Quote:
Originally Posted by
GGT
But he's been too busy correcting my terminology to actually discuss what Bundy and his militia supporters have been doing in Bunkerville. :bored:
The BLM engaged in a lawful attempt to seize property, they were opposed by a mostly1 legal protest by militia-types, and the BLM backed down, at least temporarily. Some militia have left, others are lingering, in expectation of further federal action or to visibly support Bundy's grandstanding. You view this with alarm. I view it with apathy. You repeatedly insist it's criminal. I point out again and again that it's not. Semantics is something where position B might technically be the case but it doesn't make any actual difference. This is not so here, whether something is criminal or something else makes a great deal of difference. You may choose to be blind to that, but your blindness has never changed something.
Quote:
I'm trying to discuss this particular scenario -- where a man with anti-federal government beliefs butts heads with federal authorities because he doesn't recognize their legitimacy/validity, then encourages militiamen to actively confront law enforcement agents, using guns/weapons in threatening ways that escalate the situation.
No, you got into it with me because you objected to my accurately correcting Loki and are only now finally willing to start inching toward the concession that maybe I was right. You may be trying to shift things to a different subtopic to try and avoid ever having to acknowledge there's crow on your plate but discussion really does take at least two parties.
Quote:
The stand-off won't be resolved by citing case law, precedent, or jurisdiction to the guy who doesn't recognize federal authority/agency/legitimacy.
No, the "stand-off" is going to be resolved in one of three ways. The Feds are going to get Bundy from a direction protestors can't block, they're going to wait for the protestors to go away and try again, or they're going to write the whole thing off as not worth the cost. I do not think the middle option isn't particularly likely. None of your blather and concern about the idea of armed protestors matter a whit for the first and since I'm neither a "law and order" type nor a gun fearmonger, I don't mind the last in the slightest.
Quote:
OMG! Fine....CITIZENS pay the taxes that fund the BLM -- and give federal subsidies to authorized ranchers who graze cattle on specific land. Since those things are ultimately decided by elected legislative representatives (at state AND national levels), that means every tax payer and/or voter is a constituent.
Let's not get into parsing citizenship, since non-citizens and undocumented residents also pay taxes that fund federal agencies, okay?
No, it does not mean every tax payer and/or voter is a "constituent," not in general and certainly not wrt thoughts/feelings/concerns about this confrontation. And GGT, if you think ranchers support the BLM on this, you're nuts. They may not support Bundy and his call to militias but they and lots of others in the West have been fighting (and losing to) federal land management for the last 40 years. They are sore and resentful. Kindly take note that your suburban (Midwest, right?) values and opinions are not universally held.
Quote:
And let's not get bogged down by yet *another* group of terms using legal standards/definitions/recognitions! :picard:
Again, nothing semantic about it. Well, maybe you tried to make a point that was ultimately mere semantics, but I didn't. You decided to deride my knowledge by saying I was not a registered paralegal, which was an attempt at an authority fallacy. Unable to do more than spit wind against anything I say wrt the law, you tried to argue that my lack of such registered status indicated I had no legal background. Unfortunately, you were wrong even there. I do have a legal background and my knowledge is equivalent to that of someone qualified to represent themselves as a paralegal.
Quote:
Fuzzy, have you stopped reading news reports about the situation still developing in Bunkerville and surrounding towns, or what? Just because BLM agents "stood down" didn't mean the dilemma was resolved. Bundy still refuses to pay outstanding fees and fines, continues to encourage (incite?) armed militia and separatist political groups....who are intimidating (threatening?) people using public roads, and local businesses.
Those 'constituents' are complaining to elected officials, from Assemblymen to Congressmen to Senators. Those people threw it back to the local Sheriff -- the same Sheriff who stood on a dais with Bundy as a 'supporter' of Nevada state sovereignty. Pickle-in-the-middle....who has the jurisdiction and legality authority to bring this stand-off to an end, and how should they proceed?
Where are the statutes and citations that encompasses all that? :bulb:
I have, in fact, mostly been ignoring what little reference comes up in the papers since Bundy made that racist diatribe, same as I only gave the topic passing attention until it came up on here. Since you decided to bring it up, though, I've gone back and looked. And what I've found is not much from the locals. Some complaints about the local sheriff "being AWOL," a lot of criticism of the BLM, a mention that the police in Mesquite keep getting questions from abroad about whether it's safe to travel through (they say it is) and a whole bunch of verbiage from a guy from the House of Representatives, like a claim that an anonymous 5th-grader came up to him and complained about Bundy's "sense of entitlement." :confused: His grandstanding is worth even less than Bundy's. I have not seen much of any sign in the press about the locals feeling threatened by the presence of armed protesters in the general area. It wouldn't surprise me if they did feel that way but I really don't give a rat's ass about whether people feel threatened by others who are still following the law. And neither should you. The only reason you do so is, again, these are activists on the opposing side, politically. I don't recall you caring about anyone concerned about WTO protestors. You dismissed people concerned about Occupy and actively supported them and they did far more damage (including to each other) than anything that has happened or is likely to happen in that area of Nevada.
Where are the statutes and citations that encompass all that? Primarily they're in the US Constitution under protections like freedom of assembly. I think people exercising their rights and being socially and politically active is a good thing. I wish you were fair and honest enough to think the same even when you don't like the views they espouse.
1 I'm willing to concede the claim that the protesters engaged in misdemeanor obstruction of justice: impeding the execution of a court order. No one appears interested in prosecuting this, which is not surprising. Mass misdemeanors are routinely ignored, armed or unarmed. It's just not practical to try and punish group behavior that way.
