IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Cliven Bundy , Freeman on the Land , militia incidents , Oregon incidents

Closed Thread
Old 3rd January 2016, 05:12 AM   #1
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,121
armed "not terrorists" storm government building in Oregon

So some armed people are terrorizing up in Oregon. They don't like current political policy and hope, through acts of terror, to get their way. Screw that democracy thing. But remember, just because they are doing terrorist things, they aren't because they don't pray to Mecca.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/ore...est/index.html

Bipedal sack of squirrels posing as a human, Ammon Bundy, even laid out their case.

Quote:
Ammon Bundy said the group in Oregon was armed, but said he would not describe it as a militia. Bundy declined to say how many people were occupying the building.
"We are not terrorists," he said. "We are concerned citizens and realize we have to act if we want to pass along anything to our children."
See, they said they aren't terrorists! That totally means they aren't! They just want to create a better world where government has no say on what is done with publicly owned land. Those guns are just to protect themselves from meany types that think we should have some say on what happens on public land.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 05:14 AM   #2
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Hey, militias are sacred!
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 05:38 AM   #3
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,953
It seems the armed protesters* have taken over the building.








*or terrorists, depending on their skin color.
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 06:23 AM   #4
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,689
And much like other terrorists the people in whose name they claim to be acting want nothing to do with them:

Quote:
But despite the protest Dwight Hammond says he and his son plan to report peacefully to prison on Monday.

His lawyers told Associated Press "neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organisation speak for the Hammond Family".
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35216879
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 06:30 AM   #5
magellan
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 682
Are they occupying more like the heros of the maidan in kiev or like the vile terrorists of donetsk?
magellan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 06:52 AM   #6
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,613
I hope they just station some guards around the building and wait until they get hungry.

I'd suggest pointing some speakers at them and playing nothing but Anita Bryant recordings 24/7, but that would probably be cruel and unusual.

Certainly to any surrounding wildlife.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 07:10 AM   #7
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,618
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
It seems the armed protesters* have taken over the building.




*or terrorists, depending on their skin color.
I can't wait to hear Fox News call them "thugs"
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 07:32 AM   #8
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
It seems the armed protesters* have taken over the building.








*or terrorists, depending on their skin color.
Is McVeigh no longer considered a terrorist?

Also, who is being terrorized in this case, the building?
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 07:37 AM   #9
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Play Muslim prayers over the speakers
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 07:41 AM   #10
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Play Muslim prayers over the speakers
That would be racist.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 07:52 AM   #11
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,936
How can they be terrorists if they are not committing terrorist acts?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 07:55 AM   #12
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
How can they be terrorists if they are not committing terrorist acts?
You got that backwards. They are committing terrorist acts, but not being called terrorists.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:13 AM   #13
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
A couple of bombs will solve the problem.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:21 AM   #14
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,819
So they are protesting the government infringing on people's right to...poach deer on public land then light 130 acres ablaze?

I don't think that's actually a right anyone has. I'd like to test that again though. How valuable is that public building anyway?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:30 AM   #15
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
So they are protesting the government infringing on people's right to...poach deer on public land then light 130 acres ablaze?

I don't think that's actually a right anyone has. I'd like to test that again though. How valuable is that public building anyway?
It might have more to do with the court case. The trial judge sentenced them to just one year, when federal law has a minimum sentence for arson on federal land of five years. It was appealed to a federal court, that extended the sentence to that minimum of five years.

These are the same family that claimed they didn't have to pay BLM for land use because it was Nevada's land and they don't recognize the federal government's power.

The whole thing's not just terrorism, but also sedition.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Last edited by ehcks; 3rd January 2016 at 08:32 AM.
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:36 AM   #16
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,806
If I go sit in my neighbor's shed does that make me a terrorist? This sounds more like a sit in with guns. Are guns alowed on the property?
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:37 AM   #17
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,294
Bundy (fils):
"People need to be aware that we've become a system where government is actually claiming and using and defending people's rights, and they are doing that against the people."
Why is defending people's rights a bad thing? Is this about defending the rights of religious or racial minorities from people who would deny them of their rights? Or did he simply misspeak? Or is he talking about something I missed?

Also, if you intentionally burn 130 acres of federal land without getting permission, aren't you guilty of arson even if your intent were to remove plant growth in an effort to protect your property (as the ranchers allege)?
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 3rd January 2016 at 08:39 AM.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:38 AM   #18
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
So they are protesting the government infringing on people's right to...poach deer on public land then light 130 acres ablaze?

I don't think that's actually a right anyone has. I'd like to test that again though. How valuable is that public building anyway?
This is more of a collective rights issue. It's like native American land disputes. Western states are equal semi sovereigns to the eastern states but the federal government claims ownership of most of the land. It is unjust occupation.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:44 AM   #19
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
The whole thing's not just terrorism, but also sedition.
How can it be terrorism when it's an "occupy" protest? They haven't hurt anyone and there's nobody but them there anyway as the building is vacant because of the holidays.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:46 AM   #20
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,819
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This is more of a collective rights issue. It's like native American land disputes. Western states are equal semi sovereigns to the eastern states but the federal government claims ownership of most of the land. It is unjust occupation.

Wait, that's their argument?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 08:59 AM   #21
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Wait, that's their argument?
Yes. They don't think they have a right to burn 130 acres. The problem is their options are deprived of them because the feds own 53% of Oregon. It is an unfair treatment like abuse of indigenous peoples reservations.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:04 AM   #22
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,121
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Is McVeigh no longer considered a terrorist?

Also, who is being terrorized in this case, the building?
Apparently McVeigh isn't since Ted Cruz was pretty adamant that Christians cannot be terrorists.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
How can it be terrorism when it's an "occupy" protest? They haven't hurt anyone and there's nobody but them there anyway as the building is vacant because of the holidays.
You think people showing up with guns and promising to never leave without a fight unless the government does exactly what they want in contravention of law and public will isn't terrorism?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:05 AM   #23
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,921
They are just exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Republicans should be proud of these people.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:06 AM   #24
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,121
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Yes. They don't think they have a right to burn 130 acres. The problem is their options are deprived of them because the feds own 53% of Oregon. It is an unfair treatment like abuse of indigenous peoples reservations.
The Feds have the right to own that land. That is a right the government has. What right do they have to it? Why is it theirs and not, say, rightfully the property of some black woman in Compton?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:09 AM   #25
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Apparently McVeigh isn't since Ted Cruz was pretty adamant that Christians cannot be terrorists.



You think people showing up with guns and promising to never leave without a fight unless the government does exactly what they want in contravention of law and public will isn't terrorism?
What you described isn't terrorism. There isn't a terror aspect. They would be irregulars.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:13 AM   #26
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,936
Originally Posted by Travis
You think people showing up with guns and promising to never leave without a fight unless the government does exactly what they want in contravention of law and public will isn't terrorism?
All occupying protesters say the same thing. Treehuggers promise to never leave either.

This is Rancher Lives Matter and it's not much different than Black Lives Matter.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:15 AM   #27
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
The Feds have the right to own that land. That is a right the government has. What right do they have to it? Why is it theirs and not, say, rightfully the property of some black woman in Compton?
There is the reason i equated it to federal abuse of indigenous peoples. The feds commit a number of abuses against them that they ostensibly have the right to do. Governments generally have their powers limited by required equitible treatment of all parties. Mass ownership of western states is inheritly inequitable treatment of semi sovereign states.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:17 AM   #28
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,819
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Yes. They don't think they have a right to burn 130 acres. The problem is their options are deprived of them because the feds own 53% of Oregon. It is an unfair treatment like abuse of indigenous peoples reservations.

No it is not. The native Americans owned the land they were then forced off of and moved around on after owning their new land too. The Federal government owned the land of Oregon first, er, second I guess after the natives. At any rate it's owned by someone else before the state even exists. It's not 'unfair' that land owned by someone else isn't owned by the people who came after.

If I sell 150 acres of 300 I own to someone, they don't then get to hunt on, burn down, live on, or anything else on my remaining acreage without my permission. Being deprived options because someone else owns land isn't the same at all as having the land you own taken from you, your people killed, and you forcibly moved.

EDIT: I'll have to go check order of ownership in Oregon specifically, but it doesn't actually change the point. That the land is owned by someone else, not the people now claiming it's unfair they don't get to use it as they wish.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Last edited by tyr_13; 3rd January 2016 at 09:21 AM.
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:18 AM   #29
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,851
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
The Feds have the right to own that land. That is a right the government has. What right do they have to it? Why is it theirs and not, say, rightfully the property of some black woman in Compton?
Well, the federal government demanded vast swaths of western states as a condition of statehood, and some question the constitutionality of that.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:20 AM   #30
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,326
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Well, the federal government demanded vast swaths of western states as a condition of statehood, and some question the constitutionality of that.
Do you know what the basis of that questioning is?

ETA: Maybe article IV, section 3.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 3rd January 2016 at 09:22 AM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:22 AM   #31
Varanid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,288
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
All occupying protesters say the same thing. Treehuggers promise to never leave either.

This is Rancher Lives Matter and it's not much different than Black Lives Matter.
It is about time somebody started standing up to the flagrant and systemic abuse of ranchers by those in power.
__________________
"I love the poorly educated" -- Donald Trump
Varanid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:24 AM   #32
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,291
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
The Feds have the right to own that land. That is a right the government has. What right do they have to it? Why is it theirs and not, say, rightfully the property of some black woman in Compton?
This is true. The retention of lands under federal management in perpetuity has been challaneged in federal court several times. The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of federal lands retention twice, a more recent case was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court the Supremes declined to hear the appeal.

However, the Bundy clan and associated idiots don't believe in judicial review, which means that they believe that the Supremes cannot rule state laws to be in violation of the Constitution or of the Supremacy Clause. Every thing since Marbury v Madison is wrong. That means Bundys and their allies can just ignore judicial rulings. If the Bundys and allies disagree with the law, it is because they think they can declare a law to be unconstitutional and that their personal declaration of unconstitutional-ness is more valid than something issued by the Supreme Court.

I am disgusted by this. It has been nearly two years since the Bunkerville standoff. We have heard promises an investigation was underway and that prosecution would be forthcoming. It seems the Justice Dept. was too slow, and now there is another crisis. This was very, very predictable.

Last edited by crescent; 3rd January 2016 at 10:17 AM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:26 AM   #33
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,160
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What you described isn't terrorism. There isn't a terror aspect. They would be irregulars.
They wouldn't be irregulars. They would be lunatics.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:27 AM   #34
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No it is not. The native Americans owned the land they were then forced off of and moved around on after owning their new land too. The Federal government owned the land of Oregon first, er, second I guess after the natives. At any rate it's owned by someone else before the state even exists. It's not 'unfair' that land owned by someone else isn't owned by the people who came after.

If I sell 150 acres of 300 I own to someone, they don't then get to hunt on, burn down, live on, or anything else on my remaining acreage without my permission. Being deprived options because someone else owns land isn't the same at all as having the land you own taken from you, your people killed, and you forcibly moved.
Governments, just ones anyway, do not get the ability to function as private property owners. The choice was form western states and give up the land and form new sovereigns, or don't form them. The choice they made violates the principles of federalism.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:27 AM   #35
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
All occupying protesters say the same thing. Treehuggers promise to never leave either.

This is Rancher Lives Matter and it's not much different than Black Lives Matter.
A treehugger chains themselves to a tree and says "If you cut this down, it could kill me."

These guys broke into a building and are saying "If you try to remove me, I will kill you."

I do think there's a difference. Is it too subtle?
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:30 AM   #36
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,851
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Do you know what the basis of that questioning is?

ETA: Maybe article IV, section 3.
I don't know. A good argument might be that the feds can own land like anyone else, in any state, but the state retains the general regulatory power of it, which seems not to be the case.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:37 AM   #37
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
I don't know. A good argument might be that the feds can own land like anyone else, in any state, but the state retains the general regulatory power of it, which seems not to be the case.
There is no doubt the federal government has the power to own it. That is why good people must stand up to injustice.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:38 AM   #38
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,291
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
I don't know. A good argument might be that the feds can own land like anyone else, in any state, but the state retains the general regulatory power of it, which seems not to be the case.
Again, this already ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Federal lands retention is constitutional. They determined that the feds have "Considerable discretion" in the management of those lands. Pass some federal laws to transfer the lands to state management, or pass a constitutional amendment.

Guns don't equal votes. Whatever those idiots in Oregon are doing, it is wrong.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:39 AM   #39
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,291
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There is no doubt the federal government has the power to own it. That is why good people must stand up to injustice.
With votes - not guns.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2016, 09:42 AM   #40
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,291
This is a good overview of the legality of federal lands retention:

A Legal Analysis of the Transfer of Public Lands Movement

It is oriented towards Utah, but the laws in question are mostly federal so the paper has pretty wide relevance.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.