We HAD the land FIRST!!
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.
Perfectly stated.
Some conservatives seem to have forgotten that we all have responsibilities as well as rights, and that if we do not abide by our responsibilities then there are those who will not abide by their responsibility to respect our rights.
You are really biased on your history and indeed you are stretching a long way to dislike a group of Americans. I own land also, and I lease it. Your tenant has no where near the rights that these men had to the land they were leasing...it really isn’t the same thing. And, indeed their crime was that when making a fire break on their own land some of the fire went off an burned a few acres (138) which is minutely small piece. The government decided to call it arson, which was a stretch but allowed them to bring it under the Terrorist Act which has severe penalties. They literally cowed this poor family. Who then did their time as per the sentence given to them. Then after they were released a federal judge decided that they had to do the 5 years (after they served the sentence given them) this is double jeopardy in reality and it is also tyranny.
“If you were knowledgeable concerning them, you would have something interesting to say.”
I did...you are just too ignorant or stupid to understand it. I don’t like repulsive people who unwittingly spew bs against others whether it is out of ignorance or arrogance. You fit into one or both of those categories. So, let’s end this “discussion” here, you have absolutely no value to me in any sense of the word and my entire motivation would be to just belittle you more.
Wow! I wonder how much that cost the Hammonds.
Could you define the term, “fee simple”. This is the first time I am seeing this expression.
Also....Why are property taxes essential? I don't see why they are.
Is it appropriate, in an industrialized society, to continue this?
What hill then because the gun grabbers are on the march? It has already gone too far. Here is Virginia it is on edge with the new worthless law that just hit. The membership for VCDL is growing faster (by 5 times) since it hit. You are not seeing the problem.
Afghanistan?
I see.
I had no idea that this was what a reasoned argument looked like.
I had, foolishly and dimly of course, expected hard citations and logical discourse.
If only we all could cultivate your great wisdom and your gentle manner.
(2) The purpose of property taxes in agricultural society was to support the expenses of government, which is what it used for today - although government has become much larger due to social programs that previously did not exist.
The 2A is precisely the right hill.
The problem with property taxes is that they are essentially rent to the government landlord. If one fails to pay the taxes ( government rent) the government landlord evicts the owner ( someone who is essentially a renter.)
“If only we all could cultivate your great wisdom and your gentle manner.”
I think you kind of stand out as the guy who got hit with the stupid stick...your repulsive comments do not deserve respect of conversation. You have branded yourself a fool.
That isn’t good. And is part of the reason for this situation.
But look into the history of why that happened. The “investors” wanted to have the fedgov own the land so they could lease it back at below cost of ownership.
Again, this is family history for me (not in Nevada, but in the west)
We HAD the land FIRST!!
From...?
The powers over us MUST have as many taxes (not amount) as possible to spread the money as wide as possible.
If a persons TOTAL tax bill was really known; well; some folks might get upset and occupy stuff!
There are two basic ways, historically, to own land: to hold legal title to it, or to hold it by the sword.
If you have legal title, your ownership is guaranteed by the legal authority that administers title.
Property taxes aren't rent, since a landlord has the right to take back any property after your death, you have no right to sell or transfer the lease to a relative or friend, and your family has no right to inherit the lease.
If you own land and pay your taxes on it, you are guaranteed the right to sell it to any person you choose, you can will it to whomever you choose, and your family can assert title to it after you've gone.
And the connection between property taxes and government support is ancient: in theory the government guarantees your title, and it is able to guarantee it because your taxes enable it to physically defend your title from squatting and invasion even if you are too weak to physically defend it yourself.
False. Bundy was more than willing to pay his fees and tried on several occasions to pay his county. To pay the feds he would have been required to sign a contract that had put several nearby ranchers out of business. He is still there only because of support and because he did not sign..
Please get your facts straight. It amazes me that so many freepers are uneducated about the feds taking over the west and taking over ranches to shut them down.
The previous owners.
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.