Radical US ranchers

[malleefarmer]

Whats the go with Hammond brothers in Oregon?
On the news this morning found guilty of arson and now supporters have taken over a wildlife refuge?

Is there more to this story than the 40 second snipett we got here, or just radical rightwing loonies?

And the bundys from Nevada getting involved.

[Braveheart]

Don't know for sure but believe the Hammonds and Bundys belong to militia groups that oppose the US Gov't intervention in their life. Even if not the same group militias will rally to each other's cause, especially if they feel the gov't is trampling their rights. They are well armed, organized and dangerous.

[burnt]

Whoa there, Braveheart, better get yourself a bit more familiarized with the story than what the MSM tells you before shooting off like that.

[BFW]

i hope this isn't over the recent overturning of MCOOL.

[Braveheart]

Burnt, I did say I didn't know for sure. I know the Bureau of Land Management is heavy handed in dealings with grazing lands. But, militias' involvement takes disputes to a whole new level.

While many in the US feel disenfranchised (especially in the Obama years) militia is a dangerous way to go as most militia is deemed "An Enemy Of The State". The question is are the militia right? Is America moving toward fascism or a New World Order with one global government? What gives US Fish and Wildlife the right to act like they're Army Rangers tackling a Taliban insurgency,when some ranchers want to retain the grazing rights their ranch has had for,generations?

You are right to assume I don't follow different news outlets to get different perspectives. I like to keep a peaceful mind as much as possible.

[Braveheart]

BFW, not MCOOL related.

[burnt]

I have read a fair bit about the backgrounds of both the Bundy and Hammond situations There is far more to the story than what 'CBC' style sites will tell us.

I would hate to see anything come to armed resistance but am certainly not surprised by such outcomes, especially in the gun-lovin', gun-totin' USA.

The constitutional rights and restrictions on government which provided the underpinnings of our respective governments were put there for a reason - our forefathers did not want to see a repeat of the old-world tyrannies from which we came.

It was because of their very intentional actions in forming and developing effective yet democratically functioning governments that we, as citizens of Canada and the United States of America, have enjoyed an unparalleled standard of freedom, civil liberties and subsequent prosperity - the envy of every person in the world!

But government is like a malignant, metastasizing tumor that just won't quite trying to assert itself and take over everything it touches.

The other side of the coin is that every citizen has incumbent responsibilities.

As long as those responsibilities are met, the government is constrained by the law of the land to leave those citizens alone.

The government may not impede, change or restrict the rights of any citizen without the consent of that citizen.

Now, as I'm sure we all know and have likely experienced, government has a way of achieving that without our knowledge, usually by giving certain "powers" to a para-government agency (eg.- Conservation Authorities) who then moves in sneaky and eventually ubiquitous ways to reduce our rights.

For instance, changing land use regulations (such as in the case of extremely restrictive wetlands regulations here in Ontario).

So after a prolonged period of time of increasing oppression which often includes fruitless negotiation, we have a Cliven Bundy or a Hammond who says we are not going to put up with this encroachment on our rights any more. The Hammonds, however appear to be the victims of unfortunate circumstance as much and anything of their own doing.

However when the government refuses to abide by the constitutional restrictions under which it was formed, it should come as no surprise that the citizens will respond by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was this very instance for which it was written.

So when we have those who make comment that such militias are anti-government, freeman types, etc, it is as much a reflection of a lack of understanding on their part as anything.

It also demonstrates just how much of our sense of liberty we have ceded to a constantly creeping nanny state.

There is good reason that the Ontario Landowners Association's most popular sign is "Government Back Off!"

[burnt]

http://bundyranch.blogspot.ca/2015/11/facts-events-in-hammond-case.html

[burnt]

After reading the story linked above, does anyone still think the adjective "radical" applies to the Hammonds?

[burnt]

More background -

http://patterico.com/2016/01/03/what-are-the-bundys-protesting/

[stonepicker]

Pretty amazing story of continual gov. abuse of authority and heavy-handedness. What's disappointing is there doesn't appear to be any authority at any level of gov.that was prepared to fight injustice.

[farmaholic]

Not to be adversarial or argumentative but...

How many sides does a coin have... alot of people would say two which is kind of true but not totally.

A coin has three sides... the heads side, the tails side and the "edge"side, that divides, yet ties the two other sides together.

Compare that to a story: two sides to every story... and the edge between them, as thin as it is, is usually the true story...


I'm not saying the Hammonds have done anything wrong but I don't know the whole story, just read one side of it. From what I've read they seem to have been harassed, allot.

[grassfarmer]

The other side I'm aware of is Bundy's originally took Government $ to reduce stocking rates. Years later they were chased up for never having reduced stock numbers despite cashing the cheques. Eventually came to a head when the BLM did a round up on their place and a militia turned up.

This other crew have been posting videos for years accusing the BLM of burning Frenchglen etc etc yet they themselves were the ones found guilty in court of starting fires. Now a militia are congregating again.

Glad I don't live near either family, or in the US period. Too many heavily armed wierdos with a chip on their shoulder looking for a chance to fire off some rounds.

[malleefarmer]

hmm im none the wiser guess I will lean grassfarmers way.
And seemingly hammonds have admitted guilt.

[TOM4CWB]

Mallee,

Here is the DTN story on the situation... hope it helps! Happy New Year!!!

NEWS
Militia Occupies US Building in Oregon
Sun Jan 3, 2016 10:49 AM CST
BURNS, Ore. (AP) -- A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them.

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.

The protest began as a rally in support of Oregon ranchers facing jail time for arson.

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."

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian reported (http://is.gd/…).

"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.

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."

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.

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.

(KA)