theirs just because they want it. 

Most of the ranchers know this. They gripe about environmental restrictions and paying their (ridiculously low) grazing fees. But that because everyone likes to gripe. How many showed up for Bundy's silly ceremony to renounce their grazing contracts? ONE out of the entire nation! And he had to come from out of state to do it! The rancher who they wanted to "help" by destroying a refuge fence sent his own people out to repair it. Even the Hammond's wanted nothing to do with them.

These people do not represent anyone. From what I have read and seen on their videos, they are delusional, paranoid misfits who "want to take back" something they never owned and who "are defending their freedom" when they have nothing but freedom. Just my impression. They live under seige in their own little conspiracy world, where Big Brother is out to get them and society is going to collapse any minute and false flag operations are everywhere. Their biggest frustration is that the vast majority of us Sheeple do not see what they see, but they never stop to think that it might not be there.

 

[mockturtle]

As far as changing government, I prefer petitioning as a way to redress changes in government. Voting is good, but I love that petitioning!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Oregon was the first state to use the referendum and they and other states have used it very effectively ever since.  IMO, it's the only real vote 'we the people' have now.

 

[mockturtle]

Correction: I believe I meant 'initiative' rather than referendum. Both are good, though.

 

[Canine]

mockturtle, Believe it or not, not all states have an initiative or referendum process in their State Constitution! I just learned that and that blows me away. It is in the Bill of Rights at least. How that is applied varies greatly from state to state, but it is sometimes there. Knowing how all that works was and is confusing for me; I would need to study up on each individual state and get some help with some of the nuances.

If the problem is as bad as the Bundys say it is, then they could've spoken with a legislative representative to draft a bill that could have been voted on in the the legislature or turned over to the people as a petition for ballot then voted on in the popular vote or in some circumstances turned directly over to the popular vote.

Maybe the Bundys did that, but I haven't heard that. If they didn't use some form of initiative process, they should have. Yes, it is a lot of work to do that and it doesn't always succeed, but that is the price of freedom; having a quality government takes a lot of work. I like those initiative type process because that is more of a true democracy in action and sometimes it is pure democracy in action. When the government is put into the hands of the people, sometimes our elected officials lose out. The appointed officials often stay in office, though, and it takes a while to clean up the messes some of our elected officials create.

 

[mockturtle]

mockturtle, Believe it or not, not all states have an initiative or referendum process in their State Constitution! I just learned that and that blows me away. It is in the Bill of Rights at least. How that is applied varies greatly from state to state, but it is sometimes there. Knowing how all that works was and is confusing for me; I would need to study up on each individual state and get some help with some of the nuances.

We've used petition drives/initiatives a good deal in my home state of WA.  That's how we got marijuana legalized.

 

[pnwgypsy]

We've used petition drives/initiatives a good deal in my home state of WA.  That's how we got marijuana legalized.

We've even got a professional initiative peddler!

 

[gcal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Oregon was the first state to use the referendum and they and other states have used it very effectively ever since.  IMO, it's the only real vote 'we the people' have now.

This is not a state issue. The land never belonged to the state. The acknowledgement that the land remained under Federal control was included in the the state charters. Any grievance would have to be addressed at the Federal level. 

There has been an ongoing effort to accommodate private commercial interests where possible. Some of those interests are upset by the fact that they can't have it all their way any more like they were used to. But there are many other competing public interests that have to be accommodated, too. It is not all about getting as much short term profit out for a few private parties and leaving a depleted mess for everyone else.

 

[mockturtle]

gcal, I know this is not a state issue.  We got a little off-track.  Mea culpa.