150 "militia" take over wildlife refuge center

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

The real problem here is entitlement. It's the idea that if I don't like the rules in place, I can just ignore them because I don't like them.

And this mindset loves its own federal government handouts but just doesn't agree that you should get any federal government handouts of your own.

"Keep your damn government hands off of my Medicare and Social Security." (But go ahead and take it away from those people over there I hate.)

[djmcmath]

Part of the issue, as I understand from reading a bunch of the history of the Hammond case, is that the BLM has gone to some effort over the last 25-50 years to drive ranchers off of this land. Most of the other ranchers in that region had given up, one way or another, and sold their land to the BLM cheaply. So it isn't like the Hammonds are trying to claim some entitlement to make their business more profitable than their neighbors; it's more like they're trying to survive, when most of their neighboring ranchers have given up on growing cows, sold the family farm, and gone elsewhere.

There are some who look at this and say "Why shouldn't the BLM own the land, and force everyone who wants to graze/mine/produce on that land to lease it from them?" I would suggest that those people take a brief look at the history from Soviet Russia or Communist China. Since when do we live in a country where the government owns the means of production and farmers must borrow their own land back from the government to raise cattle or grow wheat? Further, if you assume that there must be a government-managed land solution, why must it be a federal solution, rather than a state solution?

[Tobra]

That sort of leaves out that people pay into social security and medicare their entire lives and get a laughable return on their "investment," aside from that, yeah totally equivalent

They burned 130 acres out of the roughly, 5,000,000 acres of federal land in Harney County, served their sentence, got out, then the sentence was increased so they had to go back to jail. Can't imagine how anyone could get upset about that

It's the idea that if I don't like the rules in place, I can just ignore them because I don't like them.

So they are taking a page from the playbook of our current POTUS. What is good for the gander is not good for the goose, so to speak.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Tobra

So they are taking a page from the playbook of our current POTUS. What is good for the gander is not good for the goose, so to speak.

If it's wrong, then it's wrong always. If you condemn a person or group for ignoring the rules in place, then you condemn all people for ignoring the rules in place. Doing otherwise makes you a hypocrite.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

Part of the issue, as I understand from reading a bunch of the history of the Hammond case, is that the BLM has gone to some effort over the last 25-50 years to drive ranchers off of this land.

This is the allegation, but unsupported by actual evidence. I understand this is how the folks in the area feel about it, but there is a small problem with this. The feds, if they wanted, could seize all the land they wanted under eminent domain, pay the ranchers, and be done with it.

[ficke]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

If it's wrong, then it's wrong always. If you condemn a person or group for ignoring the rules in place, then you condemn all people for ignoring the rules in place. Doing otherwise makes you a hypocrite.

I agree,
but unfortunately it is becoming acceptable and normal to follow rules you like and ignore ones you do not like, this is happening on a large scale.
Do not like federal immigration laws, declare your whole city a sanctuary city and blow off the feds. and their rules you do not like.
Do not like Marijuana laws, who cars what the feds say. do what you want in your state city.
Now we have ranchers who want to follow suit and do the same thing about land rights in their state. Instead of given the finger to DEA or ICE they are doing it to BLM, same game. different players.
Maybe Texas will legalize machine guns?, Utah can legalize multiple wife's, etc.
The train has left the station on Federal control on a state level.

[BE911SC]

So where do you stand on states rights? Hasn't that been the marching music of the right since at least Ronald Reagan?

"When you speak of the tyranny of the majority in a popular democracy then what you're talking about is an election result that you simply do not agree with."

--Roberk Bork on C-SPAN ten years ago. It may not be a direct quote but it's damn close.

[scottmandue]

As an aside... how did they get charged twice for the same crime? I thought they couldn't do that (there is a fancy legal term for that I can't think of right now).

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

As an aside... how did they get charged twice for the same crime? I thought they couldn't do that (there is a fancy legal term for that I can't think of right now).

Double jeopardy.

[ficke]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

As an aside... how did they get charged twice for the same crime? I thought they couldn't do that (there is a fancy legal term for that I can't think of right now).

They are not "charged twice", 'double jeopardy', is the term. A second judge said the first judge did not follow minimum sentencing laws for the crime.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

I would suggest that those people take a brief look at the history from Soviet Russia or Communist China. Since when do we live in a country where the government owns the means of production and farmers must borrow their own land back from the government to raise cattle or grow wheat? Further, if you assume that there must be a government-managed land solution, why must it be a federal solution, rather than a state solution?

If we are looking at history, lets look at who occupied the land before white folks came along, who these whites were, and how they supplanted the natives and claimed ownership. I don't know the answers to this particular patch of land, but it's relevant.

[ficke]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

So where do you stand on states rights? Hasn't that been the marching music of the right since at least Ronald Reagan?

"When you speak of the tyranny of the majority in a popular democracy then what you're talking about is an election result that you simply do not agree with."

--Roberk Bork on C-SPAN ten years ago. It may not be a direct quote but it's damn close.

'States rights' was what the US civil war was fought over and it was a Republican who shut down the states who did not want to follow the feds.
All sides want state rights since then when it suits their interest. no one side, R's or D's can claim to have the moral high ground there. IMO

[ficke]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

If we are looking at history, lets look at who occupied the land before white folks came along, who these whites were, and how they supplanted the natives and claimed ownership. I don't know the answers to this particular patch of land, but it's relevant.

"Red" people have been fighting over that land for many years before the "white" people have.
I never felt comfortable describing people by the color of their skin, but I guess it is common term.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

So where do you stand on states rights? Hasn't that been the marching music of the right since at least Ronald Reagan?

"When you speak of the tyranny of the majority in a popular democracy then what you're talking about is an election result that you simply do not agree with."

--Roberk Bork on C-SPAN ten years ago. It may not be a direct quote but it's damn close.

What is really amusing about all of this is the heart of the question. The feds own the land, and they own it for a reason. In general, the reason western states became states to begin with is because Congress at the time traded statehood for ownership of land. So, without that ownership, the states might still be territories, under control of? Yup, the federal government.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

"When you speak of the tyranny of the majority in a popular democracy then what you're talking about is an election result that you simply do not agree with."

--Roberk Bork on C-SPAN ten years ago. It may not be a direct quote but it's damn close.

Boy we dodged a bullet when he was denied a place on the supreme court.

When you speak of the tyranny of the majority in a popular democracy what you're talking about is a majority that behaves as if it will never be a minority again.

[djmcmath]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

This is the allegation, but unsupported by actual evidence. I understand this is how the folks in the area feel about it, but there is a small problem with this. The feds, if they wanted, could seize all the land they wanted under eminent domain, pay the ranchers, and be done with it.

Or in other words, the fact that the BLM patiently rewrote the rules over a period of a few decades to force ranchers off their own land makes them good people, because they could simply have taken it outright? Don't get me wrong: I love the *concept* of eminent domain, but I've seen more than a few times when the inherent corruption in the system allowed really dirty things to happen. That's what makes me fundamentally suspicious here: is there oil under that land? What's the unspoken motive for all of this?

[ficke]

Here is another interesting read on the Hammond crime Two members of Oregon

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by ficke

'States rights' was what the US civil war was fought over and it was a Republican who shut down the states who did not want to follow the feds.
All sides want state rights since then when it suits their interest. no one side, R's or D's can claim to have the moral high ground there. IMO

More specifically, the Civil War was fought over slavery and the south defended themselves in terms of "states rights." The right of a state to own people. And yes, Republicans have made quite the 180, on many things, since Abraham Lincoln. I would say that Lincoln very much had the moral high ground in conducting the Civil War.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

Or in other words, the fact that the BLM patiently rewrote the rules over a period of a few decades to force ranchers off their own land makes them good people, because they could simply have taken it outright? Don't get me wrong: I love the *concept* of eminent domain, but I've seen more than a few times when the inherent corruption in the system allowed really dirty things to happen. That's what makes me fundamentally suspicious here: is there oil under that land? What's the unspoken motive for all of this?

Yeah, that's just a bunch of allegation and conspiracy theory. If the rules were changed, then ALL the ranchers had to abide by them, not just these folks. If you have any evidence for ulterior motive, go ahead and post it up. Make-believe is fun, but sticking to facts is better. And BTW, no, your interpretation of my post is not correct.

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Boy we dodged a bullet when he was denied a place on the supreme court.

When you speak of the tyranny of the majority in a popular democracy what you're talking about is a majority that behaves as if it will never be a minority again.

Bork's reward for firing Archibald Cox was supposed to be a seat on the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Okay, back to ranchers who want the government to get off of their backs but still allow them to graze cattle for free on government land.