Posted on 01/03/2016 4:13:57 PM PST by Kaslin
There’s a lot going on as regards the standoff in Oregon involving three of Cliven Bundy’s sons and the federal government. Jazz has already offered his opinion on the matter, and I mostly agree with him. But I’m not sure the term “armed troops†is appropriate to describe Bundy’s group because that suggests they’re in tactical gear. That doesn’t appear to be true based off what Ammon Bundy’s video posted on Facebook.
Standing for the rights of men & womenBREAKING! SHARE! Standing for the rights of Men & Women. Calling all freedom loving people to come to Harney County Oregon, come to the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility.
Posted by Bundy Ranch on Saturday, January 2, 2016
He repeated the comments to CNN this morning, calling his group "concerned citizens" who are acting to make sure ranchers have land for their children. It makes sense for Bundy to be concerned about ranchland, given what’s been going on with his father, but his methods are questionable because of how it can be spun in the media. The group showed foresight in taking over a remote, empty facility, but the way it’s being portrayed publicly is different. The Oregonian certainly seems to be ramping up the rhetoric against Bundy’s group (emphasis mine).
Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.
He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia’s presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.
The problem is The Oregonian is overblowing what Payne actually told Missoula Independent about what the “militia snipers” were doing during the Bundy Ranch situation last year.
“We locked them down,” Payne says. “We had counter-sniper positions on their sniper positions. We had at least one guy—sometimes two guys—per BLM agent in there. So, it was a complete tactical superiority. … If they made one wrong move, every single BLM agent in that camp would’ve died.”
That’s a lot different than the vague term "federal agents," and suggests Payne was just making sure his men could beat the Bureau of Land Management if it came to that. It’s also possible Payne was just bragging to puff up his own self-image, as BLM denied using snipers. But it’s ridiculous for The Oregonian to not provide better context to Payne’s statements. It’s also foolish to emphasize the fact Payne was armed whenever he talked to people. This may be a bit of a shock to the Left, but Oregon is an open carry state so Payne can carry a handgun without a problem. It doesn’t appear he was walking up to people, showing the gun and yelling, "WHO DO YOU SUPPORT?" but just carrying the gun for protection. It probably seemed odd to some people, but to others in rural Oregon it may not have been an issue. One thing which is an issue is the fact people in Burns don’t want Bundy’s group there. Bob Owens at BearingArms.com has a piece pointing this out, and how it could end up hurting more than helping.
These militiamen seem to be forgetting a key fact: a force opposing government only has a measure of philosophical legitimacy if the people want their support. In this instance, the Hammonds simply want to turn themselves on Monday and finish serving their time.
These militiamen need to stop attempting to hijack the Hammond case in an attempt to stay relevant, and let Dwight and Steven Hammond peacefully turn themselves in and finish serving their time.
So what happens if Bundy’s group decides to stick around and won’t leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Hopefully, not violence. This is where authorities need to show patience, and not do anything which ends up endangering the lives of anyone. Bundy’s group isn’t hurting people, and, at worst, is guilty of trespassing. Yes, they’re armed but that doesn’t mean SWAT needs to go rolling into the refuge or a drone be used to end the standoff. That would be the worst thing to happen, and bring back memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Federal and local authorities will just have to wait out Ammon Bundy and the rest of the occupiers, until they decide to leave. It may take a while, but it’s well worth it if no lives are lost. Bundy’s group needs to go, but having it happen through a haze of gun smoke and bodies is a bad idea.
Your “facts” are wrong.
"omg"?
The Constitution describes the structure of the federal government, the powers granted by the people to the federal government, the scope of federal law and jurisdiction, the method of adopting and amending the Constitution, and is followed by the Bill of Rights.
There is no "list of duties" in the document.
If you were knowledgeable concerning them, you would have something interesting to say.
Property taxes have been the reality of the Western world since the Roman republic.
Remember that one holds one's property either according to the law, or according to how much strength one has to prevent others from taking it.
Okay, so we’re arguing over definitions now. Does the federal government have a basic duty to serve the nation? Yes. Has it been given a list of the powers available to it in order to fulfill that duty? Yes. Can those powers therefore also be described as duties? Who freakin’ cares.
I sometimes feel like the people on FR are only here to limit their guilt for inaction. Why would the Feds KEEP the land in the first place? What great national need is served here? Why not cede the land to the States and let THEM decide how to use the land? Isn’t that PRECISELY the theory of the Republic? MORE power to smaller units- people, family, church, county, state, etc. LESS power to the central power? Why is this hard to understand?
Go back to the basics.
1. The Law, Fredric Bastiat.
2. The Federalist.
3. Common Sense, Thomas Paine
4. Declaration of Independence
Should take you a week.
Because it's theirs?
Why not cede the land to the States and let THEM decide how to use the land?
Why not let the states buy the land and do with it what they will?
They purchased it. Important distinction.
If you pay taxes on land you do not own it, you are a renter. This is a basic concept. Some States do NOT have property taxes, proving that your idea that they are a necessity to be patently without merit.
Calling the Constitution a "list" is not just a semantic error, it's a factual one.
Can those powers therefore also be described as duties?
No they can't.
A power is something that you may use.
A duty is something you must perform.
Meaningless, mindless drivel. It matters not how the land was acquired, what matters is it disposal. The Feds maintain control of land that serves NO NATIONAL PURPOSE. It is therefore antithetical to the BASIC idea behind the Constitution.
Like I said, meaningless, mindless, drivel. The Federal government serves itself. This is not the purpose of its existence. It’s PURPOSE, or DUTY, is to use the few enumerated powers it was GRANTED to serve the STATES. The States are responsible for the PEOPLE within their borders. No thinking individual would have thought at the time of the Founding that the framers would have presumed that the federal government had any jurisdiction over any individual within the borders of any State. SAME for the lands within the States.
I don't need to reread documents I have already closely studied, although I do like to reread The Federalist for pleasure from time to time.
I am not the one who mistook the Constitution for a list.
After they devalued it.
Here is how they operate:
http://www.landrights.org/ActionAlerts/HageMorrison_120904.pdf
OMG... The powers enumerated are a list of ... I give up. Wake up Neo.
No, it isn't.
Our entire legal system of land ownership is based on the common law, and almost all private land in the US is held in fee simple.
Some States do NOT have property taxes
But almost all municipalities do, even if the state itself does not.
It is a very rare thing in the Western world to pay no property taxes of any kind.
your idea that they are a necessity
Oh, I don't think they are a necessity. But the power to tax is essential to fee simple land holding.
I see English has escaped you as thoroughly as your powers of argument.
Again, the government is not obliged to exercise all of its powers at all times.
You are confusing obligation with ability.
A fair point.
So if someone were to decide that you were not disposing of your land properly, they are entitled to use it the way they would prefer?
No, I'm afraid how land was acquired matters very much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.