Fair enough. I'm not sure, however, that your level of consistency is shared by many on the right.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists?’
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough. I'm not sure, however, that your level of consistency is shared by many on the right.
Why would anyone need to set a large fire on public land to cover up killing deer? Nothing about that makes any sense.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Makes perfectly good sense if you think that setting a controlled fire will destroy the evidence of you breaking the law,but then the fire gets out of hand.
...
Many on the Right–including many right-of-center news outlets–took the Bundy narrative as truth. They believed the feds erroneously took his cattle off of his land and he and his supporters were fighting for his personal property. Court briefs and the sworn testimony by the Bundy family made it clear that there were actually four tracts of land involved, and the three that were at the core of the crisis belonged to the federal government–not the Bundy family.
For purposes of simplification, let’s call the property owned by the Bundy family as Tract A. The property the Bundys once had the permission to use is Tract B (until they refused to pay required grazing fees in 1994). Tracts C and D were protected areas near Lake Mead that were never open to permitted grazing. After the Bundys refused to honor federal grazing requirements, their livestock was considered to be trespassing on Tract B, while hundreds of head of cattle—many unbranded—wandered into Tracts C and D.
Now let’s take a close look at that fight and what beliefs were at the core.
1. Conflating Nevada’s “fence-out” law with open range ranching traditions, the Bundys argued that their livestock could graze anywhere in Nevada unless authorities actively fenced them out of certain properties.
2. Bundy claimed that, since the federal government has no right to exist and is illegitimate, any federal lands in Nevada actually belong to the “sovereign” State of Nevada.
3. Bundy claimed that, since Nevada was the rightful owner of federal lands in Nevada and the state wouldn’t claim to be the owner of those lands, he was welcome to use adjacent tracts as natural extensions of his private property.
4. Bundy claimed Tract C and D as his own by means of the above logic. That’s what the fight was primarily focused on. Tract C was a recreational area for Lake Mead. Tract D had always been a reserve that Bundy had never had the “right” to use.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ance-to-government-land-grabs-know-the-facts/
Many on the Right–including many right-of-center news outlets–took the Bundy narrative as truth. They believed the feds erroneously took his cattle off of his land and he and his supporters were fighting for his personal property. Court briefs and the sworn testimony by the Bundy family made it clear that there were actually four tracts of land involved, and the three that were at the core of the crisis belonged to the federal government–not the Bundy family.
For purposes of simplification, let’s call the property owned by the Bundy family as Tract A. The property the Bundys once had the permission to use is Tract B (until they refused to pay required grazing fees in 1994). Tracts C and D were protected areas near Lake Mead that were never open to permitted grazing. After the Bundys refused to honor federal grazing requirements, their livestock was considered to be trespassing on Tract B, while hundreds of head of cattle—many unbranded—wandered into Tracts C and D.
Now let’s take a close look at that fight and what beliefs were at the core.
1. Conflating Nevada’s “fence-out” law with open range ranching traditions, the Bundys argued that their livestock could graze anywhere in Nevada unless authorities actively fenced them out of certain properties.
2. Bundy claimed that, since the federal government has no right to exist and is illegitimate, any federal lands in Nevada actually belong to the “sovereign” State of Nevada.
3. Bundy claimed that, since Nevada was the rightful owner of federal lands in Nevada and the state wouldn’t claim to be the owner of those lands, he was welcome to use adjacent tracts as natural extensions of his private property.
4. Bundy claimed Tract C and D as his own by means of the above logic. That’s what the fight was primarily focused on. Tract C was a recreational area for Lake Mead. Tract D had always been a reserve that Bundy had never had the “right” to use.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ance-to-government-land-grabs-know-the-facts/
I see....so Bundy was looking for a free hand out from the government. Welfare. Got it.
I really don't care how many on the right are consistent or inconsistent. As a centrist there opinions have nothing at all to do with me.
Who gave the federal government the right to own property in the states. And who gave the federal government the right to deny people the right to hunt in order to feed themselves and their families?
Yes, the government investigates the government then the government decides the government didn't do anything wrong. <roll eyes>
Who in BLM has to be elected to office?
Why were schools closed? No schools were threatened.
Why were "a lot of people" frightened? Who were they frightened of? And why?
I suspect you know the answer, but here it is.
US Constitution
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Still waiting for you to show where any of the people involved in the sit-in attempted to detonate plastic explosives.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ammon-bundy-militia-members-occupy-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-oregon-n4
"although local residents were visibly worried and had even posted signs saying "Militia go home."
"It's sort of frightening when there are people making threats and people toting guns," Burns resident Kainan Jordan told KTVZ. "We're not used to this kind of thing here."
For the record, I wouldn't use the term terrorist either because this is simply too comical to be labeled as anything more.
<Sigh> I know you're not this dense. The citizens of these states need to lobby their US congresspeople to draw attention to their issues. The congressional representatives then need to publicize the problems and negotiate to bring about changes in policies. It might take a new president to appoint people at the BLM that would be sympathetic to the state's issues.
poncho
Well-Known Member
If this terrorism then so is what "black lives matter" did in Ferguson.
Why didn't we call "black lives matter" terrorists? They destroyed property and threatened the lives of police.
Why didn't we call "black lives matter" terrorists? They destroyed property and threatened the lives of police.
Just stop. Believe me, there were plenty of morons calling them exactly that.
Are you done building your strawman?
I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem. Article IV talks about territories and property belonging to the United States.
The legal definition of "territory" is a geographical area that has been acquired by a particular country but has not been recognized as a full participant in that country's affairs. In the United States, Guam is one example of a territory. Though it is considered a part of the United States and is governed by the U.S.Congress, Guam does not have full rights of statehood, such as full representation in Congress or full coverage under the U.S.Constitution.
The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any land within the borders of a US state. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period.
In fact the US Constitution only provides for the federal ownership of the District of Columbia, which is not a part of any state and has limited rights under the US Constitution (I.E. no voting Representative in the House and no Senator).
You through out the name and claimed parity. Still waiting for you to show where any of the people involved in the sit-in attempted to detonate plastic explosives.
You can, like the militia people, claim to interpret the constitution any way you desire, but our opinions don't count. The US Supreme Court decides what is the law of the land. They have ruled on this issue. Take it up with them.
- Status