I have the right to use government land (now with slavery!)

[Vazdania]

Le source!!!!!!!! I'm not saying its wrong, I just want to see for myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#United_States_v._Bundy

ew No. Wikipedia, while appropriate many times on NS. Is not something Vazdania accepts at this time, please leave a better source after the beep.



BEEP.

[Death Metal]

It was completely inappropriate.

That's not the point, though. This wasn't about turtles or cattle. This was about the reach of the federal government - how far can they go, how much can they regulate and how much do people have to take from them? Even though he's been avoiding the debate so far, you can bet that Obama knows what's going on and has been thinking about it. Should the federal government have been able to just trample over this ranch, then it would have been a very minor victory for the wildlife but a very major symbolic victory for any politician thinking of giving the federal government more funding, more power and more legal rights.

But it wasn't his land, it never was his land, he was a trespasser.

Stop making up conspiracy theories. You're worse than the people who still believe the Benghazi witness even after he admitted he made his story up.

[Pandeeria]

The SWAT team is permitted to own and use automatic weapons, chemical agents (tear gas) and body armour, and has formal training in clearing buildings and ground.

SWAT is beating wannabe secessionists.

These guys also use Automatic weapons, can produce Napalm in their back yards, and have lots of Ammunition to fall back on.

They would most likely have to use tanks.

If the US really wanted to get serious, they could call in the National Guard and the Military.

Though again, I don't think there will be riots across the nation.

[AiliailiA]

Here is something interesting that I've come across. It's in one of the sources posted by one of you - presumably one who does not support the Bundy family.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells a local news outlet, "It's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over."

Do you see the subtle wording? It's not "we can't have people who violate the law and then just walk away from it." No, it's "we can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it." And still the people in Reid's camp argue that this isn't about affirming the government's power over the people.

Yep. He did say that: youtube at 1 minute 25.

OMG tyranny Imma get my gun

[Roski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#United_States_v._Bundy

ew No. Wikipedia, while appropriate many times on NS. Is not something Vazdania accepts at this time, please leave a better source after the beep.



BEEP.

It includes the official outcome of the Supreme Court Order.

[Imperializt Russia]

The SWAT team is permitted to own and use automatic weapons, chemical agents (tear gas) and body armour, and has formal training in clearing buildings and ground.

SWAT is beating wannabe secessionists.

These guys also use Automatic weapons, can produce Napalm in their back yards, and have lots of Ammunition to fall back on.

They would most likely have to use tanks.

I can make napalm. So can you. It's piss easy, in theory.
The trick is being able to use napalm and not kill yourself in the process.

Two tons of tear gas will have these faggoty secessionists feeling all hardman with their rifles and "down wit gub'mit" attitude weeping in a police truck.
And I will use their tears to distil me some tabasco.

[Quintium]

He explicitly did not say "Bundy". He did not even refer to individuals. He referred to "an American people", in the sense of roughly 317,899,000 residing within the United States of America.

If you understood context, you would realize he was referring to Bundy and his criminal buddies who have threatened violence against Federal agents.

How? There was absolutely no context provided. Reid literally said "an American people", and added that they should obey the law even if they consider it unjust. Now, while that argument has something going for it (even if this is federal power tripping and nothing more), he certainly did not mean Bundy. Plus, you know, this wasn't a mayor or a backwater judge talking. This was a national politician, and one of the most important ones at that. This, to him, is a symbolic conflict, one in which he can either affirm or lose the federal government's credibility.

[Providence and Port Hope]

Am I the only one here who noticed the OP called this a bunch of bull!?

[Roski]

These guys also use Automatic weapons, can produce Napalm in their back yards, and have lots of Ammunition to fall back on.

They would most likely have to use tanks.

If the US really wanted to get serious, they could call in the National Guard and the Military.

Though again, I don't think there will be riots across the nation.

There would be.
Others, like the Black Panthers, might get in on it, but fighting on another side.
The country is already divided into clear sides. This "siege" did not help.

[Dyakovo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#United_States_v._Bundy

ew No. Wikipedia, while appropriate many times on NS. Is not something Vazdania accepts at this time, please leave a better source after the beep.



BEEP.

You need to learn to check the references...
There is nothing wrong with (that section at least) of the wikipedia article.
PDF of court decision.

[Roski]

These guys also use Automatic weapons, can produce Napalm in their back yards, and have lots of Ammunition to fall back on.

They would most likely have to use tanks.

I can make napalm. So can you. It's piss easy, in theory.
The trick is being able to use napalm and not kill yourself in the process.

Two tons of tear gas will have these faggoty secessionists feeling all hardman with their rifles and "down wit gub'mit" attitude weeping in a police truck.
And I will use their tears to distil me some tabasco.

It would look like Kiev and Caracas.

[Death Metal]

If his version of the law was how it worked, then the land probably would belong to some Native Americans.

Their role in this matter has been limited, unfortunately. All I could find was:

"The federal government just wants control of us. But I'm not going to be controlled," Keith Nay says.
But those seeking greater access to federal land deny they are looking for an old-West shoot-out.
"Do you want to see my weapons?" asks Norm Tom, a Paiute Indian and Nay's son-in-law, who runs about 100 cows on range adjoining Bundy's.
He pulls out two copies of the Constitution, one pocket-sized, one full sized.

Credit to Norm, he keeps his weapons in mint condition, because he clearly has never actually read the Constitution in his life.

[Dyakovo]

If you understood context, you would realize he was referring to Bundy and his criminal buddies who have threatened violence against Federal agents.

How? There was absolutely no context provided. Reid literally said "an American people", and added that they should obey the law even if they consider it unjust. Now, while that argument has something going for it (even if this is federal power tripping and nothing more), he certainly did not mean Bundy. Plus, you know, this wasn't a mayor or a backwater judge talking. This was a national politician, and one of the most important ones at that. This, to him, is a symbolic conflict, one in which he can either affirm or lose the federal government's credibility.

The context is he was talking about Bundy and his criminal buddies preventing the BLM from doing their fucking job.

[Imperializt Russia]

I can make napalm. So can you. It's piss easy, in theory.
The trick is being able to use napalm and not kill yourself in the process.

Two tons of tear gas will have these faggoty secessionists feeling all hardman with their rifles and "down wit gub'mit" attitude weeping in a police truck.
And I will use their tears to distil me some tabasco.

It would look like Kiev and Caracas.

No.

[Roski]

How? There was absolutely no context provided. Reid literally said "an American people", and added that they should obey the law even if they consider it unjust. Now, while that argument has something going for it (even if this is federal power tripping and nothing more), he certainly did not mean Bundy. Plus, you know, this wasn't a mayor or a backwater judge talking. This was a national politician, and one of the most important ones at that. This, to him, is a symbolic conflict, one in which he can either affirm or lose the federal government's credibility.

The context is he was talking about Bundy and his criminal buddies preventing the BLM from doing their fucking job without casualties and a possible uprising.

[Pandeeria]

If the US really wanted to get serious, they could call in the National Guard and the Military.

Though again, I don't think there will be riots across the nation.

There would be.
Others, like the Black Panthers, might get in on it, but fighting on another side.
The country is already divided into clear sides. This "siege" did not help.

Once the riots are quelled and people get more complacent with the State, only the more hardcore groups will be staging riots and such.

Then these can be labelled at Domestic Terrorists and will be detained accordingly.

[Quintium]

But it wasn't his land, it never was his land, he was a trespasser.

What the supposed facts are here - legally, the federal government is entirely in the right even though its argument is based on its own legislation - is not even the core of the issue. The core of the issue is the ridiculously politicized and overdrawn reaction from the federal government. Their intention was not just to take the cattle and get the rancher off the land. Their intention was to make an example of him, as they have done with all the ranchers who used to also use that land. They've been legally battering these ranchers until they gave up for decades, after demanding fees for them for another couple of decades.

[Roski]

It would look like Kiev and Caracas.

No.

Except the "rioters" are much better armed, and they really don't have a chance of Russia coming in and taking part of the country.

[Roski]

There would be.
Others, like the Black Panthers, might get in on it, but fighting on another side.
The country is already divided into clear sides. This "siege" did not help.

Once the riots are quelled and people get more complacent with the State, only the more hardcore groups will be staging riots and such.

Then these can be labelled at Domestic Terrorists and will be detained accordingly.

If they can get them.
Understand there will be a heavy amount of loss of life involved in such an event.

[Imperializt Russia]

But it wasn't his land, it never was his land, he was a trespasser.

What the supposed facts are here - legally, the federal government is entirely in the right even though its argument is based on its own legislation - is not even the core of the issue. The core of the issue is the ridiculously politicized and overdrawn reaction from the federal government. Their intention was not just to take the cattle and get the rancher off the land. Their intention was to make an example of him, as they have done with all the ranchers who used to also use that land. They've been legally battering these ranchers until they gave up for decades, after demanding fees for them for another couple of decades.

You seem to be implying that America is an Anarchic state which the federal government has infiltrated.

I suggest you leave this idiotic logic train where it belongs, not in a public forum.

[Dyakovo]

But it wasn't his land, it never was his land, he was a trespasser.

What the supposed facts are here - legally, the federal government is entirely in the right even though its argument is based on its own legislation - is not even the core of the issue. The core of the issue is the ridiculously politicized and overdrawn reaction from the federal government. Their intention was not just to take the cattle and get the rancher off the land. Their intention was to make an example of him, as they have done with all the ranchers who used to also use that land. They've been legally battering these ranchers until they gave up for decades, after demanding fees for them for another couple of decades.

Ah... You're a conspiracy theorist. kthanxbai.

[Quintium]

The context is he was talking about Bundy and his criminal buddies preventing the BLM from doing their fucking job.

Now, now, no need to get angry. He said, though, "we can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it."
He - a man who lives and works thousands of miles from that ranch and is a very important national politician - has politicized this issue to highlight that his view, and the view of the federal government, is that the people should obey the law regardless of what the law is and how it came to exist. Believe me, a major national politician doesn't just comment randomly on local issues.

[Roski]

The context is he was talking about Bundy and his criminal buddies preventing the BLM from doing their fucking job.

Now, now, no need to get angry. He said, though, "we can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it."
He - a man who lives and works thousands of miles from that ranch and is a very important national politician - has politicized this issue to highlight that his view, and the view of the federal government, is that the people should obey the law regardless of what the law is and how it came to exist. Believe me, a major national politician doesn't just comment randomly on local issues.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin

Lies.

[Death Metal]

But it wasn't his land, it never was his land, he was a trespasser.

What the supposed facts are here - legally, the federal government is entirely in the right even though its argument is based on its own legislation - is not even the core of the issue.

Yeah, I'm putting you on ignore now. This is happening in the real world, not the Kingdom of Make Believe. When you're ready to treat this like a real world issue, maybe I'll listen to you then.

[AiliailiA]

The context is he was talking about Bundy and his criminal buddies preventing the BLM from doing their fucking job.

Now, now, no need to get angry. He said, though, "we can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it."
He - a man who lives and works thousands of miles from that ranch and is a very important national politician - has politicized this issue to highlight that his view, and the view of the federal government, is that the people should obey the law regardless of what the law is and how it came to exist. Believe me, a major national politician doesn't just comment randomly on local issues.

He is one of the Senators for Nevada you know. It's obviously not a "local issue" if a Federal agency is involved and the State government isn't.