Radical US ranchers

[malleefarmer]

Whats the go with Hammond brothers in Oregon?
On the news this morning found guilty of arson and now supporters have taken over a wildlife refuge?

Is there more to this story than the 40 second snipett we got here, or just radical rightwing loonies?

And the bundys from Nevada getting involved.

[Braveheart]

Don't know for sure but believe the Hammonds and Bundys belong to militia groups that oppose the US Gov't intervention in their life. Even if not the same group militias will rally to each other's cause, especially if they feel the gov't is trampling their rights. They are well armed, organized and dangerous.

[burnt]

Whoa there, Braveheart, better get yourself a bit more familiarized with the story than what the MSM tells you before shooting off like that.

[BFW]

i hope this isn't over the recent overturning of MCOOL.

[Braveheart]

Burnt, I did say I didn't know for sure. I know the Bureau of Land Management is heavy handed in dealings with grazing lands. But, militias' involvement takes disputes to a whole new level.

While many in the US feel disenfranchised (especially in the Obama years) militia is a dangerous way to go as most militia is deemed "An Enemy Of The State". The question is are the militia right? Is America moving toward fascism or a New World Order with one global government? What gives US Fish and Wildlife the right to act like they're Army Rangers tackling a Taliban insurgency,when some ranchers want to retain the grazing rights their ranch has had for,generations?

You are right to assume I don't follow different news outlets to get different perspectives. I like to keep a peaceful mind as much as possible.

[Braveheart]

BFW, not MCOOL related.

[burnt]

I have read a fair bit about the backgrounds of both the Bundy and Hammond situations There is far more to the story than what 'CBC' style sites will tell us.

I would hate to see anything come to armed resistance but am certainly not surprised by such outcomes, especially in the gun-lovin', gun-totin' USA.

The constitutional rights and restrictions on government which provided the underpinnings of our respective governments were put there for a reason - our forefathers did not want to see a repeat of the old-world tyrannies from which we came.

It was because of their very intentional actions in forming and developing effective yet democratically functioning governments that we, as citizens of Canada and the United States of America, have enjoyed an unparalleled standard of freedom, civil liberties and subsequent prosperity - the envy of every person in the world!

But government is like a malignant, metastasizing tumor that just won't quite trying to assert itself and take over everything it touches.

The other side of the coin is that every citizen has incumbent responsibilities.

As long as those responsibilities are met, the government is constrained by the law of the land to leave those citizens alone.

The government may not impede, change or restrict the rights of any citizen without the consent of that citizen.

Now, as I'm sure we all know and have likely experienced, government has a way of achieving that without our knowledge, usually by giving certain "powers" to a para-government agency (eg.- Conservation Authorities) who then moves in sneaky and eventually ubiquitous ways to reduce our rights.

For instance, changing land use regulations (such as in the case of extremely restrictive wetlands regulations here in Ontario).

So after a prolonged period of time of increasing oppression which often includes fruitless negotiation, we have a Cliven Bundy or a Hammond who says we are not going to put up with this encroachment on our rights any more. The Hammonds, however appear to be the victims of unfortunate circumstance as much and anything of their own doing.

However when the government refuses to abide by the constitutional restrictions under which it was formed, it should come as no surprise that the citizens will respond by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was this very instance for which it was written.

So when we have those who make comment that such militias are anti-government, freeman types, etc, it is as much a reflection of a lack of understanding on their part as anything.

It also demonstrates just how much of our sense of liberty we have ceded to a constantly creeping nanny state.

There is good reason that the Ontario Landowners Association's most popular sign is "Government Back Off!"

[burnt]

http://bundyranch.blogspot.ca/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html

[burnt]

After reading the story linked above, does anyone still think the adjective "radical" applies to the Hammonds?

[burnt]

More background -

http://patterico.com/2016/01/03/what-are-the-bundys-protesting/

[stonepicker]

Pretty amazing story of continual gov. abuse of authority and heavy-handedness. What's disappointing is there doesn't appear to be any authority at any level of gov.that was prepared to fight injustice.

[farmaholic]

Not to be adversarial or argumentative but...

How many sides does a coin have... alot of people would say two which is kind of true but not totally.

A coin has three sides... the heads side, the tails side and the "edge"side, that divides, yet ties the two other sides together.

Compare that to a story: two sides to every story... and the edge between them, as thin as it is, is usually the true story...


I'm not saying the Hammonds have done anything wrong but I don't know the whole story, just read one side of it. From what I've read they seem to have been harassed, allot.