So what's everyone's thoughts on the Oregon/Militia situation?

[timshufflin]

In no way does it sound like another Ruby Ridge.

What it sounds like is a bunch of grandstanding dipshits that chose to exploit the wrong fight.

The Hammonds don't want them around and the townsfolk don't want them around. The Bundy boys are only making themselves look stupid and doing absolutely nothing to further their cause.

You might be right. Anyone have any video of the Hammonds saying they don't want them? I keep reading the Hammonds lawyers quote but I haven't seen anything from the Hammonds.

[Jimbo Slice]

king barry is about to start executive ordering the second amendment out of existence and these clowns decide to occupy a vacant visitor's center to protest a jail sentance that the plaintiffs have accepted.

Wrong battle and, quite frankly, irresponsible.

[Jimbo Slice]

Shuff, you probably won't find any soundbites from the Hammonds, because they are smart and are most likely doing their talking through their attorneys.

If any of you are interested, I dug up a pdf copy of the legal brief regarding their sentencing under the Federal mandatory minimums. I highly recommend that you guys give it a look.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...sg_aay_v2b.pdf

[seaninmich]

king barry is about to start executive ordering the second amendment out of existence and these clowns decide to occupy a vacant visitor's center to protest a jail sentance that the plaintiffs have accepted.

Wrong battle and, quite frankly, irresponsible.

This isn't about the jail sentence. It's about gross and unconstitutional over-reach by unelected government officials. This is about a land grab. Now, as soon as you can show me where the federal government has ANY legal authority to own land, I'd be interested.

They "accepted" their sentence because it's the smart play here. They can't afford to be considered fugitives at this stage of things. That would give law enforcement a legal argument to use force and storm the property and, likely, try to seize it (which is what they want to do in the first place). This is anything but "accepting" the sentence.

[Jimbo Slice]

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2: Property Clause.

Check out Kleppe v New Mexico.

[timshufflin]

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2: Property Clause.

Check out Kleppe v New Mexico.

On the surface that would appear to imply that the US could own property. I'd have to read more but not now. Very interesting.

[seaninmich]

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2: Property Clause.

Check out Kleppe v New Mexico.

The property clause does not give the federal government legal authority to purchase and steal land from the citizens. It gave the federal government authority over newly acquired land during the expansion of the United States. Once turned into states, the federal government has no governing or ownership power.

[seaninmich]

BTW, folks, pay close attention to how the media stresses the use of the word MILITIA in its reporting of these events. They are slowly making the words "militia" and "terrorist" interchangeable. Where else do we most often hear the word "militia"? oh, yeah, the 2nd amendment.

[Jimbo Slice]

The property clause does not give the federal government legal authority to purchase and steal land from the citizens. It gave the federal government authority over newly acquired land during the expansion of the United States. Once turned into states, the federal government has no governing or ownership power.

I appreciate your interpretation, but it doesn't appear that the SCOTUS sees it that way.

As far as the way the media is pushing the word "militia", you are absolutely right. Last night CNN was referring to them as "gunmen" as well.

While I'm not too keen on their current situation, it's obvious that the MSM are trying to vilify them in the eyes of the sheep to further the limp wristed liberal agenda.

Like I said... bad timing and wrong battle. They won't come out of this smelling very good.

[seaninmich]

I appreciate your interpretation, but it doesn't appear that the SCOTUS sees it that way.

As far as the way the media is pushing the word "militia", you are absolutely right. Last night CNN was referring to them as "gunmen" as well.

While I'm not too keen on their current situation, it's obvious that the MSM are trying to vilify them in the eyes of the sheep to further the limp wristed liberal agenda.

Like I said... bad timing and wrong battle. They won't come out of this smelling very good.

SCOTUS has been an utter failure for a century. FDR, the filthy subhuman it was, destroyed SCOTUS. It has only gotten worse since then. SCOTUS no longer rules on the Constitution, as intended, but "interprets" it and rewrites law to suit political agendas. If "SCOTUS said so" is the only argument that can be made, there is no argument.

What SCOTUS says is irrelevant. What matters is the ratified intent. I promise you that the founders, who risked EVERYTHING to escape a powerful central government, who fought a war to escape powerful central government, who knew the dangers of powerful central government, who HATED AND FEARED powerful central government, and who drafted a Constitution for the sole purpose of preventing a powerful central government, did not put in a clause that allows for a powerful central government.

I don't agree that there is ever a bad time to exercise one's rights. I don't believe that there is ever a bad time to confront illegal actions by an over reaching government. The problem is, every time this happens and they let the government win, it's a huge loss for the good guys. The only way this goes well is someone fires the first shot that starts the next revolution. Now, many will say that they don't want that, but history and common sense prove that, unless it happens, WE LOSE. there is no other option.