The Oregon Standoff

[Haris122]

I saw some pictures of the militia tearing down fences that delineate the actual refuge where cattle couldn't graze, so some cattle owner can graze his cattle within the actual refuge. With asshats like that there would be no wild animals in this world, just cattle. Not that I had any sympathy for those thieving assholes thinking they can just pretend public land is theirs and only theirs to do with as the wish, but now for sure I wish they make them dearly regret they ever got the idea to pull that dung.

[fshndoug]

I wish I could get away with owing a million bucks.Just throw up a blockade and let them starve to death .Cut off all power,it gets cold in that part of the country.They give white people a bad image.

[Mark]

Question: How did the fed govt acquire all of the fed land? Has it been fed land since the birth of the state of Oregon? I read that one issue that ranchers have is the questionable methods the govt used to acquire the land. Oregon is a big state, and if half the land is fed owned, that's alot of land that the state is not receiving any tax revenue on. Is any of the land ever for sale? Or is the land designated fed land for eternity?

Trying to understand the entire situation.

[mic]

54 minutes ago, Mark said:

Question: How did the fed govt acquire all of the fed land? Has it been fed land since the birth of the state of Oregon? I read that one issue that ranchers have is the questionable methods the govt used to acquire the land. Oregon is a big state, and if half the land is fed owned, that's alot of land that the state is not receiving any tax revenue on. Is any of the land ever for sale? Or is the land designated fed land for eternity?

Trying to understand the entire situation.

The federal government has owned the land since the Louisiana purchase.  Individuals have bought the land or received it through land grants (for example the homesteader act).  Over the years, they have bought some back for national parks and such.  As I understand it, which could be wrong, the cattle barrens that ran those counties used the land for free for there cattle for as long as there have been cattle there.  I "think" it was Teddy Roosevelt who started to put restrictions on the land for conservation purposes, and the restrictions have grown from there.  Ironically, the area they are in now (as I have read) is restricted because it is a wet land that support bird migrations.  

Here is my concern... if the government sales "our land" back to "the people" then it will only go to the rich or worse to corporate farms.  It isn't going to go to the small rancher that really needs the lands to support his/her family.  Working for the government for as long as I have, I'm sure "we the people" have over done it.  I would respect them more and be willing to listen more if they were using "sit in" type tactics, but as I said before they are terrorists who just haven't killed anyone yet. 

[jtram]

Everyone on here seems to have forgotten the reason for this. They were convicted of arson, served their time in prison, and then when da govamint decided they didn't do enough time they were sent back to the big house. THAT IS HEINOUS. I have a great amount of respect for Americans who aren't afraid to stand up to the government when the government has overstepped its boundaries. 

[mic]

27 minutes ago, jtram said:

Everyone on here seems to have forgotten the reason for this. They were convicted of arson, served their time in prison, and then when da govamint decided they didn't do enough time they were sent back to the big house. THAT IS HEINOUS. I have a great amount of respect for Americans who aren't afraid to stand up to the government when the government has overstepped its boundaries. 

jtram... I would agree with you, but Bundy isn't there calling for their release.  He is calling for the government to sell the land to the locals.  HOWEVER - PS... I assume you are on the conservative side of the political spectrum.  NOTE... the reason they are going back is because of mandatory minimum sentences were not applied the first time.  These were put in place because "liberal judges had to much flexibility in sentencing (during the big drug wars of the late 80/early 90s)".  It would seem to me, we (myself included) can't have it both ways, one for urban youth and one for a rancher.  Second note... He was found guilty by a juror of his peers... I assume it probably included some rural land owners.  Final note... there are reports the first fire was an attempt to cover up poaching.  Now, that wasn't proven in court. 

[jtram]

37 minutes ago, mic said:

jtram... I would agree with you, but Bundy isn't there calling for their release.  He is calling for the government to sell the land to the locals.  HOWEVER - PS... I assume you are on the conservative side of the political spectrum.  NOTE... the reason they are going back is because of mandatory minimum sentences were not applied the first time.  These were put in place because "liberal judges had to much flexibility in sentencing (during the big drug wars of the late 80/early 90s)".  It would seem to me, we (myself included) can't have it both ways, one for urban youth and one for a rancher.  Second note... He was found guilty by a juror of his peers... I assume it probably included some rural land owners.  Final note... there are reports the first fire was an attempt to cover up poaching.  Now, that wasn't proven in court. 

A lot of speculation on the poaching. I dont agree with everything bundy is doing, I do feel as if the government is overusing its power to set an example and to keep others too afraid to challenge. To me (a conservative libertarian, the government should not interfere with our lives, it was meant to protect us and to serve the people  (not financially but thats another topic ugh)) and this entire thing reeks of too much government oversight. Public land is all of ours to share, they were legally utilizing the land, controversially set a fire, were convicted and did their time and now have to go back and serve more time because someone thought they should. Sending them back to prison for a crime they have already served time for is where I have a MAJOR issue, not the original sentencing.

[Flysmallie]

4 minutes ago, jtram said:

 Sending them back to prison for a crime they have already served time for is where I have a MAJOR issue, not the original sentencing.

I agree with that. The first judge made a mistake but they should not be able to go back on that.

But what Douchebag Bundy is doing by occupying federal property is doing nothing to help that. If he wanted to help he should have been spending his time raising funds to fight it legally. But like last time he just wants his name in the media. He's a loose cannon that will have to be dealt with sooner than later.

[jtram]

54 minutes ago, mic said:

jtram... I would agree with you, but Bundy isn't there calling for their release.  He is calling for the government to sell the land to the locals.  HOWEVER - PS... I assume you are on the conservative side of the political spectrum.  NOTE... the reason they are going back is because of mandatory minimum sentences were not applied the first time.  These were put in place because "liberal judges had to much flexibility in sentencing (during the big drug wars of the late 80/early 90s)".  It would seem to me, we (myself included) can't have it both ways, one for urban youth and one for a rancher.  Second note... He was found guilty by a juror of his peers... I assume it probably included some rural land owners.  Final note... there are reports the first fire was an attempt to cover up poaching.  Now, that wasn't proven in court. 

A lot of speculation on the poaching. I dont agree with everything bundy is doing, I do feel as if the government is overusing its power to set an example and to keep others too afraid to challenge. To me (a conservative libertarian, the government should not interfere with our lives, it was meant to protect us and to serve the people  (not financially but thats another topic ugh)) and this entire thing reeks of too much government oversight. Public land is all of ours to share, they were legally utilizing the land, controversially set a fire, were convicted and did their time and now have to go back and serve more time because someone thought they should. Sending them back to prison for a crime they have already served time for is where I have a MAJOR issue, not the original sentencing. If they were incorrectly sentenced, thats on the judge, not them. As for the poaching, that is a story spun and blown up by the media to paint them as bad people, and it worked. Maybe they did start the fire to cover it up, but they were NOT convicted and it is irrelevant to the core issue at hand.

[jtram]

I should note, although I consider myself a conservative Christian, I do have a few liberal leanings