smac97 Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Darren10 said: That would be nice. They could have issued a statement that explicitly cautioned against violence. I disagree with you that the Church should have waited until after someone was injured (or killed) before condemning the armed takeover of government property. It seems odd to find disagreement about that point. Thanks, -Smac 1
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: its also considered a violent crime whether he is armed or not Probably. Forcefully taking something which does not belong to you is arguably not peaceful. Kinda like taking land that's been in private hands for generations, eh?
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I disagree with you that the Church should have waited until after someone was injured (or killed) before condemning the armed takeover of government property. It seems odd to find disagreement about that point. Thanks, -Smac Odd perhaps but taking over property for protest has a loooooooooong history in the United States.
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: The US Constitution gives control of all federal lands to Congress to do with as they see fit. The Bundy kooks want to transfer Federal lands to private ownership by the use/threat of force. They are in essence violently taking over the government. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. But if push comes to shove the Bundy kooks will lose badly. But what if it was land originally settled on by private citizens and cared for generations until the federal government seized control of those land? And, oh yes. If this does get violent, it will not end well for the Bundys or the occupiers. Edited January 5, 2016 by Darren10
Calm Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 So you are comfortable with the armed protest? If so, at what point will you become uncomfortable?
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 9 minutes ago, Darren10 said: But what if it was land originally settled on by private citizens and cared for generations until the federal government seized control of those land? And, oh yes. If this does get violent, it will not end well for the Bundys or the occupiers. It was never state or personal property, and the US Constitution provides for the taking of private lands for public use. A jury of the Hammond's peers determined guilt for arson to cover-up poaching. The Bundy kooks have no respect for the laws of this country. I don't want to see violence against anyone. But a nice long stay in prison is in order.
ttribe Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: You are not peaceful simply because you are willing to fight for a cause? They have said that if any violence happens it will be because the government commenced it. If they live out according to this words, who's peaceful and who is not? I thought I was clear in my original statement. Let me try math: (Bring Loaded Gun to Protest) + (Threaten to Use Loaded Gun Against Law Enforcement) = Not Peaceful Their "willing[ness] to fight for a cause" using violence is, by definition, not peaceful. Their words about violence only happening if the government starts it is nonsense. The mere act of bringing a gun to the protest and threatening to use it escalated this activity beyond anything that resembles both safety and "peaceful." I am far more confident that the trained law enforcement professionals in this scenario will be able to remain calm and not be trigger-happy. A bunch of Oregon ranchers running on adrenaline? Not so much. You may admire their "willing[ness] to fight for a cause" but you can't also claim they are acting peacefully; you can't have it both ways. Edited January 5, 2016 by ttribe 3
The Nehor Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 45 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Probably. Forcefully taking something which does not belong to you is arguably not peaceful. Kinda like taking land that's been in private hands for generations, eh? The Paiute Indians could make the same argument. If they had come into the building from their reservation with guns demanding their land back would you support their armed takeover? 3
Damien the Leper Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: That's a fine position but what should people do. The federal government is essentially arresting and kicking ranchers off their lands for things they've been doing for generations only because the federal government decided to take over land they were already on and issue federal regulations upon them, even on their own property. The Supreme Court won't help, they've already ruled (in a decision I vehemently disagree with) that government may take land for special interests so thwarting them when they take land in the public interest would be near to impossible since the latter is 100% constitutional. At least the government is being consistent, historically speaking. Kick out the Natives and then kick out the ranchers. Government takeover since the inception of this grand nation has been good for their business. No more crying wolf.
Damien the Leper Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 33 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The Paiute Indians could make the same argument. If they had come into the building from their reservation with guns demanding their land back would you support their armed takeover? Damn. You beat me to it.
Damien the Leper Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Apparently, Bundy, a hater of the fed, took out a $530k loan that cost taxpayers $22,419. What a jack@$$. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/4/1466117/-Ammon-Bundy-like-his-father-before-him-hates-the-Fed-except-when-taking-money-from-the-Fed 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 What is wrong with this story is that these ranchers think they have a civil right to a huge subsidy (free or cheap federal license) to make money. Every time I see the cheap licenses handed out to mule train owners in the Grand Canyon I want to scream, as they extract a huge profit and taxpayers are left to repair the trail. Ranchers, especially sheep ranchers, are the same but on a huge scale. No subsidies for logging and ranching, and let's put these guys in jail and reward their scripture quoting with a fine. 4
The Nehor Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Valentinus said: Apparently, Bundy, a hater of the fed, took out a $530k loan that cost taxpayers $22,419. What a jack@$$. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/4/1466117/-Ammon-Bundy-like-his-father-before-him-hates-the-Fed-except-when-taking-money-from-the-Fed Okay, I am now in favor of a drone strike on the building. 1
Stargazer Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: The US Constitution gives control of all federal lands to Congress to do with as they see fit. The Bundy kooks want to transfer Federal lands to private ownership by the use/threat of force. They are in essence violently taking over the government. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. But if push comes to shove the Bundy kooks will lose badly. The Constitution gives the federal government control over federal lands as they see fit? So, if Congress thinks that it should develop a theme park, that the Constitution doesn't care? See below. The Constitution speak of specific purposes for retaining land in the states for certain purposes that are consonant with its constitutional duties -- that the federal government is supposed to PURCHASE from the states with the consent of that state. It is very odd that while the original 13 states own virtually all of their territory outright, with only small portions belonging to the feds, the later-entering states have had progressively less and less land left to them upon statehood. The State of Alaska for example owns a lot less land than appears from the map. The feds own 65% of it! Here's what the Constitution says about this. Quote The Congress shall have Power... to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ... as may ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; The question I have, does Congress really need 65% of Alaska for "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"? I don't think so! And did Congress pay for all that land and get Alaska's consent? I'd guess the answer to that is No and No. This is an especially puzzling matter, especially since only the tiniest portion of that 65% have any buildings of any kind, needful or not! Washington, Oregon, Utah and Nevada are in similar straits, though not a bad as Alaska. Other more Western states suffer from some degree of this. In my humble opinion, the federal government needs to divest itself of most of its voluminous property holdings, save for what it truly needs, and give it back to the states wherein they are found. But the Bundy kooks are totally wrong about transferring fed lands to private ownership! The land inherently belongs to the states in which it lies. The Bundy kooks need to remember what happened at Pine Ridge, and where Leonard Peltier is currently residing. They need to stand down before they are stood down. Because they are standing on very shaky ground, legally and lawfully. 2
Bob Crockett Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Stargazer said: But the Bundy kooks are totally wrong about transferring fed lands to private ownership! The land inherently belongs to the states in which it lies. I don't think that any government should own property of this nature except as necessary to fulfill the constitutional purposes you identify. But, now that the feds are in ownership, the feds can't simply give it away. They should, like surplus military bases, auction it off. Then Bundy and his goons would be out of a job. Once put to economic use, the subsidies they get to run their operations on federal land will disappear. But this libertarian, once again, declares gun nuts to be abhorrent boors. The number one plank of the libertarian movement is not to use force or coercion to obtain any kind of political objective. Guns are necessary evils, but they are evils. Edited January 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett
Bob Crockett Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 22 hours ago, Darren10 said: AH HA!!! This one's a doozy: Man, that's so wrong. It is interesting reading stuff from you, somebody I''ve long considered to be a rational, thoughtful person. On this topic you're way off the reservation. Anybody who brandishes a gun in public to gain an advantage other than defense against another gun is guilty of a crime in all states (open carry is another issue) and thus loses his rights to own guns. Brandishing doesn't mean pointing. And, Oregon is not an open carry state. Libertarian philosophy teaches us not to use coercion, especially, armed coercion to gain a political or private advantage.
Avatar4321 Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 16 hours ago, Stargazer said: The Constitution gives the federal government control over federal lands as they see fit? So, if Congress thinks that it should develop a theme park, that the Constitution doesn't care? See below. The Constitution speak of specific purposes for retaining land in the states for certain purposes that are consonant with its constitutional duties -- that the federal government is supposed to PURCHASE from the states with the consent of that state. It is very odd that while the original 13 states own virtually all of their territory outright, with only small portions belonging to the feds, the later-entering states have had progressively less and less land left to them upon statehood. The State of Alaska for example owns a lot less land than appears from the map. The feds own 65% of it! Here's what the Constitution says about this. The question I have, does Congress really need 65% of Alaska for "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"? I don't think so! And did Congress pay for all that land and get Alaska's consent? I'd guess the answer to that is No and No. This is an especially puzzling matter, especially since only the tiniest portion of that 65% have any buildings of any kind, needful or not! Washington, Oregon, Utah and Nevada are in similar straits, though not a bad as Alaska. Other more Western states suffer from some degree of this. In my humble opinion, the federal government needs to divest itself of most of its voluminous property holdings, save for what it truly needs, and give it back to the states wherein they are found. But the Bundy kooks are totally wrong about transferring fed lands to private ownership! The land inherently belongs to the states in which it lies. The Bundy kooks need to remember what happened at Pine Ridge, and where Leonard Peltier is currently residing. They need to stand down before they are stood down. Because they are standing on very shaky ground, legally and lawfully. Made me wonder if the reason the feds own so much of the west is because malevolent powers wanted to stop the saints from settling more
Robert F. Smith Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Michelle Boorstein, “Why the Oregon occupiers are citing the Book of Mormon’s ‘military stud muffin’,” Washington Post, Jan 4, 2016, online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/04/why-the-oregon-militia-is-citing-the-book-of-mormons-military-stud-muffin/ , Quote During the current standoff that began this weekend, one member of the occupiers told an Oregon reporter that his name is “Captain Moroni,” a warrior-hero in the Book of Mormon who faces off against an unfeeling government. As Jana Riess, Mormon writer and U.S. religious history expert puts it: “People are drawn to the historical Captain Moroni because he’s the military studmuffin of the Book of Mormon; the character is brash and decisive, even ‘angry’… He gets the job done.” In an essay Monday, Riess writes that the captain’s story is a bit more complex in Mormon scripture, and in fact sometimes he’s wrong about who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Our study of the Book of Mormon this year is getting off to a strong start . . . 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 23 hours ago, Darren10 said: So it's only peaceful if you are unarmed and not willing to fight viloently or until you actually use violence? Pretty much, yeh. I have been in many a peaceful protest.
Bob Crockett Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 I'd like to brandish my sidearm in the local 7-11 and get a free slurpee.
The Nehor Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Apparently terrorism is okay if you sympathize with the terrorists. I do not expect this to last long. They are going to run out of food soon (cannot eat all those bullets) and eventually give up and go to prison for a while.
thesometimesaint Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 19 hours ago, Stargazer said: The Constitution gives the federal government control over federal lands as they see fit? So, if Congress thinks that it should develop a theme park, that the Constitution doesn't care? See below. The Constitution speak of specific purposes for retaining land in the states for certain purposes that are consonant with its constitutional duties -- that the federal government is supposed to PURCHASE from the states with the consent of that state. It is very odd that while the original 13 states own virtually all of their territory outright, with only small portions belonging to the feds, the later-entering states have had progressively less and less land left to them upon statehood. The State of Alaska for example owns a lot less land than appears from the map. The feds own 65% of it! Here's what the Constitution says about this. The question I have, does Congress really need 65% of Alaska for "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"? I don't think so! And did Congress pay for all that land and get Alaska's consent? I'd guess the answer to that is No and No. This is an especially puzzling matter, especially since only the tiniest portion of that 65% have any buildings of any kind, needful or not! Washington, Oregon, Utah and Nevada are in similar straits, though not a bad as Alaska. Other more Western states suffer from some degree of this. In my humble opinion, the federal government needs to divest itself of most of its voluminous property holdings, save for what it truly needs, and give it back to the states wherein they are found. But the Bundy kooks are totally wrong about transferring fed lands to private ownership! The land inherently belongs to the states in which it lies. The Bundy kooks need to remember what happened at Pine Ridge, and where Leonard Peltier is currently residing. They need to stand down before they are stood down. Because they are standing on very shaky ground, legally and lawfully. Federal lands never belonged to the states. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands The US constitution allows for the transfer of private property to the government by Eminent Domain. SEE https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/amdt5b_user.html#amdt5b_hd23 I would hate to see violence on either side. hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
thesometimesaint Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Made me wonder if the reason the feds own so much of the west is because malevolent powers wanted to stop the saints from settling more How the states got their shapes. SEE http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes/season-1/episode-7
Darren10 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Posted January 6, 2016 On 1/5/2016 at 10:59 PM, Calm said: So you are comfortable with the armed protest? If so, at what point will you become uncomfortable? Good question. Ultimately I am comfortable with the armed protest, more important to this thread, I do not see their being armed as inherently unpeaceful. If the protest turns as it did in Ferguson then I'll feel uncomfortable. Note the difference however, in the nature of the two protests. One has been very peaceful however aggressive and the other highly violent. I'll let you decide which is which.
Darren10 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Posted January 6, 2016 On 1/5/2016 at 11:16 PM, thesometimesaint said: It was never state or personal property, and the US Constitution provides for the taking of private lands for public use. A jury of the Hammond's peers determined guilt for arson to cover-up poaching. The Bundy kooks have no respect for the laws of this country. I don't want to see violence against anyone. But a nice long stay in prison is in order. The Hammond family was arrested under federal regulations prohibiting setting fire on federal land. The Hammonds set fire on their own ranch and have done so n the past to control potentially large, out of control fires in the future and to get rid of certain pests which could damage their livelihood. Since their property is on federal land they were charged for violating the federal regulations. Does the federal government have respect for laws of private property? That's what the Bundys are fighting against and citing scripture against. I agree prison time would be justified but there's a question of when has the federal government "overdone it". When it comes to seizing land, don't count on the federal government to check the federal government. yes, the US Constitution does allow for the government to take land for public use. The sticking point is what of private ranches that have already been on that land before the federal government took it?
Recommended Posts