Oregon Situation

[Curmudgeon]

Right 22 - I keep asking who believes in the rule of law. It seems some here do so only when they agree with it.

[wildcat junkie]

Right 22 - I keep asking who believes in the rule of law. It seems some here do so only when they agree with it.

 

They do the same thing with the Bible & The Constitution. Pick out the parts they like & ignore the rest.

 

It doesn't matter how they infringe on the rights or beliefs if anyone else.

 

[Mr VJP]

Right 22 - I keep asking who believes in the rule of law. It seems some here do so only when they agree with it.

 

That goes for both sides though.  Many here seem to feel breaking the law is fine when it's done by certain groups they support, who often commit violence at the same time, while rabidly denouncing these guys for doing it without using violence, at least so far.  Nobody here is without prejudice.

 

People who live in glass houses.......

Edited January 18, 2016 by Mr VJP

[Mr VJP]

It doesn't matter how they infringe on the rights or beliefs if anyone else.

 

 

The Progressive Democrats and Liberals are quite guilty of the same thing.

 

I don't think you've ever acknowledged it when they do it though.

[wildcat junkie]

The Progressive Democrats and Liberals are quite guilty of the same thing.

 

I don't think you've ever acknowledged it when they do it though.

 

Be specific.

 

[Mr VJP]

Be specific.

 

The 2nd Amendment and self defense are the two biggest areas the Democrats love to attack.  They also constantly interfere with private business, free speech, freedom in general, property rights, right to work, right to know laws, religious freedom and generally over regulate every aspect of citizens lives.

 

To them, rights are subject to change without notice.

 

Both parties do it, but the Democrats do it more IMHO.

[The_Field_Ager]

The Democratic led NY assembly recently shot down 13 propsoed anti-corruption laws introduced by Republican members.Gotta keep the crooked party going after all.  Even NPR has noticed how corrupt NY dems are:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/05/10/182852131/how-new-york-became-one-of-the-most-corrupt-states

Edited January 18, 2016 by Papist

[22Plinker]

That goes for both sides though.  Many here seem to feel breaking the law is fine when it's done by certain groups they support, who often commit violence at the same time, while rabidly denouncing these guys for doing it without using violence, at least so far.  Nobody here is without prejudice.

 

People who live in glass houses.......

 

In reference to the "people here", there is a huge difference between being some person behind a computer screen saying you agree or disagree with how people make a stance for what they believe in and actually going out and committing a crime in that same stance of belief.  I am willing to bet every person that has posted in this thread has an opinion for or against some law or regulation that has a direct impact on their lives, but none of them have gone out and committed a crime completely unrelated to the original law or regulation in an effort to make a stance against the government.

 

If the Bundys had performed a legal protest, even one that lasted days, weeks or months I personally may not agree with their position but I would absolutely respect their right to make their stance.  What they are doing is in no way legal and the very essence of what they are doing hinders others who don't wish to be involved in the situation to begin with.  Making a stance against the government should NOT force others to get involved against their wishes.

 

People with property bordering the federal land, as well as people who used the federal land for recreation are not allowed to use that land because of its current occupation.  That is forcing people who were previously not involved in the Bundys "protest" to now be affected by it.

[philoshop]

The States came together to form a union. That Union needed a consolidated voice with regard to foreign affairs and they created a Federal Government with which to express that voice. They framed the Constitution to expressly limit the powers of that Federal Government to those that the States were willing to give away. Read that again. What the States were willing to give away.

 

The crisis we see now is that many States are far too willing to cede their Rights to the Federal Government.  In doing so they cede the Liberty of their constituents, The People, in the process. Far too many of The People are willing to go along.

 

The People run the States, the States run the Federal Government. That's how it was laid out when the US was founded, but that basic concept has been turned entirely upside down over the last century.

[philoshop]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4571012/rep-greg-walden-armed-standoff-oregon

[fasteddie]

What a shame so few were there when he spoke ! 

[22Plinker]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4571012/rep-greg-walden-armed-standoff-oregon

 

very interesting

[chas0218]

In reference to the "people here", there is a huge difference between being some person behind a computer screen saying you agree or disagree with how people make a stance for what they believe in and actually going out and committing a crime in that same stance of belief.  I am willing to bet every person that has posted in this thread has an opinion for or against some law or regulation that has a direct impact on their lives, but none of them have gone out and committed a crime completely unrelated to the original law or regulation in an effort to make a stance against the government.

 

If the Bundys had performed a legal protest, even one that lasted days, weeks or months I personally may not agree with their position but I would absolutely respect their right to make their stance.  What they are doing is in no way legal and the very essence of what they are doing hinders others who don't wish to be involved in the situation to begin with.  Making a stance against the government should NOT force others to get involved against their wishes.

 

People with property bordering the federal land, as well as people who used the federal land for recreation are not allowed to use that land because of its current occupation.  That is forcing people who were previously not involved in the Bundys "protest" to now be affected by it.

The way the law reads in the USA is in order for a company, business or person to fight a law a person must first be arrested/accused for said law. They can sign any law they want into the books but until someone is actually arrested and tried for that law there is no way to fight against that law. 

 

Take it for what it is worth, there are laws that have never been enforced since they were established but are on the books and could be used.

Edited January 19, 2016 by chas0218

[22Plinker]

The way the law reads in the USA is in order for a company, business or person to fight a law a person must first be arrested/accused for said law. They can sign any law they want into the books but until someone is actually arrested and tried for that law there is no way to fight against that law. 

 

Take it for what it is worth, there are laws that have never been enforced since they were established but are on the books and could be used.

 

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. 

[fasteddie]

The Bureau of Land Management has burned down farmers fences with their "back burning" with no regard to the dwellings , livestock , etc..  The Government is over controlling the land . Why does the government need millions of acres ? 

[The_Field_Ager]

. Why does the government need millions of acres ? 

 

 

This is all about the UN's Wild-lands project. I have no doubt.

[Mr VJP]

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. 

 

The point is many protesters break the law and get arrested.  People chain themselves across bridges blocking traffic.  They get arrested.  BLM members disturb the peace in restaurants, and should be arrested, but they have some sort of "protected class" status, so they aren't.  Anti-war protesters during Viet Nam got arrested (At Kent State they got shot!)  I could site dozens of examples, but I think you can see what I'm saying.

 

The guys out west are not even close to the first group of protesters to break laws to make their point.

 

Protesters do not have any opportunity to challenge a law unless someone gets arrested so they can challenge the law in court.  You can't if the law has not harmed you.

[22Plinker]

The point is many protesters break the law and get arrested.  People chain themselves across bridges blocking traffic.  They get arrested.  BLM members disturb the peace in restaurants, and should be arrested, but they have some sort of "protected class" status, so they aren't.  Anti-war protesters during Viet Nam got arrested (At Kent State they got shot!)  I could site dozens of examples, but I think you can see what I'm saying.

 

The guys out west are not even close to the first group of protesters to break laws to make their point.

 

Protesters do not have any opportunity to challenge a law unless someone gets arrested so they can challenge the law in court.  You can't if the law has not harmed you.

 

That is not entirely true.  Laws CAN be created or changed at any time.  Someone being arrested or harmed is not necessary for a law to be changed.  The fact there are over 300 million people in the US and people get arrested all the time for all sorts of reasons doesn't mean you have to be arrested first to change a law.

 

Either way wanting to change a law doesn't give anyone the right to do what the Bundys are doing.  I'm not even addressing the Hammonds issue because that part of the issue has been blown so far out of proportion its silly.  My point is directed towards the Bundy occupation of a federal property.  It's illegal and like any criminal they should be arrested and face the consequences.

[philoshop]

A big part of Representative Walden's point was that the Federal regulatory bureaucracy is simply unwilling to work with The People. His examples make that astoundingly clear with respect to his constituents in Oregon.

 

The basic argument with this thread and with the 'Welfare Ranchers" thread is based on the assumption that the Federal Government bureaucracy knows what's best and that it can always be counted on to do the right thing.

Representative Walden knows from first-hand experience that this is not the case.

[Rebel Darling]

I think that a large part of the problem is the general perception that is created as a result of armed occupiers not yet being arrested, and then allowed to receive accommodations.  That, to many, seems like a "protected class" treatment afforded them, or an unfair advantage in the face of the Law.  A question that I'm curious to know the answer to is: "Why haven't they been apprehended and charged?" 

 

I'm not there, I don't know the details on the ground, so I really don't have anything other than questions, and I'm doubtful that I'll ever get any answers that are anything other than skewed, swinging one way or another.  What I can say is that the perception created by an apparently uncontested and armed occupation of land that belongs to us all leaves me unsettled.

[woodchuck]

I think nobody has been arrested yet because of the guns. No matter anyone's opinion on this standoff, if the Feds go there to arrest the militia , most likely shots are gonna be fired and that could be the match that ignites the powder keg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uptown Redneck]

I believe the government is doing everything possible not to give these rightwing morons and their supporters anything that they can use, in this case shooting these fools, to use against them in promoting their hatred of the government. 

[The_Field_Ager]

promoting their hatred of the government. 

 

 

Would this be the same government currently poisoning people to death in Flint, Michigan?

 

Yes...it would be the same...

[Mr VJP]

Leftists only like the government when they feel it's on their side, acting like a big brother backing up their juvenile tantrums.  They hated it under Nixon and Reagan.

 

 

[The_Field_Ager]

Leftists only like the government when they feel it's on their side, acting like a big brother backing up their juvenile tantrums.  They hated it under Nixon and Reagan.

 

Well spotted.