Armed Militia takes over federal building - Oregon

[GVChamp]

I don't see your point. These are hooligans in the middle of nowhere. There is no immediate need to rout them.

If the Black Lives Matter showed up to Michigan Avenue with guns on their silly little Black Friday protest, I'd demand Rauner call out the National Guard and rout the thug-apologists.

It's a question of location and density. I'd demand the same if Bundy's boys came to Michigan Avenue and did the same.

As it stands, these idiots are in the middle of nowhere and pose no risk to any civilian population. Even if the BLMorons want "peaceful" protests, their mere presence and focus on disruption in a metropolis implies a non-zero risk of violence to innocent civilians.

We can only hope every political protest involved storming an unoccupied federal outpost in the middle of nowhere.

[YellowFever]

One grievance the militia has (and I tend to agree with them on this one) is too much land is "federally owned" out west.

[Albany Rifles]

this is a bad comparison.

both BLM and OWS were/are urban movements, involving significant numbers of people in a densely-populated area. the idiots threatening violence were the exceptions, not the rule (otherwise things would be much worse than it actually was).

this is simply hooliganism and vigilante "justice" dressed up as a movement, in an empty area. threatening violence IS the rule here. one of the reasons why these "militia" members are armed is to make it -deliberately harder- for them to get punished; otherwise, why not just link arms and willingly go to jail in protest?

they're DARING the government to use lethal force. that's not accepting responsibility for their actions at all.

this story would be significantly different if they kept their arms at home. but they didn't.

^^^^^Like!!!

[Albany Rifles]

One grievance the militia has (and I tend to agree with them on this one) is too much land is "federally owned" out west.

[ATTACH]40708[/ATTACH]

1. How much of that land is for DOD purposes? And yes, we need great big giant swaths of land for safety and security reasons...you don't want prying eyes at the skunkworks and you don't want lots of people around things which go boom....and big boom. And not just from bombs...look at any USN/USAF air base in built up areas.

2. That land belongs to US! The federal government holds it in trust for All Americans. And since the federal goverment is full of people, errors are made.

As Bonehead has pointed out the issue is not with folks who are federally owned/shared usage. Its with the ones who believe its all mine and not those bureaucrats in Washington....even though the bureaucrat graduated from Boise State with a degree in land management, is an avid hunter and fisherman and is just trying to make sure the land held in trust for all is best managed. And that may be in low moisture area you do not get to expand your herd to graze on public land because it also destroys or impairs the natural habitat that the damn easterner graduate biology student has every right to go visit for their studies.

I can see a side to the argument that my family worked this land for a century...but you get that century of water rights...butit also means you need to pay your grazing fees.

Entrance onto publically held land...battlefield, wildlife refuge, national park...implies to an agreement of the compact that you will abide by the rules of that public land.

3. Looking at all of that red in Alaska....if you are running around being a hunter or fisherman and get into trouble, who comes to rescue? There are very few county or state assets which will come to help you. The first responders are quite often aircraft and crews of the US Coast Guard, US Army or Air Force and/or the Alaska National Guard...all which is federal. (The aircraft and equipment flown by the Alaska National Guard are bought and maintained by Title 10 Federal dollars).

So before we say too much red, let's keep that in mind.

And here is a curious little fact....look at all of those red Federal lands....sure match up with a lot of political Red states which receive a large number of federal dollars in return.

[Triple C]

I don't see your point. These are hooligans in the middle of nowhere. There is no immediate need to rout them.

I don't think that's being argued. Rather, some, myself included, are not seeing the purported moral superiority of the Bundy group. Only one group had told its followers to go stage an armed "protest," whatever that means, and instructed them them it's OK to shoot at the police if there is a crackdown. That said, I will be the first to agree that whatever punishment the current group of hooligans deserve, there is no compelling reason to storm the place.

[Officer of Engineers]

they're DARING the government to use lethal force. that's not accepting responsibility for their actions at all.

Starvation and dehydration are lethal forces.

[GVChamp]

I don't think that's being argued. Rather, some, myself included, are not seeing the purported moral superiority of the Bundy group. Only one group had told its followers to go stage an armed "protest," whatever that means, and instructed them them it's OK to shoot at the police if there is a crackdown. That said, I will be the first to agree that whatever punishment the current group of hooligans deserve, there is no compelling reason to storm the place.

That's a fair point, it's not really my business to determine what other people find morally superior or inferior. These guys aren't freakin' ISIS, though.

[YellowFever]

1. How much of that land is for DOD purposes? And yes, we need great big giant swaths of land for safety and security reasons...you don't want prying eyes at the skunkworks and you don't want lots of people around things which go boom....and big boom. And not just from bombs...look at any USN/USAF air base in built up areas.

I can live with this.



I can even live with national parks being federal land. But this...

2. That land belongs to US! The federal government holds it in trust for All Americans. And since the federal goverment is full of people, errors are made.

Yes the federal government is full or people and people make errors. I have no problem with that. As I stated before what I do have a problem is people in the governemtn drunk with power simply because they were not even elected but appointed as something. What I do have a problem with is appointed people that decides that land that has been used for grazing and watering cattle all of a sudden decides to declare it a "cattle free zone" and drive out ranchers that have been legally paying grazing and leasing fees for years and years simple because they wanted it to be a "wildlife preserve" even though wildlife thrived more when ranchers maintained the land...that from a BLM's own study....a document that was dug up by Mrs. Hammond and thus pissing off the BLM. It's bureacracy run amok.

As Bonehead has pointed out the issue is not with folks who are federally owned/shared usage. Its with the ones who believe its all mine and not those bureaucrats in Washington....even though the bureaucrat graduated from Boise State with a degree in land management, is an avid hunter and fisherman and is just trying to make sure the land held in trust for all is best managed. And that may be in low moisture area you do not get to expand your herd to graze on public land because it also destroys or impairs the natural habitat that the damn easterner graduate biology student has every right to go visit for their studies.

The BLM employees and scietists on the ground said that the land in question is better maintained when ranchers are given free reign. They also said that the fires in question (those that the Hammonds got convicted for) were actually good for the federal land.

Come on man, you know that ranchers set fire all the time as preventive actions. They did what they did to save their ranch and those BLM employess on the ground actually agreed that it helped federal land. It's the bureacracy that's thusands of miles away that pressed charges.

The Hammonds got convicted for doing something the federal government does routinely...the Hammonds just did it much better and more effieciently.

I can see a side to the argument that my family worked this land for a century...but you get that century of water rights...butit also means you need to pay your grazing fees.

Which the Hammonds did.

Entrance onto publically held land...battlefield, wildlife refuge, national park...implies to an agreement of the compact that you will abide by the rules of that public land.

Which the Hammonds also did...until the rules changed (making it illegal for their cattle to cross from one private land to the next, simply by declaring the federal land they have to travel through to get to one private land to another as "cattle free land"...shortly after some ranchers decided not to sell their land to the BLM.

The Hammonds jumped through every hoops and rule changes dreamed up by the BLM. Their only mistake was they wouldn't sell to the BLM. They deserve to be strong armed. I guess.

The population in the Western United States in getting larger and larger. More and more land should become available to be used as people see fit. So why is the government buying up more and more land? Why are federally controlled land getting bigger and bigger?

This goes back to what gunnnut said about the EPA. It was good once and it did it's job here in California. Now it's just a huge bureacracy that's just feeding itself at our expense.

3. Looking at all of that red in Alaska....if you are running around being a hunter or fisherman and get into trouble, who comes to rescue? There are very few county or state assets which will come to help you. The first responders are quite often aircraft and crews of the US Coast Guard, US Army or Air Force and/or the Alaska National Guard...all which is federal. (The aircraft and equipment flown by the Alaska National Guard are bought and maintained by Title 10 Federal dollars).

So before we say too much red, let's keep that in mind.

I don't know much about this so explan this to me please. Are you telling me the coast guard and army are not obligated to help me if I am not in a federal land?

Why the hell am I paying federal taxes?

And here is a curious little fact....look at all of those red Federal lands....sure match up with a lot of political Red states which receive a large number of federal dollars in return.

I am monumentally disinterested in them being political red states or not. Who cares? Why did you have to turn this into a political issue?

I'm also pissed that the federal government can throw around dollars to states like it's candy on Halloween night.

Whatever happened to collecting just enough money so the government can do it's job? Why are they collecting enough taxes to do their job and then throw around excess money like it's their money?



Edit: Sorry for the numerous typo. It's hard to do this on my phone. Curse you AR! :O

[Officer of Engineers]

Starvation and dehydration are lethal forces.

I'm stepping out of this arguement. I really do not know the history of US armed protest and therefore, ill advised to comment. But from a military POV, seige is the most appropropiate respose.

[Gun Grape]

Yes the federal government is full or people and people make errors. I have no problem with that. As I stated before what I do have a problem is people in the governemtn drunk with power simply because they were not even elected but appointed as something. What I do have a problem with is appointed people that decides that land that has been used for grazing and watering cattle all of a sudden decides to declare it a "cattle free zone" and drive out ranchers that have been legally paying grazing and leasing fees for years and years simple because they wanted it to be a "wildlife preserve" even though wildlife thrived more when ranchers maintained the land...that from a BLM's own study....a document that was dug up by Mrs. Hammond and thus pissing off the BLM. It's bureacracy run amok.

Do you have a source for that report? Or a report tracking number so that we can read it? I say the same claim on various sites but no one knew the name of the report or Doc number. If its a federal document access should be easy for all to see. But no one that claims this provides the doc number for us to see.

The Hammonds got convicted for doing something the federal government does routinely...the Hammonds just did it much better and more effieciently.

No the Hammonds were convicted of starting a fire to cover up a crime (Poaching). And the second time they started a fire, during a burn ban, without notifying authorities. One that put firefighters between the wildfire they were fighting and the one the Hammonds started.

[zraver]

No the Hammonds were convicted of starting a fire to cover up a crime (Poaching).

No, the Hammonds were convicted of starting the fire, a lone mentally ill witness is the only source for the poaching claim.

And the second time they started a fire, during a burn ban, without notifying authorities. One that put firefighters between the wildfire they were fighting and the one the Hammonds started.

It burned 2 acres of federal land and saved their home. For this the federal government wants $400,000 in restitution.

[Gun Grape]

No, the Hammonds were convicted of starting the fire, a lone mentally ill witness is the only source for the poaching claim.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/ea...e-years-prison

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

It burned 2 acres of federal land and saved their home. For this the federal government wants $400,000 in restitution.

Not their home, their winter feed. Still done illegally. Still convicted by a jury of their peers. Not just hauled off to jail by the Feds

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

As for the restitution, good. Maybe the government can get some of the money back from the Hammods that they have raked in with Gov subsidies.

https://www.revealnews.org/blog/u-s-...hammond-ranch/

But those policies and government payments also help make those lifestyles possible. The Hammonds, for example, collected nearly $300,000 in federal disaster payments and subsidies from 1995 to 2012, according to federal data gathered by the Environmental Working Group. Last month, Reveal reported that a group of Nevada ranchers who fought a federal drought declaration had collected millions in drought subsidies from the USDA.

The government also leases public land to ranchers at rates far below market value, as reported Monday by FiveThirtyEight. Even Ammon Bundy – leader of the armed group occupying the refuge visitor center and son of anti-government Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy – has benefited from a federal small business loan guarantee, Mother Jones reported Monday.

And the Hammonds have gotten help from Wildlife Services, a division of the USDA that has long specialized in killing animals deemed a threat to ranchers in ways that can be inhumane, excessive, at odds with science and sometimes illegal.

The aerial gunning of predators takes place on private and public land across more than a dozen Western states. Federal data show that more than 350,000 coyotes and other animals have been killed over the past 15 years. The document shows that the government killed five coyotes by air for the Hammonds between 2009 and 2011.

Wildlife advocates say the killing is indiscriminate and a waste of tax dollars. Even some former Wildlife Services employees agree.

“Basically, it makes no sense to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to save tens of thousands of dollars of private livestock,” said Sam Sanders, a former Wildlife Services trapper and aerial gunner in Nevada. “In the long run, it would be cheaper to just buy the ranches and shut them down.”

“We averaged a coyote about every $1,600,” Sanders added. “You pay me $1,600 per coyote, I’ll work for three years and never have to work again.”]

[Parihaka]

The most probable and certainly most extensive wildlife study of the area the Hammond case covers is this
http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/migr...s-basin-oregon
Given the relative sizes of private vs federal land the numbers seem to back up Mrs Hammonds case, though of course, as always, I could be wrong. :-

[zraver]

Gun, it was a single witness who was 13 at the time and who has a long history of mental illness and is estranged from the family. They were only convicted of the 2 fires they admitted setting.

The back fire also saved thier home

Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/

[Gun Grape]

Gun, it was a single witness who was 13 at the time and who has a long history of mental illness and is estranged from the family. They were only convicted of the 2 fires they admitted setting.

No look at the statement Witnesses (plural) which included the grandson.

The back fire also saved thier home

Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...y-persecution/

Note the word Possibly. The home was never in danger. But the BLM firefighters that were camped that night(When the fire was started without permission) between the wildfire and the fire that the Hammonds started were in danger.