Three words I associate with these actions.Geheime Staatspolizei, Sicherheistdienst, and Einzatsgruppen.It's the 1930s all over again.
You can spin this anyway you want to but Bundy broke the law, many laws over a extended period of time. Those misguided fools who went to defend the felon and brought guns to threaten law enforcement broke the law. This isn't about civil rights or the constitution. The land in question belongs to the federal government and all Americans it does NOT belong to Bundy. It was legally deeded to the federal government before Bundy was born. Bundy choose this Quixotic battle and he will no doubt spend considerable time in prison for his mistake. It seems likely that the rest of the fools who folled in his footsteps will as well. This assemblywoman is a fool as well and she is hoping to use this issue as a springboard into congress. I would prefer to see her answer for her part in this stupid temper tantrum.
Anon, I am not trying to spin this one way or the other. It is what it is. The point of the article has nothing to do with whether the Bundy's broke any laws. Actually, I believe the Bundy's were grazing land they did not own and they knew it. That is a matter for the courts. My point is the first and second amendment rights of the app. 2,000, who are potentially facing arrest, are being infringed upon by .gov using heavy handed tactics. The people that are being threatened with arrest have the right to assemble peacefully and the right to keep and bear arms. Wouldn't you agree?
We all saw the video. It came very close to a firefight between Bundy supporters and the BLM & LEOs. There is no way that equates to peaceful assembly. That was an intentional provocation on the part of the Bundy supporters. Certainly you recognize that many of those who quickly went to the Bundy Ranch were agitators and nut cases who wanted a confrontation and it was never about the constitution for them. To me the bottom line is it is very sad that Mr Bundy, a multi-millionaire rancher, choose to throw it all away in a Quixotic battle with the government. He had many choices that were better than the ones he choose. He could have continued to have his cattle graze on BLM land and paid the low fees for this. He could have bought a small irrigated farm parcel to raise hay as a supplement for his ranch capabilities (a choice a lot of large ranchers do who want to expand but are geographically unable to expand their grazing lands). This was an calculated intentional confrontation by Bundy and now his sons are in jail as well. Why? There is no underlying great constitutional issue here just an old misguided fool who thought his family was royalty and deserved land that was never his.Probably somewhere in all these (unrelated to Bundy) dealings between ranchers and the federal government are some real unfair results. When Clinton declared the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument he did place restrictions on ranchers use of lands, take some lands by eminent domain and place some BLM lands off limits to grazing. But there is nothing unusual or unfair about this it is exactly what happens in the urban environment when they build highways or public buildings. Would you argue that everyone affected by a highway take up arms against the government??? By the way I encourage you to visit the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, it is a beautiful place and a jewel in the crown of national parks. I originally disagreed with this decision in a kind of knee-jerk reaction to government but since visiting it I realize it really is the appropriate use of the land, preserved now for everyone.You have a responsibility when you bear arms and that is to not go around threatening people. For that alone these crazies should be arrested and brought to trial. I am a big time 2nd amendment supporter and I cringe when I see the loons do stupid things with their guns that put our movement in a bad light.
Thanks for stopping by Anon and the long explanation of your thoughts. I completely respect your opinions and thoughts and agree with much of what you said. As I told you earlier, the article was not so much about the Bundy's nor was I trying to defend to their actions. I have never thought the Bundy incident was a justified "call to arms". The point about who was present with guns and whether or not their actions were peaceful or hostile is ambiguous. I simply do not believe the majority of the app. 2,000 present were necessarily looking for fight. I believe many were curiosity seekers, etc. and those people did have a right to assemble peacefully and bear arms. PS. Though I am not really a fan of eminent domain (not sure how this got into the conversation) for the record I understand it is necessary from time to time. When I was in high school the USDA decided they were going to practically double the size of the wilderness area inside the bounds of the national forest where I live. There were three families who stood to loose their lands that had been passed down from generation to generation. I was opposed to this then, but in retrospect the way it was handled, the manner in which the families were treated/compensated, and the treasure that has been preserved for all to see and enjoy made it an easier pill to swallow.
Leave a comment.. Let me know what you think! :)