Guns, Cows, and the BLM

Pages

IMAGE(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/newsroom/img/mt/2014/04/RTR3L0EB/lead.jpg?n414z8)

This picture caught my eye over the weekend. It shows Eric Parker taking aim at a group of protesters in Bunkerville, Nevada. Protesting what, you might ask? Cows.

More specifically, they are protesting the Bureau of Land Management's recent confiscation of about 300 head of cattle from Cliven Bundy, a local rancher.

And why would the BLM do such a thing? Well, it's a long story, but the Cliff Notes' version is that Bundy has been illegally grazing his cattle on federal land for the past 16 years and the BLM confiscated the cattle because Bundy has ignored multiple court orders and repeatedly failed to pay the $1.2 million in grazing fees he owes American taxpayers.

Bundy disagrees. More than that, he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government in this issue even though the federal government owns the land Bundy illegally grazes his cattle on (and 87% of Nevada for that matter). In fact, Bundy doesn't even recognize the federal government: "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada. I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing."

And those fervent anti-government beliefs has turned Bundy into an instant hero in the crazier corners of conservative America.

And that leads us back to the picture. That's because Parker isn't a member of law enforcement, the BLM, ATF, or any state or federal organization for that matter. He's one of hundreds of right wing militia members who flocked to Bunkersville with their ARs and AKs to "defend" Bundy from the government. See, Parker wasn't aiming at the protesters. He was aiming at the law enforcement officers and BLM personnel who were trying to enforce a valid court order and keep the protest from spiraling out of control.

A day later, fearing for the safety of the public and its personnel, the BLM returned Bundy's cattle to de-escalate the situation. Bundy responded by calling for his local sheriff to disarm federal "bureaucrats" and the BLM on Glenn Beck's radio show.

So now we're left with the situation still simmering in the Nevada desert. On one side we have the federal government trying to get the American taxpayers some back pay for Bundy's illegal use of their lands over the past 20 years and on the other we have a group of heavily armed white dudes with a severely shaky understanding of both Nevada history and constitutional law who seem to only be there to provoke another Waco or Ruby Ridge.

I smell conspiracy theory!

Please tell me that the man who is taking aim at people, threatening to shoot them if they do something he doesn't like, is in jail.

Songbird wrote:

Please tell me that the man who is taking aim at people, threatening to shoot them if they do something he doesn't like, is in jail.

rewording and more specification may be in order, that statement would seem to apply to what police officers do as well

I am a little surprised the BLM de-escalated, I was afraid this would turn bloody. Of course I was a kid during Waco and Ruby Ridge, maybe the govt ppl were too.
Also, in my head, I imagine a gov't bureaucrat talking to another one going, "dude, it's just a bunch of cows, let'em go-oooo"
OTOH, the cynic just rose inside me and I imagine they de-escalated because they were outgunned, which is pretty much the exact opposite of Ruby Ridge and Waco so most of the blood would have been the govt people.
So yay for the govt not being entirely unstoppable, but as a taxpayer I want my goddamn money back from this asshole.

Also, still upset about Ruby Ridge and Waco, and though my memory is fuzzy, I don't blame the sniper, I blame the ones in charge.
Also, the outfit involved with that stuff was the Hostage Rescue Team, which is deeply, tragically ironic as neither situation had anything to do with hostages IIRC.
They appear to exist for the sole purpose of doing violence (which obviously some criminals are very well armed and have lots of friends so a unit like that obviously has a use; just gotta be more judicious in usage, which at least according to Wikipedia has been a result of those incidents, so yay).

oh, also, crazy dude is crazy
edit: goddamnit, too many crazies, let me specify
crazy rancher dude is also crazy

It's not that unusual for police to do that to citizens. (set up sniping positions).

It's bad when *anyone* does it, not just civilians.

I dunno. I think if a police sniper has been able to identify Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and splattered their brains all over Boyleston Street with two well placed 7.62mm rounds, the world would have been a much better place for it.

This:

Songbird wrote:

Please tell me that the man who is taking aim at people, threatening to shoot them if they do something he doesn't like, is in jail.

And this:

Paleocon wrote:

I dunno. I think if a police sniper has been able to identify Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and splattered their brains all over Boyleston Street with two well placed 7.62mm rounds, the world would have been a much better place for it.

I know that the police have issues (some police depts have major issues), but I trust militia/prepper/Alex Jones types far less than I do the police, and assholes like the guy in the photo taking up a sniping position on government agents nonviolently doing their job need to be put in their place.

RolandofGilead wrote:

Also, the outfit involved with that stuff was the Hostage Rescue Team, which is deeply, tragically ironic as neither situation had anything to do with hostages IIRC.

I believe you're failing to consider the noble endangered tortoises whose plight kicked this whole thing off in the 1990s.

The scoreboard right now reads tortoises 0, american exceptionalism 1

Oh and the same goes double for Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr.

Farscry wrote:

This:

Songbird wrote:

Please tell me that the man who is taking aim at people, threatening to shoot them if they do something he doesn't like, is in jail.

And this:

Paleocon wrote:

I dunno. I think if a police sniper has been able to identify Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and splattered their brains all over Boyleston Street with two well placed 7.62mm rounds, the world would have been a much better place for it.

I know that the police have issues (some police depts have major issues), but I trust militia/prepper/Alex Jones types far less than I do the police, and assholes like the guy in the photo taking up a sniping position on government agents nonviolently doing their job need to be put in their place.

Those fools will regret hitching their power chairs to an anti-fed whack-a-doo.

Some time last year I received an affidavit from an individual out of Florida who listed his place of residence as the Sovereign Republic of Florida and when asked to list his assets declared that he did not recognize the legitimacy of the US government and that the federal government was in arrears to him for several million dollars for the illegal occupation of his birthland and that somehow his social security number was valued at several million in gold coin? He also included citation of a particular federal statute whenever he signed his name and when I looked it up it the top hit was to a Ron Paul site where they recommended you put that on all legal docs as it stated you were not relinquishing any rights known or unknown to any entity and that it was designed to safeguard against "governmental traps". It was truly a long ranting paper that I just kind of laughed at but the thought that there could be more of these same types of people out there getting together with high powered rifles? That's just scary.

HantaXP wrote:

I smell conspiracy theory!

["Alternative" media video]

Oh, man. I had no idea there was all this conspiracy stuff attached to the story! I just thought it was a classic state's right showdown with a bunch of wannabe patriots thrown in for good effect.

I have to say, though, that it's a bit sad when the videomaker goes out of his way to say that people should fact check their reporting and not spread rumors and misinformation and then go on to do exactly that.

A few minutes of Googling shot two massive holes through the conspiracy the videomaker was spinning: that this is really about a corrupt land deal involving Sen. Reid, his son, a Chinese energy company, and the Bundy's ranch.

Hole number uno involves basic geography. The proposed solar plant was going to be built in Laughlin, Nevada. That's about 170 miles south of Bundy's 150 acre ranch in Bunkerville. "Was going to be built" is hole number due. The deal fell apart last summer and nothing is going to be built, not even 170 miles from Bundy's ranch.

The effect of information bubbles on this is incredibly interesting and kinda helps explain why so many militia members showed up: they were getting told a story that, while completely fake, tapped into their zeitgeist.

I'm kind of torn here. If the protestors (and Bundy) are crying out that the federal government doesn't exist and has no power, then I am kind of okay with letting them feel the power of the federal armed forces. They are essentially secessionists and should be put down.

But the same argument could be used for the peaceful protestors at Kent State in the 60s. The key difference in my mind isn't that they there were saying the government doesn't exist but were instead simply protesting governmental decisions and policies.

It's all fun and games till someone loses a ribeye.

Nevin73 wrote:

I'm kind of torn here. If the protestors (and Bundy) are crying out that the federal government doesn't exist and has no power, then I am kind of okay with letting them feel the power of the federal armed forces. They are essentially secessionists and should be put down.

But the same argument could be used for the peaceful protestors at Kent State in the 60s. The key difference in my mind isn't that they there were saying the government doesn't exist but were instead simply protesting governmental decisions and policies.

Apples and pears. Protesting the law is a different ball-game from claiming that the law doesn't exist.

Paleocon wrote:

I dunno. I think if a police sniper has been able to identify Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and splattered their brains all over Boyleston Street with two well placed 7.62mm rounds, the world would have been a much better place for it.

Based on recent police performance they would have probably have missed the Tsarnaevs, hit 6 bystanders, and killed a guy attempting to tackle the bombers.

Jonman wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I'm kind of torn here. If the protestors (and Bundy) are crying out that the federal government doesn't exist and has no power, then I am kind of okay with letting them feel the power of the federal armed forces. They are essentially secessionists and should be put down.

But the same argument could be used for the peaceful protestors at Kent State in the 60s. The key difference in my mind isn't that they there were saying the government doesn't exist but were instead simply protesting governmental decisions and policies.

Apples and pears. Protesting the law is a different ball-game from claiming that the law doesn't exist.

No I completely agree. I guess I was just too lazy to formulate the words properly.

Nevin73 wrote:

I'm kind of torn here. If the protestors (and Bundy) are crying out that the federal government doesn't exist and has no power, then I am kind of okay with letting them feel the power of the federal armed forces. They are essentially secessionists and should be put down.

But the same argument could be used for the peaceful protestors at Kent State in the 60s. The key difference in my mind isn't that they there were saying the government doesn't exist but were instead simply protesting governmental decisions and policies.

The actual key difference is that these jackasses are pointing guns at people, an act that is typically considered threatening, and from my training is something you should not do unless you are ready and willing to kill that person.

Atras wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I'm kind of torn here. If the protestors (and Bundy) are crying out that the federal government doesn't exist and has no power, then I am kind of okay with letting them feel the power of the federal armed forces. They are essentially secessionists and should be put down.

But the same argument could be used for the peaceful protestors at Kent State in the 60s. The key difference in my mind isn't that they there were saying the government doesn't exist but were instead simply protesting governmental decisions and policies.

The actual key difference is that these jackasses are pointing guns at people, an act that is typically considered threatening, and from my training is something you should not do unless you are ready and willing to kill that person.

It think there is also the nontrivial issue of the whole fabric of society thing.

If folks are fomenting violent revolution because they view the current government illegitimate, you really have to question what they have in mind as a replacement. You may not like the fact that your government is sending folks to die in Vietnam, but even the protestors mostly agreed that government of the people was a pretty good idea. I'm not too sure of these anarchists.

Paleocon wrote:

If folks are fomenting violent revolution because they view the current government illegitimate, you really have to question what they have in mind as a replacement.

For these guys, didn't they say they recognized the government of the state of Arizona? In that case they'd be cool with keeping the current state and local governments, just not the federal government.

And only if they were allowed to graze for free on whatever *state* or *local* land they wished, because... Because!

Deadbeat on the Range
(Timothy Egan, New York Times Op-Ed, 2014-04-17)

No, the renegade rancher has no more right to 96,000 acres of Nevada public range than a hot dog vendor has to perpetual space on the Mall. Both places belong to the American people. Bundy runs his cattle on our land — that is, turf owned by every citizen. The agency that oversees the range, the Bureau of Land Management, allows 18,000 grazing permits on 157 million acres. Many of those permit holders get a sweet deal, subsidized in a way they could never find on private land.

Demonstrating yet again that the folks who invariably scream loudest about the virtue of rugged individuality are the folks who rely most heavily on public largesse.

Paleocon wrote:

I dunno. I think if a police sniper has been able to identify Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and splattered their brains all over Boyleston Street with two well placed 7.62mm rounds, the world would have been a much better place for it.

Why? You mean if they had done it BEFORE the bomb? Otherwise, sure, we'd have saved a night of locking down a town for a manhunt but I wouldn't really say that makes the world a much better place.

On top of that, there are always situations where taking away someone's rights would make things easier/better, but that's not a precedent we should set or support.

Atras wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I'm kind of torn here. If the protestors (and Bundy) are crying out that the federal government doesn't exist and has no power, then I am kind of okay with letting them feel the power of the federal armed forces. They are essentially secessionists and should be put down.

But the same argument could be used for the peaceful protestors at Kent State in the 60s. The key difference in my mind isn't that they there were saying the government doesn't exist but were instead simply protesting governmental decisions and policies.

The actual key difference is that these jackasses are pointing guns at people, an act that is typically considered threatening, and from my training is something you should not do unless you are ready and willing to kill that person.

There's an assumption that the jackass wasn't ready and willing to kill in there. From what little I know of the right wing gun-nuts, I'm not sure that's a good assumption.

Cod wrote:
Atras wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I'm kind of torn here. If the protestors (and Bundy) are crying out that the federal government doesn't exist and has no power, then I am kind of okay with letting them feel the power of the federal armed forces. They are essentially secessionists and should be put down.

But the same argument could be used for the peaceful protestors at Kent State in the 60s. The key difference in my mind isn't that they there were saying the government doesn't exist but were instead simply protesting governmental decisions and policies.

The actual key difference is that these jackasses are pointing guns at people, an act that is typically considered threatening, and from my training is something you should not do unless you are ready and willing to kill that person.

There's an assumption that the jackass wasn't ready and willing to kill in there. From what little I know of the right wing gun-nuts, I'm not sure that's a good assumption.

That was the point he was making. These people were, in all likelihood, ready and willing to shoot at BLM employees, which separates them a great deal from the protesters at Kent State.

Hypatian wrote:

Deadbeat on the Range
(Timothy Egan, New York Times Op-Ed, 2014-04-17)

No, the renegade rancher has no more right to 96,000 acres of Nevada public range than a hot dog vendor has to perpetual space on the Mall. Both places belong to the American people. Bundy runs his cattle on our land — that is, turf owned by every citizen. The agency that oversees the range, the Bureau of Land Management, allows 18,000 grazing permits on 157 million acres. Many of those permit holders get a sweet deal, subsidized in a way they could never find on private land.

To use their own word from another topic, he's a Taker. Cognitive dissonance is fun.

They should bulldoze his ranch.

Wasn't all that gearing up the police like the military and acquiring heavily armored multi-terrain vehicles supposed to prevent this sort of thing?

No, see, that's only for use against against civilians, not people with real weapons.

Pages