A Military View of the Bundy Ranch Situation: Why Everyone Should Be Worried

reply to post by LowTechRedneck


You know what?

Despite everything the cops in the uk, even the armed ones are very approachable and helpful.

Generally you only get armed police at major transport hubs, makes perfect sense. When my girlfriend was delayed at the airport i approached 2 armed policemen and one policewomen and asked them to help me, which they did without question or pause. My issue was resolved and i thanked them and went on my way. I wouldn't DREAM of doing that with automatic weapon equipped offers in the USA.

While I am against the militarization of the police which has been going on since 9-11, this main was ruled to have been trespassing for 20 years and owing the government a huge amount of money which he refuses to pay. How much lawbreaking do you think should be able to go unpunished just because you feel ideologically supportive of him?

GreenMtnBoys
I'm not siding with Bundy because I believe he is right on this issue. I'm siding with him because of the response and shadiness of the US government.

Agreed, the BLM/Feds blew this up by their actions, or perhaps they didn't calculate that the resistance would be as vocal and widespread? In any case, they backed down (as of now) and I truly hope that when they say they will pursue this "administratively and judicially" that it is the case. As for Harry Reid and his "chinese deal" screw him...

What gets me is how we see the government use environmental reasons to gobble up land. A tortoise needs savings from cows! If the land ends up being leased for other reasons than the stated we have a hugeproblem. Politicians using their positions for personal gain. Heck using the fed agencies as tools to further their own agenda's sounds pretty draconian. Just remember folks next time you eat a actual hamburger where that meat comes from.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Listen to yourself for a minute.

You are saying that this man, on his own land, in his own home with wife and two or so kids, suddenly for no reason found themselves, on their own land, surrounded by an army of feds with snipers...

No one else there, and no justification..

So how did the protesters and militia show up in the first place again?

edit on 12-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Again the protesters and militia showed up AFTER the BBM came in with snipers.

Why is this point so hard for people to ubderstand? This is a simple matter of trespassing. The response is way over the top. This would be like a swat team showing up on the scene of a jaywalking complaint and shooting the jaywalking dead on sight. There is no need for such a show of force.

Would you support law enforcement if they surrounded your home with snipers trained on you and your family if the neighbors complained that you stereo was too loud?

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So long as Americans have Second Amendment rights, law enforcement officers will need to assume that they are in a potential firefight and make tactical decisions based on the likelihood of armed conflict. Do you have a problem with either part of the equation?

Yet, so many here on ATS want to disarm law abiding citizen because they believe that the state is SOOOOO trustworthy.

reply to post by MrWendal


Yet no one can show me anywhere where anyone other than Bundy and anywhere other than some UK tabloid rag magazine said there were the presence of snipers at all

I'm happy to read where anyone besides Bundy says that there were snipers there...legitimate sources from non-biased persons who saw snipers BEFORE the militia showed up...

neighbors... anyone in the area...

reply to post by OpinionatedB

5:21 in this video he talks about an undeclared state of martial law and sniper perches...

reply to post by LadySkadi


All I know is there are two sides to every story, and the two sides are almost always lying... the path between the two sides is where the truth lies...

so where is the middle...? I don't know...

But I'm no more willing to support Bundy than I am to support a banker who has no respect for laws. I'll give you that the system slaps bankers on the wrist and over reacts to the general public ...

but if we are to be better than what we say we are against... then we must be better.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Yet no one can show me anywhere where anyone other than Bundy and anywhere other than some UK tabloid rag magazine said there were the presence of snipers at all

I'm happy to read where anyone besides Bundy says that there were snipers there...legitimate sources from non-biased persons who saw snipers BEFORE the militia showed up...

neighbors... anyone in the area...

I totally share your frustration. Not only were there likely NO snipers, but this guy literally just got away with breaking the law while others pay for his privilege to do so. This is why I despise Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

Kali74

OpinionatedB
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Yet no one can show me anywhere where anyone other than Bundy and anywhere other than some UK tabloid rag magazine said there were the presence of snipers at all

I'm happy to read where anyone besides Bundy says that there were snipers there...legitimate sources from non-biased persons who saw snipers BEFORE the militia showed up...

neighbors... anyone in the area...

I totally share your frustration. Not only were there likely NO snipers, but this guy literally just got away with breaking the law while others pay for his privilege to do so. This is why I despise Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

edit on 4/12/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Yet you fail to address the more fundamental question: why should the government own 86% of a state? Wherein lies more liberty?

reply to post by LadySkadi


Santili?

lol

ok... remind me not to ask for "proof" from an unbiased source again on ATS..

ratings mean more than truth .... ratings...

I would prefer truth. I just give up...

NavyDoc

Kali74

OpinionatedB
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Yet no one can show me anywhere where anyone other than Bundy and anywhere other than some UK tabloid rag magazine said there were the presence of snipers at all

I'm happy to read where anyone besides Bundy says that there were snipers there...legitimate sources from non-biased persons who saw snipers BEFORE the militia showed up...

neighbors... anyone in the area...

I totally share your frustration. Not only were there likely NO snipers, but this guy literally just got away with breaking the law while others pay for his privilege to do so. This is why I despise Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

edit on 4/12/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Yet you fail to address the more fundamental question: why should the government own 86% of a state? Wherein lies more liberty?

Why should I address something that has been since the West was 'won'? The Federal Government owns most of the land in the entire United States and always has. More so they are Constitutionally granted the ability to take land through Eminent Domain... the only land they can't take is Native Territory, yet they are doing that constantly... several tribes right now are trying to keep their land from being stolen (again) for the stupid pipeline that won't help America what-so-ever. Where's the goddamn outrage there? Where's Beck and Jones and the militias?

Most of the ranchers in the area wanted it this way, it is better financially for them to not have to buy land for their cattle to graze. They've paid for the privilege to graze on federal land while this schmuck just comes along and takes what they pay for! It's utterly frigging ridiculous.

reply to post by NavyDoc


They want more than just a little scrub brush.

www.youtube.com...=226

reply to post by Kali74



It doesn't #ing matter... it just doesn't #ing matter...

they hate rich people so much they are willing to fight and die so the poor people can act just the same as the bankers...

and not one person gives a # about truth or right or wrong,

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Good luck findind "unbiased" sources here, eveyrone is biased and people are taking sides. Ok look, let's not sidetrack on this and keep the bigger picture in mind... BLM turned what should have been a judicial matter, into armed and aggressive action... they backed down, yes, but it should never have gone there.

The constant pitch is that people won't stand up against govt. tyranny (real, perceived, whatever) but then when they do, the gripe becomes they're standing up for the wrong thing. Oy vey...

reply to post by LadySkadi


The bigger picture...

the government over reaches

the bankers and corporations don't get punished for crimes

the welfare gets to live off the public dime

and now we are willing to die so that small businesses can refuse to pay for land they run their business off of

why don't we just be anarchists... thats what everyone seems willing to fight for... no laws for anyone and free handouts for all...

# right or wrong...

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I would not dream of purchasing cattle and taking them to the nearest national park to raise them...I simply wouldn't expect that to go over so well... this is government land he is on... land the government purchased and never put up for sale to the public...

So tell me this one little itty bitty thing.
WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT ?

Is it any longer
WE THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE
Just asking

reply to post by Kali74

as i understand it, the Bundy family was breaking BLM regulations, not laws. and those regs, supposedly saving environment for the desert tortoise, effectively ended his grazing rights...i.e., even though he paid BLM fees, he could not graze. so he quit paying. his beef was that since 1880 or about, his family had been grazing..and keeping the land in such a way as to allow that. go to google earth, locate bundy ranch, and see...it is surrounded by irrigated patches for cow fodder when the federal land is unproductive.
Yes he broke BLM regs, but the rules were created to boot him from his claim on the land.
AND guess what. Harry Reid and family have an investment with the Chinese to use the land on a solar power station. and a top aid to Reid is Head of BLM.
go to the web site of that hated terrible always wrong conspiracy creep Alex Jones, and read the documents posted by Reid and his associates..they mention Cliven Bundy by name as a problem.

so there.

darkstar57
reply to post by Kali74

 

as i understand it, the Bundy family was breaking BLM regulations, not laws. and those regs, supposedly saving environment for the desert tortoise, effectively ended his grazing rights...i.e., even though he paid BLM fees, he could not graze. so he quit paying. his beef was that since 1880 or about, his family had been grazing..and keeping the land in such a way as to allow that. go to google earth, locate bundy ranch, and see...it is surrounded by irrigated patches for cow fodder when the federal land is unproductive.
Yes he broke BLM regs, but the rules were created to boot him from his claim on the land.
AND guess what. Harry Reid and family have an investment with the Chinese to use the land on a solar power station. and a top aid to Reid is Head of BLM.
go to the web site of that hated terrible always wrong conspiracy creep Alex Jones, and read the documents posted by Reid and his associates..they mention Cliven Bundy by name as a problem.

so there.

And that is a valid point. The BLM violated a long standing agreement to concede to radical environmentalists and refused his payment. It's not that he didn't pay--that is a lie. He paid but they blew him off. IN addition, just like Nancy Pelosi giving her own company exemptions to the minimum wage act, a politician who wanted to profit off the land changed regulations so that he could make money. Surprise surprise.