The Oregon Standoff

[fishinwrench]

4 hours ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

It appears the gag order can be lifted. 

There has been an arrest at the local Safeway.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/01/15/first-bundy-militia-member-arrested.html

Now now, I'm sure he was gonna drive it back.  Maybe he got sent for tampons.....give the poor guy a break!

Nah,  I'm still anti-Monsanto, and all in favor of affordable free range beef.

 

[Mark]

I started this post because I was intrigued by the situation, but really didn't understand what it was all about. I feel like I have a better understanding now, thanks to all of your comments and explanations. I see that these people are in the wrong. I do hope law enforcements uses restraint and patience in bringing the standoff to a peaceful conclusion. None of them deserve to die in a shootout. I don't know exactly how many people are holed up in the reserve building, but doubt if they are all fanatical nuts. Maybe just a little misguided.

Still, there is something about people in the NW US that have a much different political view than other parts of the US. Many seem to be extremely liberal and extremely conservative, with a dose of extreme indivdualism,  and a pinch of fanaticalism, all at the same time.  So many different political views. There is always some political hot spots in that area of the country. Right or wrong, at least we live in a country where people can do these things without being massacred or locked up for life because of their political views.

I would expect the leaders will serve a year or two in fed pen, and rest will get a slap on the wrist. And I'm not opposed to that if the situations is resolved peacefully.

Good discussion guys. Forum was getting boring.

[Terrierman]

I do think what happened to the two ranchers seems like double jeopardy to me.  Tried once, convicted and sent to jail.  Now years later, tried again and sent to jail again, for the same crimes.  Not right in my book.  If a judge screwed up, go after him, not these guys. So there is that to consider.  But now its gone far beyond what started this in the first place, and is headed to how does it end?

[Al Agnew]

3 hours ago, Terrierman said:

I do think what happened to the two ranchers seems like double jeopardy to me.  Tried once, convicted and sent to jail.  Now years later, tried again and sent to jail again, for the same crimes.  Not right in my book.  If a judge screwed up, go after him, not these guys. So there is that to consider.  But now its gone far beyond what started this in the first place, and is headed to how does it end?

I agree with you there...I can understand the whole idea behind mandatory minimum sentences, and as I understand it the original judge who passed sentence on them started the whole ball of wax by ignoring the minimum mandatory sentence and just giving them what he thought was the "right" sentence.  This points out the problem with these kinds of things...mandatory minimum, zero tolerance, rules are rules...but in the real world things just aren't always that black and white.  Maybe these guys didn't deserve the mandatory minimum sentence.

So if strict adherence to the law required that they be sent back to jail, I can understand that, but perhaps somebody should have just let it be.

But as you said, now that's not the point.  The Bundy bunch used it as an excuse to get themselves into the limelight, but now they are on to their real agenda, which seems to be to battle the whole concept of federal public land--and probably public land in general--along with general thumbing their nose at the government.

[Terrierman]

Now those yahoos are messing with Paiute artifacts.  Somebody please arrest them and cart them to jail.  One or two at a time when they come to town if nothing else.

[fishinwrench]

  Is this gal making any good points, or is she a crackpot ?   I can't tell.

 

[MOPanfisher]

I have seen the video a couple of different places.   While some of her points seem plausible, I don't think the part about the Government not being able to own property holds water, at least I don't think so.  but what do I know.  I automatically have doubts about anyone who rants and raves and gets loud about a particular topic.  Maybe just a personal flaw of mine but a reasonable explanation would be more likely to convince me.  In the end she would have to convince the SCOTUS and I don't see that happening.

[Terrierman]

1 hour ago, fishinwrench said:

  Is this gal making any good points, or is she a crackpot ?   I can't tell.

 

Crackpot

[Greasy B]

Crackpot, she fits in well with the others. 

[SpoonDog]

The feds have the authority to acquire land through treaties with foreign powers, and to my knowledge there's nothing in the Constitution transferring land ownership at statehood.  This lady's real mad the federal government is behaving unconstitutionally because they're not following her policy- one which doesn't appear in the Constitution.  Ask yourself whether that makes any rational sense.  There's a reason she's arguing it on YouTube instead of a courtroom. 

 

It's a moot point, as the Bundy's and their supporters have demonstrated through their actions they're not interested in representative democracy.  I still haven't heard anyone explain how their actions- wresting control of land and resources from locals and then dictating how those lands and resources are used- is any different from what they allege the feds are doing.