Taboo Topic: BLM Nevada: ...Was the 2nd Ammendment in Play?

[gunsmith]

Taboo Topic: BLM Nevada: ...Was the 2nd Ammendment in Play?

I like to stay on the practical side of things and I even avoid reading the works of "extremists" or anyone too close to the edge.

But......If you have a spare moment for speculation...What effect on the BLM's decision to 'Cave' did the presence of Firearms have.

You figure half the FBI / BLM / ETC are dummies but some are shrewd...and gave serious thought to what they were facing.

A).....Protesters / Ranchers who had a commitment to their way of life.

B)....Many of these protesters had traveled distances to get to the Nevada Ranch.

C)....THESE PROTESTERS HAD WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION.

D)....They were not "Branch Davidian" faeries consumed with Pot-smoking and Orgies...These may be the 'Home-Grown-Terrorists' that they have whined about.

E).....Did the FBI/BLM anticipate a 'shoot-out' and that 'public opinion' would be against the Government?

I think they realized they faced armed opposition and the armed opposition would 'shoot back'

This type of discussion is not my cup of tea...but that's my opinion...the 'armed citizenry' was a factor in the Govt's decision to retreat.

Score one for The Founders.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle- ... d=23302610

A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

=====================================================================================================

However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner," he said.

The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.

"It's not about cows, it's about freedom," Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.

"People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power," Bundy's wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.

By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy's sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy's property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.

A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.

"We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard," said Cliven Bundy's sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.

But clashes between demonstrators and authorities took a violent turn on Wednesday, with cell phone video showing some being tasered at the site, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy. Two other protesters were detained, cited and later released on Thursday, according to the BLM.

As the movement grew by the day, and demonstrators rallied together, bonding by campfires at night, local protest leaders warned people not to wear camouflage and keep their weapons inside their vehicles.

============================================================================================================
"It's about the freedom of America," said another of Bundy's sisters, Margaret Houston. "We have to stand up and fight."

Warning: the NSA is watching and has logged your IP address.

bundyoathkeepersx-300x240.jpg (23.49 KB) Viewed 5764 times

[Spartan]

I think they realized they faced armed opposition and the armed opposition would 'shoot back'

This type of discussion is not my cup of tea...but that's my opinion...the 'armed citizenry' was a factor in the Govt's decision to retreat.

escalating this debacle any only negatively affect public opinion ... too close to the elections ... but just wait ... when the armed militia goes home ... the black suburban's will come and Wisk away the Bundys ........ and no one will know .....

[Lumpy]

I think it was more the case that the government- if only for publicity's sake- refrained from instigating a bloodbath, rather than they were intimidated by armed resistance.

[Mn01r6]

I think it was more the case that the government- if only for publicity's sake- refrained from instigating a bloodbath, rather than they were intimidated by armed resistance.

They were intimidated by the PR nightmare then. The government will never be intimidated by a bunch of militia guys with ARs and a few thousand rounds of ammunition. That amount of force is simply not enough to dent the defenses of the US military. What it does, though, is it puts both sides on equal footing and requires restraint on both sides. There would be no reason to refrain from steamrolling over the rancher if the government had a monopoly on deadly force, so in a sense the 2a was an integral part of this dispute.

With that being said, I remain unconvinced that Cliven Bundy is justified in his actions. Not that I know much about the situation, but from what I have read, he doesn't seem to have a case unless you completely throw out the way we have regarded property owned by the federal government for the last hundred and fifty years.

[20mm]

They were intimidated by the PR nightmare then. The government will never be intimidated by a bunch of militia guys with ARs and a few thousand rounds of ammunition. That amount of force is simply not enough to dent the defenses of the US military.

The only thing that might intimidate a government is it's citizens.

[gunsmith]

I think it was more the case that the government- if only for publicity's sake- refrained from instigating a bloodbath, rather than they were intimidated by armed resistance.

They were intimidated by the PR nightmare then. The government will never be intimidated by a bunch of militia guys with ARs and a few thousand rounds of ammunition. That amount of force is simply not enough to dent the defenses of the US military. What it does, though, is it puts both sides on equal footing and requires restraint on both sides. There would be no reason to refrain from steamrolling over the rancher if the government had a monopoly on deadly force, so in a sense the 2a was an integral part of this dispute.

nobody one either side is making too much about this but the patient observer will take note that a distinctive element is the Armed status of the protesters and their (apparent) willingness to 'die on this hill'

In my opinion they are not 'Dead Enders' that have no investment in society but I do think many see this decade as a turning point and if they sacrifice their lives it's for their families and descendants.

It is also a certainty that the FBI has embedded informants that gave them warning that 'Armed Resistance' was imminent.

Neither side is shouting 'Victory' but...The Assault rifles and Ammunition in the hands of the rank and file citizenry WAS A FACTOR IN THE GOVERNMENT'S DECISION TO STAND DOWN.

In other words: AMERICANS ARE NOT NORTH KOREANS, SOMALIANS, CHINESE, RUSSIANS, SAUDIS, IRAQIS....etc.

Score one for the Founders.

Looks like I've got a 'Military-Style Assault-Weapon and a years worth of ammo' on my shopping list....as 'The only way to protect a right is to EXCERCISE it.

[Greg]

Of course this is the true story of that Heston picture...

[jshuberg]

It's also quite possible that the presence of Oathkeepers may have caused some of the 3 letter agents to question the mission, and the possibility of having to use force on a civilian population.

Most in law enforcement genuinely want to be the good guy. If their job puts them in a position there they are being asked to do something they feel is wrong, they have a responsibility to their oath, and their own conscience to do what is right. It's quite possible that a number of agents may have voiced concerns over the mission to their supervisors.

If the bureaucrats running these agencies suspected that some of their agents might disobey orders if a Waco/Ruby Ridge type order was given, it would undermine their ability to enforce they law. Better to stand down than to give an order that many agents might disobey publicly.

I can't say for certain this was a part of the decision to draw down. But I'd like to think it was. It would mean that we are still capable of being a government for the people, rather than a government unto itself.

[gunsmith]

Here's the vid....at the end you see the liberation of the Cattle big and small.

http://youtu.be/bD61YFxUga4

[Randygmn]

I can tell you a few things:

Some of the militia were upset at some of the on-site rules.
No camo (although this was not enforced for everyone)
No chambered bullets (this I understand. No need for a ND to start a "war")
Guns to be kept in cars (this upset a lot of people. My friend left over this. Felt it was unsafe to have to make his way back to the car in a fire fight)

But, the FBI didn't need informants to know most people there were armed. Heavily. Most with armor. Many with night vision, too.

This isn't over by a long shot. But, what is important to understand is that this is the new NORMAL. We will see more of this in the future. Whenever the FEDS get out of line, whether the issue be big or small, we are going to see armed militia show up in support MUCH MORE REGULARLY. There is even talk that if the FEDS bring the fight to an individuals house, in the dead of night, why shouldn't the fight be brought to those that issue these orders or comply with them, in the same way? Interesting times!!!

[Mn01r6]

You got to pick your battles and you got to have a lily white protagonist. This guy refused to pay the grazing fees for 20 years. There is a reason that Rosa Parks was chosen to refuse to sit at the back of the bus. If the militia men show up for every single time the government tries to act, they will be regarded as the boy who cried Wolf and lose the sympathies of the American people. I feel our reaction to this situation discredits federalism and libertarianism more than it helps. I think my libertarian chops are well established on this board and I would have preferred to see "us" sit this one out.

[xd ED]

You got to pick your battles and you got to have a lily white protagonist. This guy refused to pay the grazing fees for 20 years. There is a reason that Rosa Parks was chosen to refuse to sit at the back of the bus. If the militia men show up for every single time the government tries to act, they will be regarded as the boy who cried Wolf and lose the sympathies of the American people. I feel our reaction to this situation discredits federalism and libertarianism more than it helps. I think my libertarian chops are well established on this board and I would have preferred to see "us" sit this one out.

I'm very inclined to agree. It's 'our' collective fortune things stayed non-violent
Had a fed gotten shot with someones AR, I don't doubt the 'never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste' regime would now be in the process of concocting an executive order creating a whole new class of NFA weapons that would be difficult, and problematic to carry across a state line.

While I admit to being far from obsessive about following this incident, the 'facts' leading up to it remain unclear.

I still don't know who owned the property in question, as the rancher has stated on various occassions it was his family's, the county's, and the BLM's.
The guy was at best unprepared for the publicity- even from the 'friendlies' like Hannity and Beck who at various times tries to extract, as well as implant statements in the guy's dialog, and served to distract, and disrail him.

Land use issues/ .gov intrusions in the west are often far from the clean-cut issues some attempt to portray. Many of the so called 'sagebrush rebels' branding themselves as rugged individuals scratching out a living on the plains would squeal like stuck pigs, and threaten/ warn the consumer of higher prices if their federally funded water projects that supply them were to 'dry up', and go away.

I'm sensing a similar hypocrisy in this case.


This is not to say the 'feds' are at all in the right, philosophically, operationally, or tactically regarding the running up to this mess.
And a thorough investigation is warranted.
But this hasn't appeared to be a black and white issue in any sense.

[gunsmith]

I want Gov Dayton to declare the entire land area of Minnesota a 'First Amendment Area'

Clive Bundy will be on Hannity tonight....Hannity was headed to Nevada for a live show tonight but canceled when the settlement was reached.

[captnviper]

Who is "us"? And just look into who heads the BLM then look at what he and his homies stand to gain. This is federal gov. Overreach! Not to mention how can Nevada be sovereign if %85 is federally owned?

[MWAG]

I want Gov Dayton to declare the entire land area of Minnesota a 'First Amendment Area'

I'd like Gov. Prozac to do a lot of things. More accurately, NOT do things. Every time he opens up his mumbler, it costs tax payers money and/or rights.