Reports of "Militia Takeover" in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, you have folks who clearly broke the law because they felt they were entitled to the use of land they don't own. But, they did the time that they were sentenced to; released and then put back in prison? That bothers me. If the judge refuses to follow sentencing guidelines, sanction the judge, fire the judge, vote the judge out - but, don't go rounding up these folks and throw them back in prison!

I can see why people in that neck of the woods are up in arms about the overreach of the federal government. While this issue couldn't be further removed from me personally, both geographically and idealistically, I have to agree, there's something more going on here and I'm not sure the government side doesn't stink to hell!
Click to expand...
From everything I've seen, read, and heard, this is my opinion, 100%
 
White House calls Oregon standoff a 'local law enforcement matter''
Click to expand...

Wow. Federal facility and federal land. Talk about passing the buck. Very presidential. I could understand a political statement such as 'The President has the utmost confidence in federal authorities involved in the situation who have kept him apprised of events and there is currently no need for the President to become personally involved or comment,' but 'local issue' really surprised me.


On a sidenote: One place I wouldn't want to be in a firefight? That firetower. Idiots.

I have an old Walls "blizzard" cold weather suit. I considered sending it. After liberally applying itching powder.

And in case you were wondering, BLM does seem to have a SWAT type paramilitary unit.
 
Last edited:
I think every group of good folks has a retard fringe. Having worked many years for the government in land management, grazing leases have rules attached, don't follow them and they can be revoked. If the landowner/leasee doesn't play by the rules they pay the price.

As for either working with or fighting against the Gov't that is so true, if you work with them they will help you screw the Gov't legally. As for the Hammonds they broke the rules and got caught, I do not like the fact that they were sentenced, served the time and then were re-sentenced, irregardless of the fact that it was legal. I honestly think the judge should have said, "well we screwed up, but you fellers owned up and served your time, case dismissed".

The hammonds have said repeatedly that the Bundy Bunch does NOT speak for them nor do they want anything to do with them, neither does the locals, citizens or Sheriff's Dept. from what I read. The Bundy's threw a rebellion and no one came. I do give the Gov't a little credit in not quickly running into battle with them which is what the Bundy's thought would happen. The Bundy Bunch were nothing but thieves to begin with stealing from the citizens of the US, let them stew in their own stink for a while.
 
Just one more thought on this matter. I read about this in the WSJ today. My first impression was that this is a non-event; fairly uninteresting. Now, if they had the crowds that the occupy wall street folks had, and with guns (WSJ article didn't show any guns), it might get my attention. As it is, this is a small, local squabble that holds little interest for most.
 
From what I've read, there are about 15 people at the refuge. I have seen the names of 5 of them. None of the 5 is from Oregon. One of them seems to be a professional Muslim-hater.
 
The problem is, there are no good guys in this.

The BLM's abuses are well known. johnwilliamson062 and others have pointed to some very good resources on the background of this situation. To those who haven't lived in the affected states, it's hard to understand the pattern of abuses and the frustration citizens have felt.

On the other hand, I can't see the Bundy's actions ending without bloodshed. That would be a shame, because we have a chance to address the underlying matters, but a shootout will close the door on that altogether.
 
When the economy of an entire town or rural area can be choked off and destroyed due to the actions of one federal agency at the behest of special interests, you know the agency has too much control over the region. It's kind of like living in a town run by a steel plant or a Microsoft office. Shut things down and hundreds or thousands of livelihoods go away. There's no simple answers.

The guys in the Refuge are demanding land transfers, that is not going to happen. I don't see how this is going to end unless these folks get a dose of reality and consider their actions as a protest and not a set of demands. Protests are fine, demands are not going to be met. I know a lot of the rural west is considered nothing more than a theme park for urban yuppies, but this is not the way to address that.

There is no way the public is going to support transferring even one acre of a wildlife refuge into private hands, or even into State ownership as a refuge. Won't happen.
 
kilamanjaro said:
I don't see how this is going to end unless these folks get a dose of reality and consider their actions as a protest and not a set of demands.
Click to expand...

The best thing for them at this point would be to fold up and sneak away into the night. They're being mocked mercilessly on social media:

YallQaeda
VanillaISIS
BubbaHaram
YokelHaram
Yeehawdists
TaliBundy

At this point no harm no foul, if they agree to leave peacefully the local and federal authorities may agree to pretend it never happened. Doubtful, but maybe worth asking for.
 
The good news in this

is that Janet Reno is not Attorney General. If Obama does the smart thing & continue to ignore them, the media will get bored & they will eventually just all go home.
What the country doesn't need at this point is another Waco or Ruby Ridge.
 
At this point no harm no foul
Click to expand...
I bet they are quite embarrassed by the social media insults and the fact that no one showed up. I doubt they will go home, but rather double down to show all those yuppies on social media who is boss. I'm guessing a couple of these guys arn't backing down until they get the fight they are pursuing. It wouldn't surprise me if a few others try to slink away in the night. My bet is plenty of drones and guy in ghiilie suits to pick them up when they do.

I've heard 15-25 PEOPLE. 5 MEN have been identified. My guess is the others are family.
 
You know, we might look on this as a good thing, timing wise. The occupiers (to separate them from the other folks protesting the Hammond sentencing) chose to use the Hammond issue as their call to arms / trigger incident, and the timing for them really sucks.

Its a difficult thing to get the bodies on the ground you need for a really headline grabbing bloodbath (should the govt be so stupid as to comply - and history says they just might be..) in the middle of nowhere Oregon, in the middle of a barking cold WINTER!!!!

Had the timing been right so they could have done this in warm weather, every wackjob on both sides in a 5 state radius could have been there in a matter of hours, camping out and "protesting". Better weather would also mean more news people too.

As it is right now, I think any support these people get from like minded folk will all be done on the Internet, rather than in (cold) person.
 
When I read that the one protester said "We're on a mission from God"; was I the only one who mentally heard that in the voice of Elwood Blues?
Click to expand...

Elwood: It's a hundred and six miles to Bundyville, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Jake: Hit it.
Click to expand...

Obviously we’re making jest of what is really a very dangerous and embarrassing situation. I suspect Ms. Clinton couldn’t have asked for a better photo op to push her agenda than if she’d planned it herself. In a year where issues of gun control, domestic/international terrorism, environmental issues, etc will most likely play a big part in the election these Bozos are doing freedom loving Americans no favors.

I realize this is probably a pretty complicated issue, but for a Southern Boy who has little knowledge of these laws is the entire process outdated? In other words are we trying to govern these 21st century issues using 19th century law?
 
BL said:
Obviously we’re making jest of what is really a very dangerous and embarrassing situation. I suspect Ms. Clinton couldn’t have asked for a better photo op to push her agenda than if she’d planned it herself. In a year where issues of gun control, domestic/international terrorism, environmental issues, etc will most likely play a big part in the election these Bozos are doing freedom loving Americans no favors.
Click to expand...

Newt Gingrich made an interesting point at a lunch I attended a long time ago.

He noted that a lot people think of conflict as a cost, something that detracts from one's capital. However, in politics conflict can allow one to accumulate capital. It isn't a cost to be avoided but an opportunity to improve one's standing in public discourse. Of course, as he later demonstrated, it can also be an opportunity for his opponent to accumulate political capital.

In last year's Bundy episode and this one, some LDS outliers showed up armed, but employed their arms against no one and explicitly stated a peaceful intent. I don't see that as cutting peculiarly against any of the civil liberties at issue, even as it isn't my dispute resolution mechanism of choice.

There is no doubt that some people already hostile to the right will remain supportive of measures to restrict its practice. Is an armed but peaceful protest more likely to make those people vote?

On the other hand, the episode does disclose some of the problems of expansive government in a more general way, and that illustration may help motivate voters who were going to vote against Clinton - if they vote at all.

In a pre-election accumulation of political capital, this need not accrue exclusively to her benefit.
 
Last edited:
What I believe is happening is that you have a group of people tired of being pushed around by the Feds. Take the water rights thing; the Feds lost in court so they simply put a fence around the water source, which the locals legally took down. Try running livestock without water, doesn't work out too well. Concerning one fire that Hammond started, it was a backfire he set to protect his farm and house from a conflagration started by lightening. Let me hurry up and get a permit before my home burns. It was successful. Fires are used all the time out there to reinvigorate the land, and to protect it from an invasion of juniper trees, which are taking over the land and sucking up valuable water resources. BLM has started several fires just for that reason. I suspect the true reasons for this confrontation may never make it into the public eye. Let's see, who really wins when small ranchers are put out of business? Only three groups that I see. There are the eco-weenies, who think that most of us ought to give up the ghost so nature can continue on unobstructed by mans interference. There are the big boys, Con Agra, Monsanto, ADM, etc who can have more control of what we eat without any competition, and then there are the politicians whose skids are greased by both of the above. That being said, I completely disagree with the tactics used by the "militia" involved, but desperate men will do crazy things. Seems that these days the little man is pretty well steamrolled by bigger gov. with little recourse.
 
They've gotten some decent press due to their cleaning up, maintaining and repairing the property, they've drawn attention to their cause and, so far, nobody's been hurt. I think now would be a good time to withdraw, while they're perceived to be the good guys, the righteous protester and not the aggressor.
 
The Bundys and their entourage are members of the so called "Mormon Militia". They have caused trouble in a few states. After they attacked folks protesting the actions of Harry Reed in Searchlight, Nevada, the state of Nevada told them to go back to Utah.

The LDS church has condemned the actions of the "Mormon Militia" and the Bundy bunch.

While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land,” the statement reads.
Click to expand...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...-fanaticism/QLgIkrNZipFjtbn4AyUZFJ/story.html

http://www.bendbulletin.com/nation/...litia-member-cited-the-book?referrer=bullet8#

BTW: Many schools in the area are closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top