Armed Militia seizes control of federal building in Oregon

[Livewire]

Source

BURNS, Ore. (AP) — A protest in support of Oregon ranchers facing jail time for arson was followed by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge led by members of a family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government.

Ammon Bundy — the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights — told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

In an interview with reporters late Saturday night that was posted on Facebook, Bundy said he and others are occupying the building because "the people have been abused long enough."

"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.

Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

"A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.
An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.

Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.

Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.

As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.

Ammon Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the building.
Bundy said his son felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.
"That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."
His son Ammon told him they are committed to staying in the building, Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting.
"He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes_and I don't know what that means," Cliven Bundy said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."

A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife, Susan, greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.

Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.

In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.
Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.

In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.

Resistance against the federal government's abuses of power or armed sedition against the U.S. government?

 

[Sir Codin]

I'm going to go with the former...at least that's how the dudes doing this are viewing it. Whether or not I view it the same way is irrelevant. Anybody who feels oppressed enough, regardless of if they actually are, are going to pull stuff like this. The fires those two lit may have been unsanctioned, but I need more details about what kind of invasive species they were trying to prevent from encroaching on their property and whether or not they just did it on their own without approval OR if they tried to seek approval, were denied, and then just decided to take the matter into their own hands.

I grew up in rural California, the North. We've always hated urban areas deciding things for the whole state based simply on urban majority representation in a pure democracy. I was going through Fresno last week and farmers were cutting down their own production facilities as a protest against southern California for "stealing all the water." Southern Oregon has always been similar...so much so the STATE OF JEFFERSON is being proposed as a 51st state right now composed of N.Californa and S.Oregon rural counties because they're tired of the more densely populated areas deciding their livelihoods in political affairs.

Don't **** with ranchers and farmers....they take their livelihoods very seriously.

 

[Kanzler]

Doesn't sound like they were ****ed with, rather, they were the ones taking something that wasn't theirs. Apparently the arson charge was for concealing hunting on federally managed lands. Their occupation and demand for the shutdown of the wildlife refuge is in blatant disregard of conservation. The ranchers don't care about the environment, all they need to care about is their own livelihood. What does it matter for the sustainability of an ecological area as long as their animals are able to graze there?

I don't have much sympathy for them.

 

[Melody]

Just a senseless rebellion for no good reason if you ask me. But then again there needs to be somebody who can speak for them and represent their interests.

 

[Nah]

Do they really think that this'll change anything? Or that they really can hold the building/area for a long time? Sounds like they just needed an excuse to start an armed protest against the government.

 

[Sir Codin]

Just a senseless rebellion for no good reason if you ask me. But then again there needs to be somebody who can speak for them and represent their interests.

I'm curious....when exactly does a rebellion stop being senseless and what reasons do you think there should be for a rebellion?

 

[Melody]

I'm curious....when exactly does a rebellion stop being senseless and what reasons do you think there should be for a rebellion?

When it's done for sincerely legitimate reasons; such as to fight against a direct violation of human rights or against violence done by a government. Fomenting an armed rebellion should never be an option until all forms of diplomacy have failed to achieve any compromise. Of course there must be some room for compromise, else diplomacy won't happen and won't excuse an armed rebellion.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

The seeds of anarchy have sprouted, and yet people seem to think that it is a good idea. These people are doing it over something that can be easily fixed with normal protesting. Even then, they're only doing it for self-gain just like every other despicable human being; greed is just human nature. These seeds will wither and die.

Fomenting an armed rebellion should never be an option until all forms of diplomacy have failed to achieve any compromise. Of course there must be some room for compromise, else diplomacy won't happen and won't excuse an armed rebellion.

Just saying, but I don't think that outright trying all forms of diplomacy before an armed rebellion could work in a lot of scenarios where one would arise. You can't negotiate with governments like North Korea, China, ETC.

 

[Melody]

The US Government isn't fascist or a dictatorship. There was plenty of avenue for diplomacy as the USFG tends at least to TRY to respect the needs of it's people; even if it doesn't always do so correctly.

 

[Somewhere_]

I dont think they should have resorted to violence, but rather peacefully protested first. But hey, at least they are exercising their rights.

 

[gimmepie]

Can we please have gun control in the US now? So I can stop hearing about stupid people with guns doing stupid things with guns? It's obvious that peaceful protest was the way to go here and not this ridiculously extreme kind of a reaction. Especially because it looks to me like they're defending the people who did wrong.

All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum.

 

[Sir Codin]

I would like to point out that these guys haven't actually shot anyone yet and that they are interested in negotiating. They're keeping themselves armed in case things go south (in which case they'll end up in California).

Also:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/m...-police-killings-beg-feds-slaughter-citizens/

Gonna be honest here....if you side with these people who call for the police to mow down the occupiers, I have zero respect for you. You aren't anti-gun....you're anti-private gun ownership.

 

[gimmepie]

I would like to point out that these guys haven't actually shot anyone yet and that they are interested in negotiating. They're keeping themselves armed in case things go south (in which case they'll end up in California).

Also:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/m...-police-killings-beg-feds-slaughter-citizens/

Gonna be honest here....if you side with these people who call for the police to mow down the occupiers, I have zero respect for you. You aren't anti-gun....you're anti-private gun ownership.

I don't side with stupidity in general. They shouldn't be mowed down unless they threaten violence themselves. I do think though, that they're a threat (as they're armed) and that non-lethal violence may become a necessity. Lethal violence should almost always be avoided and is certainly not something I condone unless the lives of innocent people are in immediate danger.

They're not keeping themselves armed "in case things go south" regardless what they might claim though. It's an intimidation tactic and something they had to do to seize the building. If they wanted to negotiate, they should have started a peaceful protest. They might not have killed anyone yet (as you so eloquently put it) but they're still just lunatics with guns that shouldn't have guns.

 

[Somewhere_]

Can we please have gun control in the US now? So I can stop hearing about stupid people with guns doing stupid things with guns? It's obvious that peaceful protest was the way to go here and not this ridiculously extreme kind of a reaction. Especially because it looks to me like they're defending the people who did wrong.

All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum.

To be honest, I dont think taking away these men's guns will help any. It will just make them angrier and more "violent" (although I do not think they have done anything wrong). Gun control is just giving a monopoly to a violent and coercive state (not to mention taking away people's basic civil liberties!). I also dont think drone strikes and shooting them will help much either, but rather just cause unnecessary bloodshed.

"All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum"

ill have to agree with you here. I do not think this was the proper reaction to their dilemma, and I think they should have only resorted to forming a militia until all other methods had failed. However, they are somewhat justified because they men they are defending haven't really done anything wrong.

 

[Ivysaur]

Gun control is just giving a monopoly to a violent and coercive state.

Boy, anybody who hears you would think the US is a dictatorship and not a democracy with different administrative levels, strong institutions, checks, controls, lobbies and other pressure groups, frequent elections and a long list of possibilities to give common folks a voice in their Government. If every single other developed country can hand over that monopoly to their similarly democratic States without it turning into 1984, why can't the US?

In my opinion, rebellion is only justified when human rights are at stake, and/or when all possible room for peaceful negotiation has been blocked and rejected without as much as an ackowledgement of the problem. As this clearly isn't the case, I'm afraid this is just a case of "my problems should matter more than anybody else's because I AM VERY VOCAL AND HAVE GUNS", which is not the way for mature adults to do anything.

 

[Kanzler]

To be honest, I dont think taking away these men's guns will help any. It will just make them angrier and more "violent" (although I do not think they have done anything wrong). Gun control is just giving a monopoly to a violent and coercive state (not to mention taking away people's basic civil liberties!). I also dont think drone strikes and shooting them will help much either, but rather just cause unnecessary bloodshed.

If you've ever read Hobbes, you'd have read a strong argument for giving the government the monopoly to the use of force. When there is no monopoly to the use of force, you get a Syria or Yemen of today.

"All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum"

ill have to agree with you here. I do not think this was the proper reaction to their dilemma, and I think they should have only resorted to forming a militia until all other methods had failed. However, they are somewhat justified because they men they are defending haven't really done anything wrong.

If you read details of the court cases involving the Hammonds, you'll realize how much they've done wrong. They've burned federally owned lands three times, in 1999, 2001, and 2006. The first time was given a slap on the wrist. The district manager of the BLM came down to talk to them to work something out, but the Hammonds were belligerent and not interested in cooperating. They proceeded to intentionally burn federal lands two more times, and they got booked for it.

Link here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf

Arson is a crime punishable by a five-year minimum only when the perpetrator "maliciously" damage or destroy federal property by fire", which is what they did. They put the lives of those using the land, as well as the firefighters that had to put it out at risk. I don't know why they would deserve leniency when they repeatedly committed a federal crime with apparently no intention to iron out misunderstandings with the BLM.

 

[Somewhere_]

If you've ever read Hobbes, you'd have read a strong argument for giving the government the monopoly to the use of force. When there is no monopoly to the use of force, you get a Syria or Yemen of today.



If you read details of the court cases involving the Hammonds, you'll realize how much they've done wrong. They've burned federally owned lands three times, in 1999, 2001, and 2006. The first time was given a slap on the wrist. The district manager of the BLM came down to talk to them to work something out, but the Hammonds were belligerent and not interested in cooperating. They proceeded to intentionally burn federal lands two more times, and they got booked for it.

Link here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...02/12/hammond-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2b.pdf

Arson is a crime punishable by a five-year minimum only when the perpetrator "maliciously" damage or destroy federal property by fire", which is what they did. They put the lives of those using the land, as well as the firefighters that had to put it out at risk. I don't know why they would deserve leniency when they repeatedly committed a federal crime with apparently no intention to iron out misunderstandings with the BLM.

Hm. I thought it was to protect the land? Like burning some of the plants so the fire can't spread? (maybe I'm wrong?)

Syria and Yemen are fighting civil wars. Both had a government. In Yemen's case, two groups are challenging each other's power. And Rothbard has a great case for not giving government a monopoly (i dont entirely agree with him on everything because he calls for no government). Im currently reading two of his works ("For a New Liberty" and another one)

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Can we please have gun control in the US now? So I can stop hearing about stupid people with guns doing stupid things with guns? It's obvious that peaceful protest was the way to go here and not this ridiculously extreme kind of a reaction. Especially because it looks to me like they're defending the people who did wrong.

All this is, as far as I can see, is selfish people putting others and themselves in harms way because they're throwing a tantrum.

According to this article, gun control isn't a necessity. To quote the user who provided the source:

Why are so many foreigners acting like America is this hellhole where you will get shot by just walking outside with our murder rate putting us at 121st in terms of homicide rate?

Have any of you thought that maybe the reason it seems like there are so many more mass killings in America than any other country is because for some reason, the world watches American news a lot more than other countries news, the fact that our media runs a huge story every single time a shooting happens, the fact that we have more people than most countries, so even a low murder rate means a high number of murders, and the fact that mass stabbings are never reported because it fits no ones agenda?

Of course, it's not the guns that are the real issue on this situation, it's a group of selfish people trying to rid of a federal wildlife refugee as mentioned by Kanzler.

 

[Nah]

Just wanna say I kinda don't want this to become another thread about US gun control. I don't have a problem with discussing the topic itself, it's just that guns aren't really the primary thing here and we've been through the topic a lot in the past 6 months. Feel free to make a thread about it if you wnat.

Hm. I thought it was to protect the land? Like burning some of the plants so the fire can't spread? (maybe I'm wrong?)

Burning federally owned land without their express permission is still legally a crime regardless of the purpose of the burnings really

 

[Kanzler]

Hm. I thought it was to protect the land? Like burning some of the plants so the fire can't spread? (maybe I'm wrong?)

Syria and Yemen are fighting civil wars. Both had a government. In Yemen's case, two groups are challenging each other's power. And Rothbard has a great case for not giving government a monopoly (i dont entirely agree with him on everything because he calls for no government). Im currently reading two of his works ("For a New Liberty" and another one)

Nope. They started fires for various reasons, but burnt federally owned land in the process - land that they do not own. They damaged property that did not belong to them and that's arson. If somebody wanted to start a fire and burnt my forest, don't I have a right to compensation? And wouldn't there be a case to get that person charged for arson? Why should it be any different when it's public property that is abused?

Syria and Yemen are examples of what happens when you have more than one group aspiring to have a monopoly of violence - and hence no monopoly of violence. Both countries were far less bloody when armed groups weren't challenging the government.