It's beyond lame. "Look at us! We own guns!"
Have any of the laws, or rules, or practices, or anything else really, that Clive's boy and his friends are pissed off about, changed since Obama became president? I am not up on what all this is about so they may really have a point (or may not) I'm really just asking for some facts here. After we establish a baseline of some actual truths I may (or may not) comment more.
I honestly don't know. There's been an on-going war in the West between ranchers and environmental types over the past 100 years and this is an outgrowth of that. I suppose that any time the BLM changes its mind on a land-use issue, it becomes, by extension to these folks, a direct order from the President (in this case Obama). The other side reacts as goofily, just not with a display of firearms.
I'm commenting more about the parading around with guns more than anything else. It just seems stupid.
THe issue to me is the gov't is going after their land because they want the oil/natural resources and aren't properly compensating the farmers. It's basically the gov't saying we want that land because we can make a **** ton of money on it so we are going to just take it.
As I understand it, it is land the ranchers are leasing and the BLM is terminating the leases.
liberals storm government buildings in protest all the time and have to be escorted out. Funny we didn't hear the same grump from 57 during the Wisconsin union protests. Code Pink is constantly doing stupid crap.
As I understand it, it is land the ranchers are leasing and the BLM is terminating the leases.
http://www.infowars.com/hammonds-targeted-because-government-wants-to-steal-their-land/
Also, many of the leases were forced onto these ranchers so they could continue to farm.
And an even worse look for the government is allowing a judge to return those two guys to jail for an additional 5 years.
And while, I don't agree with the "armed takeover," just a note that these buildings were vacant and no property or persons have been injured.
armed ?
...And less poopy.
There have been shootings at occupy wall street events. So yeah at least some of them were armed. This protest will likely wind up being less deadly than the occupy wall st protest. And less poopy.
What makes this terrorism? And when is something like this OK? For example, was the revolution OK or was it domestic terrorism?
Not picking a fight - genuinely asking where we draw the line