If ‘these people’ were defending OUR LIBERTIES as you say, why the heck weren’t they out in force when Occupy protesters were getting gassed or anti-war protesters were being corralled into ‘free-speach’ zones? These illusions of these militias coming to defend freedom is, unfortunately, a sad beer induced delusion.
22 Likes
I suspect that any use of the word “Sovereign” is a shout out to the “Sovereign Citizens” militia folks, who are notorious cop killers, having killed a couple dozen LEOs over the last 20 years, often bushwhacking cops during routine traffic stops.
3 Likes
And where were they when Transcanada (a foreign company) was trying to seize Nebraska farmland for the Keystone pipeline?
8 Likes
Technically speaking, you do have the right to defend yourself as an American citizen. That is why a police officer can not enter your home without a warrant to do so - it’s the fourth amendment. It’s also the reason why the NSA is completely wrong in its warrant-less wire tapping and everyone knows it.
If a police officer entered your home without probable cause you can defend yourself - please note: I’m not advocating violence towards those that help citizens. Other wise how would you know if he was judiciously correct in doing so, he could just “want” to raid your house.
The reason why they are defending themselves is the state refused to accept Bundy’s grazing fees. He tried paying the county, but they refused. He would not pay the feds because they have no jurisdiction in his views. They have yet to produce a warrant from a judge to take his cattle from the state of Nevada. This is why the fight is happening. Race or other reasons may be personal not the basics of reason.
This is also why gun nuts are often viewed as nuts. They fear a government selling land to a Chinese company or any other foreign entity or country for that matter. In this case, just so the Feds can butter the bread to help China buy the Feds bonds, keeping America afloat through our qualitative easing, massive debt, period. That’s one reason for the second amendment, not just hunting. Right or wrong; They are not “nuts” just protective.
1 Like
I actually prefer Day of Defeat. That aside, I have rifles, scoped, and unscoped. None of them are the quick release type. I do however understand that there are some very good models made by Burris and Leupold. But what I also understand, is that the real issue here is abuses by the Federal government against a citizen that was on a sufficient scale to bring people out, at great personal risk, to help defend those rights. They understand that the issues are bigger than just some cattle on State property that a Federal agency is trying to take control of.
That deal was canceled last year, so at this point it’s a zombie conspiracy theory. And that was federal land, not Bundy’s ranch. And apparently the Chinese development was nowhere near Bundy’s ranch except in an Alex Jones article. But fuck yeah, who isn’t willing to go kill some people based on something they read on Alex Jones (or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion)?
Here’s a different perspective from someone who seems to have actually been in Nevada.
7 Likes
He didn’t try to pay his fees because he’s not paying the people to whom he owes the fees. Yes, when he tried to pay completely different people, they didn’t take his money (as it would be illegal for them to do so). Just because he refuses to recognize their legal authority doesn’t change it. I can refuse to recognize the legal authority of the California Franchise Tax Board to charge me state income tax but that doesn’t mean they won’t come get their money anyway (or take my house).
Gun nuts are labled “nuts” in situations like this because they show up with guns and point them at people, often other people actually legally empowered in the situation to point their guns back and, if these second people shot, to win in any court determination. If you point a gun at cops doing their job, you will lose. Period. Doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong, it is the way the law is set up. Don’t like it? Change the laws. The rest of us look at people toting guns and pointing them at cops over some rancher’s land dispute with the feds and, rightly, go “These guys are crazy.”
14 Likes
WTF is up with these people. Talk about hypocrites. These people DO NO OWN the land. This is over PUBLIC lands. Talk about a bunch of ‘takers’. This is the lunatic fringe, which unfortunately has been embraced and egged on by the Republicans. But seriously. Screw these nuts.
6 Likes
Some more information and analysis for those interested here:
http://appalachianareanews.com/busted-bundy-ranch-siege-really-about-harry-reid-backed-solar-power-stations/
Simple - because everything and every movement is politicized. Often times the actual issues aren’t looked at, only which team is playing.
2 Likes
I’m not for trigger-happy cops. I think there’s been enough cases of people and pets being wrongfully killed, some unarmed, some armed with a pocket knife from 20 feet away. Some were just cold-blooded executions.
Anyhow…
Without any need to take sides here, I think this is a clear-cut case of a legitimate reason for police officers to use deadly force.
If this guy were killed by a police sniper, it would have been entirely 100% justified, without a doubt.
Here you have someone pointing a firearm at a crowd of law enforcement officials. What other justification do they need? Does this guy need to kill someone first? Nope. He just has to pose a threat. And behold this picture.
I dare anyone do the same thing with a handgun if they get pulled over for speeding, even if they’re absolutely convinced that being pulled-over is unfair. Their ass would be toast, and rightfully so.
Yet I do think it was handled the right way by allowing it to de-escalate.
2 Likes
OMG a coverup! Documents about the Chinese solar farm have been “purged” from the website!
Oh wait, the project was canceled last year, so it’s not a “coverup.”
And these article refers to BLM land as “Bundy’s land,” which it is not.
Also the proposed Chinese plant was in Laughlin NC over two hours away from Bundy’s ranch. To get there you must drive aroun Lake Mead and Las Vegas.
.
10 Likes
Well thats why your not present. It’s a very tense situation, both sides are pointing. Diplomacy is very important right now.
Both sides are quite freaked out. Please dont start ranting on what others should do.
I am merely trying to observe both sides.
I would never enter some ones house without the right to do so.
No enforcement officer ever wants to be in this situation; Ever.
The property described as “Bundy’s Land” is his actual Ranch property, not the disputed BLM administered property used by Bundy for grazing.
Please get the facts. He has been paying for many years. It is more complicated than is being reported by most mainstream medias.
Some Important Facts:
- Senator Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid represents Chinese ENN Energy Group, involved in a deal to build a $5 Billion Solar project on the land where the Bundy Ranch is located.
- BLM removed the page on their web site that talks about the solar project but this page has been found in Google’s cache and then removed. But many have copied the content and taken screenshots. The link below has one of those screenshots.
- Regarding fees paid and not paid by Bundy, I recommend you investigate deeper before characterising the situation as him “essentially squatting”.
Please investigate a bit more about the Bundy Ranch standoff and I would love to see you all write a more factual article. The title you chose challenges my need for truth and fairness.
The truth about this situation: http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told
So is the Atlantic article a pure fabrication then? Because it opens with
Twenty-one years ago, rancher Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees
…and goes on in some detail about Bundy’s, shall we say, unorthodox interpretation of the state and federal Constitutions.
I suppose it’s possible that all press coverage of this story is flat-out lies, but I see no reason why I should put more faith in an anonymous and unsubstantiated internet comment.
14 Likes
The article uses standard conspiracy theory technique of quotes from different sources as if they were related. First there is a quote about Bundy’s land and there is a quote about the proposed Chinese project in Laughlin, without mentioning that they are more than 100 miles apart and that the Chinese project never got past the talking stage.
And the site you link to has already published a front page retraction and apology, so good for them. I was browsing around to see if they were the usual conspiracy crapfest, but they actually seemed better than that. And the retraction was appreciated by me.
http://appalachianareanews.com/harry-reid-chinese-bundy-ranch-land-grab-actually-shelved-in-2013/
14 Likes
But what you seem to completely miss is that the story is founded on this “citizen” refusing to obey federal law by paying for services he was provided, ie. grazing access. So, yeah, you’re pretty much wrong all over
10 Likes
