His "disability" militia has also shown their faces and needs to be charged with fraud. I feel sorry for the neighbors who has to live next to this nut.

there is no depth that these numbskulls won't go to protect their narrative...they actually think they can take on the Federal Government. That is what that stupid III% logo is that they wear is about. They believe that only 3% of the Colonists fought against the British and won....that if only the "3 Percent" of the population rises up against the government....they will achieve the same outcome! That is HOW loony they really are!

my book these are domestic terrorists. I'm amazed they get such a free pass.

about confronting them. In a way, I think backing off might be the right decision. I think the citizens of that part of Nevada might take care of them in their own way. They have outworn their welcome, so they might find that stuff will become in short supply to them, like water, food and other necessities of life, oh, don't forget the ammo, when the locals start refusing to sell to them.

I know we have a responsibility to keep these nuts in check, but we better be smart about it.

for those RVs and trucks. There is no other nearby transportation that most people take for granted in other places. Really, eighty miles from Las Vegas is like stepping back in time to covered wagon days. There isn't much living off the land, either, as it's dry desert. Those guys have pissed off the locals so they aren't going to be helped much. My husband and I have actually had to rescue people in the past off the road who broke down or ran out of gas in the middle of a very remote area to get them to the next gas station.

Last edited Sun May 4, 2014, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I didn't think it was necessary to use But I guess it was...so added.

We broke down on a road in the middle of it. It was all day before another car came by who drove us into the nearest town, a couple of hours away, to hire a tow truck to go pick up our rig. This was before the days of cell phones and we didn't have a CB. That's how empty a lot of it is.

They're already stopping people on the side of the road and terrorizing the locals and the feds aren't doing anything about it. What's to prevent them from just emptying out whatever store they feel like?

The locals are probably wondering the same thing, and that's why they're not going to start refusing to deal with them.

That story turned out to be a rumor that had no basis. They are not "terrorizing the locals" which is why the feds or local law enforcement are not doing anything about it. They are stopping and searching any visitors who come onto the property which is legal. Your post is full of hyperbole. I am not defending Bundy or his supporters but posts are completely exaggerating what is actually happening there.

when they pointed out that they were videotaping on a *public road* that he didn't *care* if it was a public road?

Recently, when a news crew from the same TV station was doing a story there after rumors of checkpoints, they reported:

commit them as often they support themselves this way. When I lived in Idaho, the news was full of these events although the compounds would just say they were not longer affiliated with them but had been there in the past. This is why the prisons are full of these gang members, because that is what they are, like the Aryan Brotherhood.

If there is a robbery, that's the time the sheriffs or other law authorities can move in an arrest them, away from their buddies back at "camp". That way they can't claim their rights to free speech, which is what they try do to justify their activities.

onlookers might well see it is government overstep, etc., etc. ... but leaving them as is, people will probably get fed up with them and see their idiocy as invasive, authoritarian, something quite negative and comedown on them as being obnoxious juvenile assholes with guns and dangerous in the big picture.

It took MONTHS to pry tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown out of their fortified house, but Federal Marshall Steven Monier patiently waited them out, and the Browns (and some friends) were walked out without shots being fired.

The same folks consistently talking about the "police state" and "authoritarianism" are now calling for L/E to show these clown who's boss.

... any government... have to exert it's sovereignty?

These aren't protestors chanting and waving signs, these people are an armed, threatening mob. They are interfering with the implementation of court orders. They deny the government exists. They have threatened Federal officers.

At what point does a government have to step in or risk being seen as impotent?

If these people were on the Left, saying and doing what they are saying and doing, they would be toast.

Let them sit out in the sun and feel big and bad. They will get bored soon enough. There was a thread earlier that said there was some infighting going on already. The last thing we need is another Waco.

this just appears to add to the appearance of the two tiered legal system that we see, where the rich (and now groups with guns) get away without consequence while those of us too poor to pay a high profile attorney gets to rot in jail for minor offenses like smoking pot 30 days ago and getting charged for dui today. They gonna do any stop and frisk on these guys? Hell no.

In the past, confronting these groups has gone horribly wrong. Think MOVE in Philly, Ruby Ridge, Waco etc. In this case, the government is actually in a better position. I'm not an expert on this situation, but I don't think they have kids there, like in Waco. There is no immediate threat. No need to escalate things when they can just wait it out.

I'm no law enforcement expert, but I bet handling any group of armed men is a very tricky situation.

The same people that consistently defend wiping out Muslims with drones with no proof they did anything wrong whatsoever are pretty ok with a bunch of non-Muslims waving guns and committing multiple acts of what would be considered terrorism in anyone's book. Anyone that gives a shit about the citizens that aren't right wing nutcases is clearly just bloodthirsty. I've got a feeling those people would have defended any action taken no matter what it was. Can't imagine why.

on the continental USA. We do it in other countries half a world away though as you know.

What a terrible comparison you make.

One if people being against an authoritarian govt. that is spying on American citizens, which is unconstitutional. This group is concerned about upholding the constitution and our freedoms.

The Bundy situation is about a lunatic who doesn't believe in the USA who has been breaking the law for decades, defying the federal govt's contract and now has a group of people pointing high powered rifles at federal officers. This group doesn't believe in the constitution and has taken up arms to fight federal power and defend its right to be outlaws.

Not the same thing at all. But it's just so much fun to try to ridicule people with whom you disagree.

they would all be dead or in prison now...

And I wonder why I should follow or obey any fucking law if this is these terrorists can disobey the law without consequence...

When the WH figures out just how bad it is to let these guys continue, they will do something, I guess.

In the meantime law and order is a fucking joke.

stand up for rights, be against oppression and persecution and you get run over.

Did these guys even briefly consider that we're not living in the era of muskets and cannonballs anymore?

What, do they think they Feds will show up with bayonets?

f*** him

They have all those expensive toys and I'm sure they are dying to use them in a real 'war'.
They want to shoot and kill people just like the heroes in the movies.

That there are so many conflicting narratives only serves to show that the situation isn't cut and dried. One side or the other needs to back down.

Sometimes being right isn't the damn point. If this thing sets off, is anyone going to care who was -right- when it's over and we're counting what is likely to be hundreds of thousands of our loved ones?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not willing to watch our lives burn to ashes so we can say "Yeah, but see, he was a freeloader" like some kind of "Welfare Queen"-spouting Republican when its all over.

Bundy has been using federal land for his cattle. That's cut and dried. He claims he didn't know he had to pay, and the government has neglected to collect for a number of years.

No matter what the narrative, Bundy must be held accountable and pay up or get off OUR land.

...and (as I point out in another response down-thread, things may change on the Bundy front and me not know about it; I don't tend to follow people I consider idiots very closely) to the best of my knowledge he has no right to use the land. By the same token, I know (with the caveat above, of course) that the sheriff never had him arrested for whatever reason. Personally, I don't -care- overly about the 'narrative' one way or the other. What I care about is someone knocking off something that progresses into a major conflict because they wanted to 'be right' and 'show those mean gun-toters how life is'.

My proposal is simple. A settlement of some kind. The terms are variable and can be negotiated, so long as they involve paying the taxpayers back for at least a portion of taxes owed. The IRS settles all the time. There's no reason to bring this kind of thing to a head without trying plain, simple, honest tactics first. If they continue to hold out in the face of legitimate government attempts to settle, they'll lose what support they have among even the RW American People and Bundy will still get arrested at some point.

We can't back away from people who think their rights are being trampled on for whatever reason, but neither do we have to go out of our way to spark a conflict with the desire of killing them.

This is not about the IRS and not about taxes. The issue is unpaid grazing fees on federal land (and fines for not paying same), has been going on for 2 decades AND has been adjudicated in several courts for YEARS. Bundy lost every time, including appeals. Apparently that is immaterial since he says he doesn't recognize the right of the federal government to exist (all the while waving the national flag and claiming to be a patriot ).

BTW I find it odd that you think it is the job of the county sheriff to enforce federal law. 'Cause that's what Bundy and his fellow "sovereign citizens" think.

How many more plain simple honest tactics do you need? The only folk there expressing any kind of desire to kill are the nutjob "patriot" militia that support Bundy. They are itching to start a shooting war. Want proof? Who backed down and who is still there, fondling their guns?

You're gonna have to try harder.

Prevent a group of people from killing each other? Hey, if you want to get your bloodlust on go right ahead. I can't stop you.

BLM, IRS, Taxes, Grazing Fees...who gives a damn? I don't care which alphabet agency money is owed to, its money owed and money owed to the government can and does get settled from time to time. But whatever. Get your war on, you go guy.

I don't know exactly -what- it is you 'suspect' me of 'trying', but I thought I was pretty clear -- I don't want to see our government in a kill-em-all standoff with a bunch of people who are concerned about their rights. Whether the concern is real or not isn't the point, apparently unless it's a good justification to get some blood flowin' and teach them there gun-totin' bassards who's REALLY boss 'round here!

The so-called kill-em-all standoff was never that except on one side, and ended two weeks ago. Unless you are one of these

There were a number of things that were clear in your post and your concern is noted.

...and since there are two ways to interpret the rest of your post, I'll just shrug and nod. If you think something is 'clear' and I didn't expressly say it or insinuate it with clarity, read my sig line. Either way, I'm done with this. I didn't care about this Bundy idiot in the first place until people started talking about how bad it seemed one side wanted a fight, talking about the 3% thing, and so on.

Have a good weekend.

since I'm not a dude, a guy, a man, or a buddy either.

I had mah gumption up and had done whupped out mah soapbox.

That said, I see no reason why there should be a settlement with Bundy, short of full payment of all monies owing. This was not a simple mistake on a form, or an oversight, a misunderstanding or a mis-communication. This guy has been in open defiance of the law for decades and when matters came to a head he called in a bunch of heavily-armed yahoos to promote his interests, not his rights.

Nobody on this side wants a shooting war, but frozen accounts? I'm fine with that. Seizure of his ranch and having a sheriff's auction, if necessary to raise the funds? I could get behind that too (plus it would be very interesting to see his reaction, since the "county sheriff" is the only law enforcement he recognizes). Jail for contempt also justified, and I don't know what else. My bottom line? Bundy shouldn't be let off easy--nor should anyone--just because he feels strongly about his position.

is that he (Bundy) doesn't recognize the US government as being legitimate, but yet he pays his income taxes, SS and Medicare. Doesn't make too much sense.

The guy's a loon, I don't think there's much question about -that- at all. I mean certifiable!

He claimed pre-emptive grazing rights based on the false claim that his family ranched and grazed cattle there before the creation of BLM, so he is not subject to BLM authority. But that argument implies that ranchers who came later and lacked those pre-emptive rights would be subject to BLM authority.

None of it makes any sense.

I was -strictly- talking about some things I had seen posted (and not all necessarily here) wherein some people -wanted- an actual confrontation between government 'forces' (using the term as a catch-all, hence the quotes) and the militia crazies. That's all I was talking about and referring to. I know there are a ton of people who want to see that kind of thing on the RW side (I've met more than enough of them in my lifetime to know that they're out there and in larger numbers than we'd like to think; thankfully, they don't seem to trust each other a lot) and want it to be done in a 'galvanizing' way. If anything could make them get over their inherent distrust of each other, it'd be a chance to stage a Fort Sumter (as they see it). My only purpose, and the entire thrust of my comment, was meant to dissuade people from thinking that such an event is something we'd like to see.

And you note the sheriff also, and the point that he's 'recognized' for whatever reason. I think he could be instrumental in some kind of final, peaceful resolution. I don't in -any- way think Bundy should just wander off scot-free; I just don't see a need to rush a resolution with all the crazies hanging around. I think time, tension, and boredom will get the better of them, and then we can finish this up without them there trying to start Civil War: The Redux.

i.e. the cows, and remove the offending critters from federal land--when the showdown started. It quickly escalated and they backed down. I'm glad they did, but I wish they had approached it differently (like freezing accounts). Srsly, "nobody could have predicted" that reaction from Bundy and his pals? Sheesh.

like others who use federal lands for grazing purposes.
Having failed to pay the leasing fee, he is ordered to remove his cattle from the land.
It's not unusual for someone to believe he/she is in the right, even though he has a court order against him.

I understand his cattle has also decimated the land by over-using (eating) the vegetation.

I agree it's not worth instigating unknown problems against Bundy and his allies

"That there are so many conflicting narratives only serves to show that the situation isn't cut and dried."

No, there are not "so many conflicting narratives".

There are exactly two. Following the rule of law, and breaking the law.

Good point. Just because you howl at the moon doesn't mean you have a position. This is much larger and simpler than this mob. Its rule of law or mob rule. Every other decision is tactical, every other opinion is commentary.

Welcome to that club.

I don't battle strawmen. Take them to someone else.

open to the public for the exercise of free speech.

Bundy has occupied an area of federal lands that is open to the public with the exception that if you graze cattle there you have to pay a small fee per head. It's under $2 per month per head of cattle as I understand it. Bundy is in a very different situation from the Occupiers.

Bundy is using federal land to feed his cattle so that he can sell them and make a personal profit, personal income. The Occupiers were supported by donations. They weren't producing products to sell for profit on federal land.

That is another difference.

A flat statement. That is indeed what authorities said about Occupy. It has nothing to do with finances. I believe those words as a flat statement are idiotic. Very little in this life is all one way or the other.

Yes, there is very little in the world that comes down to a simple dichotomous either or. But, at times, fleeting as they may be, there are moments of yes and no. This is one. He stands in flagrant violation of the law, has imagined a law of his own, and organized a body, or mob, to try and enforce it. He may return to the grey world of alternative possibilities in the future, but at this bright and shining moment he has set the question...are we going to allow mob rule or are we going to take steps to retain some semblance of order.

Conflating this moment with any other is a non sequitur. I make no stand on anything other than this singular moment. I do appreciate your position however. Perhaps you could make the ranchers case for shades of grey?

part of the profit that Bundy makes by allowing his cattle to feed on the federal land.

In a sense, the federal government is Bundy's landlord. Bundy hasn't paid his rent.

Occupy was not profiting from its use of government land. So the issue is different. Occupy did not owe any government any rent and since Occupy was not profiting from the use of government property, the government had no such claim against Occupy.

That's why the financial side plays a role. Bundy is using federal land for his own personal financial profit. Occupy did not do that.

I was thinking about Camp Casey where Cindy Sheehan and many anti war activists camped illegally in a ditch outside of the fake Bush ranch in Crawford. Of course they were armed with guitars and protest songs not guns and ammo.

I think this situation is showing similarities which is why the authorities really can't move in. They are exercising their right to protest and as long as no crime is committed like someone shooting another or robbing them, they are within their rights given to them by a government they don't recognize.

However, if I were the sheriff, I would have arrested those yahoos on the overpass pointing guns at federal officers and those setting up a check point. I think those things were definitely against the law.

That is illegal but not worth a blood bath on either side.

I agree with this:

"However, if I were the sheriff, I would have arrested those yahoos on the overpass pointing guns at federal officers and those setting up a check point. I think those things were definitely against the law."

But again, not worth a blood bath at this point. They will get hungry and bored and either start shooting at each other or leave. And the federal government can go to court again and place liens on Bundy's property. I'm not sure how that would work, but it seems to me that it would be possible.

in due time. When he sells his cattle they will move in with a lien on that money. It's slow and will take time, but he thinks this is how it play out. In the meantime Mr. Bundy is living in a fool's paradise. His militia buddies will find themselves under the glass to be scrutinized too and then dealt with legally but without gun fire I believe.

When they started stopping people at checkpoints they crossed a line. If the federal government doesn't want a thousand more nuts pulling the same bullshit every time they have to pay taxes, these asshats need to either go into the prison or into the ground.

Being right isn't the point. If the federal government can't stop a bunch of nuts with guns from terrorizing a community for weeks on end, then what good are they? That's the point.

...there hadn't been any evidence provided. I don't have television anymore, so I don't follow things as thoroughly as I could/maybe should, but did those ever get actually proven?

there are the bomb scares and death threats to hotels they thought had BLM people staying there.

Thank you for bringing those to my attention. I -did- hear that even two groups of them had turned on each other, something about drawing weapons on each other? I'm not surprised in the slightest; every Rambo wants to be the 'hero' Rambo.

And I think, though, that is a clear signal that we don't need to do anything -hastily-. We've waited all these years on the tax front (and as I posted above, I think a settlement holds the best answer for everyone, but time will tell), so a month or two more is no big deal. Investigate each of these threats thoroughly, arrest the perpetrators with clear (and RECORDED) announcement and proceedings, and otherwise let the rising temperature and thinning 'supply line' take its toll on them until they scatter. The human body can only remain 'on edge' so long.

6000 years old?

There is the truth and there is the rightwing bullshit, in every issue known to Americans

It really is that simple

...the 'truth' on everything. I won't rank myself among them. I can't. No one is -ever- -always- right. Ever.

and the right is right

...evolution after all.

I'm referring to strictly political things. Not things that one side tend to group around, but have no real basis in the political.

That means nothing.

Do you also believe that Obamacare might very well have death panels and that Benghazi is a huge scandal?

1. Meth
2. Young girls

They have the vantage point and given terrain, they can spot when law enforcement is in the area on the ground or in the air. This is the perfect place for them to get high on meth and ...have as much relations as they please without worrying about Law Enforcement ruining their "fun". Of course they're not going to do it out in the open, this is why they have the tents.

They've also squeezed out all of the so-called independent journalists and bloggers which is why we havent seen any photos or videos coming out of there in the past few days.

[IMG][/IMG]

They already have the creepy pervert van

[IMG][/IMG]

And, as we learned after the Boston marathon bombing, something like a tent--or a boat cover--doesn't offer all that much by way of concealment with the right visualization equipment.

They'll run out of supplies eventually.

Whether they run out of money is another question.

Rather than at a very high profile situation. Your post makes no logical sense.

Those among them who are Vets must really be confused. We're behind them defending gov't backed reasons for war but if they defend what they perceive as right on American soil, they're perverts with guns.

and I don't give a hoot if they served in the military.

And 9 times out of 10, when a right wing idiot CLAIMS to be a vet, it turns out they are full of crap.

The vets I know are smart people who wouldn't be taken in by a racist thieving moron.

Law Enforcement wouldn't dare go near it, its a remote area, they can see for miles and it would be difficult to place bugs or surveillance especially inside the tents.

This place is heaven for those types.

There are media and law enforcement all around.

And apparently they can set up checkpoints for the nearby town and law enforcement does nothing.

Seriously, I couldn't just check out and play war with my little club for weeks on end. Do any of these guys work? How many of them are living off of the government?

Why yes they are.

Did Occupy owe Federal Govt money for 20 years of grazing fees?

Was Occupy about one man's freeloading or about helping the 99%?

Did Occupy welcome outsiders and help homeless etc?

More strawmen.

gets called out and says it's "diverting" to talk about Occupy.

And you and the poster do not address that.

Bundy is comprised of fundies with some Koch support and disabled vets with an IQ of around 87

cry "Strawman" In fact Occupy was an organized protest like many in the 60s. This bundy war is an armed rebellion in support of a criminal. BIG difference.

No, Occupy was not remotely like the 60s except maybe to people who were never there. There was no armed rebellion in NV. Talk about changing facts. How come our CIC did not make an address about the "armed rebellion" going on in his own country?

the welfare cowboys are doing.

No one who was involved in 60s protests would ever say that. There were peaceful protests and there were violent confrontations. Ever hear of the Days of Rage? The Weathermen bombings? The protests in the 60s were a mixture of peaceful protests and planned confrontations. But most important they had leaders. Totally unlike Occupy.

associated with the civil rights movement that was more police action than two sided. Do you not remember what happened with the police and their dogs? Do you not remember the flowers that we put in the guns to defuse the situations? I am 72 years old and have been an activist since I was 16. It was peaceful on our part until the later years which should not have happened.

I would like to know why you are so against Occupy? It is the first movement since those years we are discussing that gave us a chance to peacefully protest. And they were not rebelling against the government they were pointing out that our economic problems were in large part the fault of Wall Street. So what are you so angry about.

The angry posts have been directed at me. I was not against Occupy. I am just giving reasons why it failed. Yes, I know, people think it was a rousing success. Some people tell me it is still going on strong as ever. Delusional.

You seem to be the one bringing the straw-men into the living room. Others are simply offering contrasts and comparisons...

Forgive me if I ignore your judgement about what they are doing.

But means of support was asked of Occupy by the media.

Trying to shut down discussion may work with newbies not me.

But I do not respond to posts that are flame baiting.

People are being realistic. Do you really think a gun battle over cattle and taxes is a good idea? This isn't Syria.

Being on welfare isn't wrong. Being a "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrite is wrong.

And they weren't menacing innocent civilians.

1> The militia will fight among themselves.

2> They'll get bored. It'll get hot. The costs will add up. They'll go home. Then the ones that they have cases against will be arrested one at a time.

Another month or two, maybe until mid-July, and these guys will crack.

Even for the ex-military among them who served in Iraq, a few more months in what's essentially a homeless camp in the middle of the Mojave is going to get pretty unlivable, pretty darn fast

Some of these guys who showed up didn't think to bring a change of underwear.

Which is funny considering they would need it if the shooting actually started.

There's already one huge pissing match forming between the "Oath Keepers" and the rest of them; the "Oath Keepers" got an unsubstantiated rumor that Eric Holder had called in a drone strike on them, believed it and left the AO; the rest of them decided the "Oath Keepers" were traitors for not staying to die. Given the right conditions, they could very well start a shooting war amongst themselves.

If that happens, and it probably will, the governor of Nevada will probably use his National Guard to break it up...and they will deploy overwhelming firepower. They Have Mortars And Know How To Use Them, And The Militias Can't Defend Themselves Against Indirect Fire.