Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
I might preemptively do just that because that picture is hilarious. I also like the ones of him riding a shark:Originally Posted by cstone
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that - George Carlin
In reading a bunch of different web blogs and such on this event, I found a quote I rather like. Its from Karl Denninger: "There's an old saying that I've heard many times before-if you think its time to take a stand grab your rifle and head out the front door. If you're the only one out there, its not time."
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
The dispute at the heart of this incident (the two men of which have been distancing themselves from the militia) were two cases where fires broke onto federal land. One burned something like 100 acres, the other 1. The thinking is that the first may have been to cover up illegal poaching, the second was just careless in a time with a fire ban.
The original judge sentenced them to only roughly 1 year, saying that the 5-year minimum was unconstitutional against the 8th of cruel and unusual punishment. An appeals judge decided that, no, he didn't have authority to give that sentence and that the full 5-year term must be done.
Now, I really don't like the attitude of that appeals judge. She apparently thinks what they did was terrorism.
"Aiken compared the situation to 'eco-terrorism' cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed." From http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/2...back-to-prison
Another article with a bit about the case and a bit about the militia: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/0...-hq-in-oregon/
The other side of the story can be found here:
http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/201...l?view=classic
From link:
(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.
(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.
(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death.
I have been following this for months. My take...the Hammonds are getting screwed by the feds. Plain and simple. They served their time as sentenced by a judge and the feds want them to serve more? That's eff'd no matter how you shake it, not even getting into the actual "crime".
If the Hammonds wanted to fight, it would be legitimate. But they apparently did their only fighting in court. That's their choice.
The Bundys had a legitimate fight at their time too. It's a pretty strong argument that the Feds can't legally own land. It's also a pretty strong argument that the Bundys were there before the Feds and shouldn't have ever had to pay to use American land. But the standoff at their ranch grew organically. It wasn't forced and that gave it legitimacy. They had support from far and wide without much effort. The people saw tyranny and came in their defense, and won.
This time, I think the Bundys saw the same sort of tyranny unfolding and thought they had a chance to bring it to national attention again. I think that is a honorable goal. But the Hammonds don't want a fight so the Bundys had to force the issue. It didn't solidify organically this time and that's the problem. The fact that they are from out of state is a non issue for me. Federal overreach is still a major problem even if the victims of that overreach don't want to fight. Tyranny is tyranny no matter where it is. I see no problem with them trying to point it out.
But they choose the wrong way to do it IMO. They now put themselves into a position that could easily end up like Waco. And at the wrong time. The admin WILL use this as fuel for their anti-gun fire. By forcing the issue, the Bundys have turned what was pretty strong support for their anti tyranny effort into pushing a whole bunch in the movement away...the media will label them as terrorists, the public will believe it, then associate the rest of the patriot movement with them, and support will wane.
I don't know the motivations for sure, but I think I have a good idea of what they are. They chose the wrong battlefield and they will lose. Unfortunately this loss will eliminate any small amount of progress the patriot movement gained at Bundy Ranch.
PS - I don't see the feds letting this one go away quietly. This is national news now. I predict the feds use this to make an example. The feds got embarrassed at Bundy Ranch. I mean, our federal rulers let the civilians stop them from enforcing a court order? You know that didn't sit well with them. They won't let it happen again. They can't let another incident encourage people to resist.
Last edited by hollohas; 01-04-2016 at 15:41.
I agree with everything you stated up until this:
Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that I can see this possibly having the desired effect and spreading into something larger.
However, being an election year, most will sit home and wait to see who our next overlords will be come January - anticipating some more hope and change.
I HOPE you're right.
I found this, it's a long read but worth it
oops, looks like it's the same info as post #4....
Last edited by yankeefan98121; 01-04-2016 at 16:23.
Article IV section 3 cl 2 of the Constitution:
Seems pretty clear to me that the US Government can own land.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.
Martin
If you love your freedom, thank a veteran. If you love to party, thank the Beastie Boys. They fought for that right.
Good read and I love the comments section.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
George S. Patton
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
John F. Kennedy
?A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment, and is designed for the special use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics.?
George Fitch. c 1916.
Posting Permissions
