Nadir Point
Member
You mean if my home was being occupied by armed intruders?
Oregon Militia Malheur
- Thread starter Firefighterchen
- Start date
This was an execution. Even when hunting deer, you're not allowed to round them up by helicopter and then shoot them encircled. And the fact that, after they shot him, they left him in the snow to die, making no attempt to save his life, or to even check him to see if he was still alive. We have become China.
bofh
Banned
How about reading and quoting my post fully and finding the answer to your question in that very post?
bofh
Banned
I was already wondering when these types of posts start up here. I have seen already many of them in other forums and on Facebook.
You say it was an execution, but have no arguments to justify that statement. While the video has been released by the FBI, there is no audio and there are differing witness statements. I currently don't believe anyone, the FBI or the witnesses. Both have their agendas and both have been proven not to be trusted. See this thread for a discussion with arguments: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics-and-news/54248-killing-cowboys-death-west-bill-buppert.html#post588438.
You are comparing arresting someone for whom a federal arrest warrant has been issued with hunting deer? Are you saying that arresting people should be a sport? Police action and hunting are really different things, you know.
I don't like shooting someone encircled either, but for a different reason. What's beyond your target? A friendly.
Rendering aid to someone who was just shot in a tricky issue. LEOs are not EMTs and could be sued by the family of the shot person for improper first aid. SOP is to secure the scene and call EMTs. The 3 hold-outs in the car prolonged that period, by the way.
I assume that you have never been to China, but then you also have no idea what happened in this case either. Here is one hint. There was at least one FBI informant in one of the two cars. Possibly more.
Last edited:
Nadir Point
Member
That guy was delusional.
bofh
Banned
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
That's all right, I think you're delusional.
Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app
Nadir Point
Member
Get Real
No, it's a convenient slogan or rallying cry for a bunch of anti-government nutjobs. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Au contraire, mon frere. When someone says "the federal government" owns the land and puts up graphics like this it's just a diversion from their real agenda. Notice how the amateur video producer spent the 1st ten minutes introducing you to the pretty landscape, his daughter, the dog, then segue with a "they don't really have anything to do with this comment?" Little slip up there. He just wanted to start off by getting you to like him. Facts of the matter do not support his cause. The government has control of it and manages it for the people of the entire country. People like the Bundys and this idiot would rather have it their way, first come, first served and do as they wish with it. I suppose you would rather have anyone with a will to bully their way in to go there and do the same? The violence engendered in that approach would make these type incidents pale in comparison.
No, it's a convenient slogan or rallying cry for a bunch of anti-government nutjobs. If the shoe fits, wear it.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
So what was your user name before you either got banned or tired of always being exposed as a useful idiot of the left?
Rhino
New member
Troll. Or some form thereof.
bofh
Banned
Your response is really interesting. You seem to completely fail to understand even the basic graphic I posted. There are only a few sates in the West, where the federal government owns most of the property. Why its that? Why is it that ranchers and miners in the West have to pay a tax to the federal government to operate on their land (which the federal government now claims is theirs), while the ranchers and miners in the Wid-West and East simply don't? You apparently also completely missed out on American history. How do you think the West was settled? By people moving there, claiming land and operating on that land, i.e. first come, first served. You are also completely clueless about the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which only operates in the Western states (see graphic below). Again, why is that? The recent incidents at the Bundy Ranch, the Sugar Pine Mine and the Hammond Ranch are all related to years of conflict with the BLM over land rights and taxes in Western states. I know. I am asking questions. I am asking you to think. I know that this is hard. Please try to think before you post.
Link Removed
DavidWhite
Banned
Nadir Point
Member
The land hog ranchers have no more right to the open range than you, me or anyone else.
bofh
Banned
What do you qualify as open range? Land that has been taken away from ranchers by the BLM with intimidation and legal tricks? From Link Removed (underline is my emphasis):
The Hammonds' land will eventually fall into the hand of the BLM, then leased back to another rancher, who has to pay taxes for using the land for generations to come. This type of federal land grab has been going on since the 1950s.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
You are clueless. I could prove it, but you'd only disregard the proofs and come back with the same lame twaddle.
American citizens are being run off of land that they and their families have held deeds to the water and grazing rights for generations. BLM has been authorized by a run-amok federal government, including the oligarchs of the Supreme Court, to force them out, whether it be by surrounding them with land-grabs and cutting off the water, or burning them out by not-so-coincidental "accidental" spreading of fire-breaks, through intimidation like killing cattle, stealing them and trying to take them across state lines to sell for their own profit (otherwise known as cattle rustling), and all of these tactics and more go against the Constitution and against basic human decency. There's a reason it goes against human decency too, because government is not human, government is nothing but force, which the Constitution sought to limit the scope of authority for it to use, and property rights were at the top of that intended purpose.
Everything I said above can be documented as already having happened, some of it happening in Bunkerville two years ago, and some of it routinely happening to Western ranchers and farmers as we type, but all of it growing in frequency and intensity over the last 40 to 50 years to the point that it is righteous self defense against tyranny to resist it now.
Feds Burning Cows ALIVE, Torching Homes, Imprisoning Ranchers...
Nadir Point
Member
Sure all those things happened - but not for the reasons you and the cowboys think. In case you were not aware, BLM stands for (B)ureau of (L)and (M)ANAGEMENT.
Not Bureau of Land Ownership.
"...according to the Hammonds..." Bwa, ha, haaa.... Now that more and more settlers, companies and tourists are expanding into the wide open spaces, the greedy cowboys are out to grab whatever they can before it's too late. Oh well, good luck.
Not Bureau of Land Ownership.
"...according to the Hammonds..." Bwa, ha, haaa.... Now that more and more settlers, companies and tourists are expanding into the wide open spaces, the greedy cowboys are out to grab whatever they can before it's too late. Oh well, good luck.
bofh
Banned
Tell that to the BLM that they are not supposed to own land, yet they do. I am not sure what you talk about when you say "more settlers, companies and tourists are expanding into the wide open spaces." These disputes are not about new land that ranchers and miners claim, but about lands that they have claims on for longer than the BLM itself exists. The Sugar Pine Mine, for example, dates back to 1858. It is the oldest active mining claim in the State of Oregon. The title to the Sugar Pine Mine predates the formation of the BLM by over 70 years, and the formation of the US Forest Service by nearly 30 years. However, the BLM claims that they actually control the surface of the Sugar Pine Mine without any legal documentation. The BLM has tried to force the Sugar Pine Mine out of business last year with a cease and desist order. Without armed protection, the Sugar Pine Mine would have been raided by federal agents, equipment impounded or destroyed, and anyone found on the property arrested. More details can be found here and here.
As for the Hammonds, you seem to think that there is some element of comedy in the fact that ranchers who set fire to their own property, which then got out of hand and burned BLM property, were charged with terrorism, while at the same time the BLM itself conducts prescribed burns that get out of hand and burn more BLM property. BLM agents are not held accountable, but private citizens are charged with terrorism. I guess since it fits your personal political narrative of bad ranchers and good federal agents, it's fine with you.
This has nothing to do with expansion of ranches or mines, but all to do with the BLM taking land away from ranchers and miners and declaring it federal property managed by the BLM. You can not run a business or even live on such property without the explicit authorization of the BLM, following their rules, and paying land use taxes. BLM managed federal property is not, what you would call, an "open range". According to the BLM, you, as a citizen, have no right to conduct a business or live on BLM managed federal property. According to the BLM, it is a taxed privilege subject to their regulations (including how many hours you are allowed to work on that property).
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I just hope you shoot straighter than you think.
To every citizen who expects their government to serve them before serving itself, you are an enemy-enabler. Either that or an actual fed, in which case you would simply be the enemy.
Blues
DavidWhite
Banned
Nadir Point
Member
That sure explains what happens when these stupid yay-hoos run afoul of the law now, don't it? :no:
