A Military View of the Bundy Ranch Situation: Why Everyone Should Be Worried

reply to post by Logarock


My post is about the incorrect information believed by the militias who came not just from Nevada but from all over the country. If I had believed the sources I mentioned, that this man was truly having his land stolen, his cattle stolen under threat of snipers and a heavy militarized presence... I'd have tried to get there myself and supported him any way I could. But the man is a liar, and so are the sources that presented his version as fact.

Is the government oppressive? Yep definitely can be. Are our natural rights under threat? Yep, but this wasn't an example of such. Is the Constitution being violated 6 ways from Sunday? Every goddamn day of the year but again this wasn't an example of it. And carrying on the way people did at that ranch... only going to serve to delay people waking up to how government actually is violating our rights. It was crying wolf and worse? Someone could have gotten killed over it... and the nation wouldn't have mourned it unless it had been a federal agent because Bundy was and has been in the WRONG and the feds were just doing their jobs. If a protester or militia member had been killed or any of the Bundy's? The nation would have said... whata DUMBASS!

DJW001

OpinionatedB
reply to post by DJW001

 

I disagree. The criminals are no more militarized than they ever were. If we didn't need any militarization of the police back when we had Hoffa and the rest of the big time mafia then why do we need it now?

edit on 14-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

The FBI didn't even acknowledge the existence of the Mafia until the 1960s. Please read up on the history of crime in America. Check out what happened to John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde and other violent criminals. The police have always fought fire with fire. All that has changed is that they are getting better trained as they adopt newer and more powerful equipment. This is happening in response to highly armed criminal gangs that received their weapons training in the military.

FBI always knew about organized crime, they just relied heavily or local or state law enforcement, until the 60s and 70s, when they started to realize taking matters into their own hands was the best thing. Look back at prohibition, how many 'mafias' were there, how was the FBI supposed to crack down on ALL of them? It took them till the 40s to eventually get them all.

~

Anyways, back on topic.

I don't really see what the whole issue is, at first I thought it was kinda strange, I thought Bundy owned the land, or had some sort of rights over it. But he didn't, and he owed the government a lot of money, which calls for extreme measures, and when the militia got involved, do you honestly think a few local sheriffs and deputies want to get involved with guys with semi automatic weapons? Not to mention, it's NOT their fight it's a federal matter.
Them taking control of the entire situation is what is making it go smoothly and quickly, would you rather a stand off between military and civilians? That happened in Canada, and it almost got extremely bloody.
It's quite obvious that the government is flexing their muscle, but look at it from their side, wouldn't you want to if a quarter of your nation owns a gun?

Seems like some might be right about the dbags running the militia show out at the ranch.
Put the women up front

What the F!!!

I'm a soldier. If YOU are going to fancy yourself a soldier it takes a lot more than buying an AR and some tactical gear.

It take guts and courage. Not for the sake of the danger you face in front of you, but for the lives you protect from that danger BEHIND you.

This sheriff Mack and everyone who supports him should be ashamed of themselves.

So disgusted right now I don't even have words. It makes me wonder, even after everything I posted, that if this is the kind of person who showed up to support the rancher, that maybe the federal response in terms of escalation was warranted.

Absolutely appalled right now!

reply to post by Kali74


Spoken like someone who's never been wronged by the government.

Go start a business, invest everything you have.

Then sit back and watch them change rules midstream and destroy your chances of making it.


I've been there, and it's about more than some fee's as he tried to pay them a couple times, it's about control and changing political winds.


This is as close to a civil war as we've been since the bonus army incident.

projectvxn

DJW001
reply to post by projectvxn
And what is up with the ROZ? You only set up a ROZ if you're going to have danger to aircraft as a result of fire missions, bombs dropped, air assaults, or you have drones on station.

Answer: They have drones on station.

reply to post by projectvxn


Agree 1000% with your assessment. I live in Northern Nevada. I can tell you that people are very concerned about the tactics utilized in this operation. It was analogous to an operation to capture bin Laden - the only thing missing were the Navy Seals - and I don't doubt they were on call! I didn't know about the ROZ - thank you for bringing that up.

That said, there's no doubt in my mind that Homeland Security has been authorized by the Feds to militarize their defenses. This has to include local and state police because without their cooperation, any action would be unenforceable.

Bundy violated a standing statute. There's no doubt about that. But that's not the issue. The issue is how the Federal Government via the BLM went about enforcing the court-ordered decision.

We have a developing police state in America. The concerning part is that there isn't any pushback in Washington. The Bundy model for enforcement may well become SOP.

Phantom423
reply to post by projectvxn

 

That said, there's no doubt in my mind that Homeland Security has been authorized by the Feds to militarize their defenses. This has to include local and state police because without their cooperation, any action would be unenforceable.

Not really anything so nefarious. There is a significant segment of law enforcement that served in the military. In fact if you were in the military you are ahead of the rest. It doesn't take much to figure out that after x number of years law enforcement would start looking an awful lot like the military.

Bundy violated a standing statute. There's no doubt about that. But that's not the issue. The issue is how the Federal Government via the BLM went about enforcing the court-ordered decision.

What choice did they have. We have essentially a criminal, flouting the authority of the court. A criminal who in past interviews made it expressly clear that he intended to start shooting if law enforcement attempted to carry out their duties as assigned by the court.

We have a developing police state in America. The concerning part is that there isn't any pushback in Washington. The Bundy model for enforcement may well become SOP.

No doubt we have a growing police state but this is not an example of this. Law enforcement is doing the only thing they can do under the circumstances. This is one of the problems with the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality. You have to pay very close attention to who is co-opting the circumstance. There is no issue with these militia groups in principle. But the tendency seems to be that these groups are composed of men and women that are just looking for a reason to martyr themselves for the cause. They really aren't any better than an Islamic extremist group.

a reply to: KeliOnyx

Snipers with guns pointed at you and your family, helicopters flying over your home in restricted air space, denying the press access, denying protestors who posed no risk to anyone their constitutional rights by removing them to a restricted area, stomping on the head of Bundy's son (I think it was his son) - all over a herd of cows - well, I would say that was overkill.

When the IRS comes calling, they can garnish your bank account and put liens on your property. If they decide to collect that property, they can also do that. If I owned 250 cows (have no idea how many cows Bundy owns), they can confiscate those cows. Do they need 50 snipers, helicopters and the Navy Seals on call??? I don't think so. Should they be spending more to carry out this operation than the cows are worth? That's a no-brainer. I'm curious as to what orders were given to those snipers. Was it shoot to kill or just scare the hell out of them?


Any way you look at it, it was overkill.

And the author of this thread is correct. We should be worried. Very worried.

Here's footage of the kind of presence the BLM had out at this ranch.

There is definitely more going on in this story than even I gave it credit for. More so, certainly, than the naysayers have given credit for.

originally posted by: projectvxn
reply to post by DJW001

 

Well I guess that justifies paramilitary action against him and his home then right?

If I may be allowed a comment from the other side of the fence...when you have all of these big, bad, right wing gun nuts throwing down challenges to the government...you can't really squawk when the Feds arrive at a potential showdown prepared to win, and win fast & hard.

Like they say...talk is cheap...

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Except the big bad rightwing nuts arrived AFTER the feds did with their hardware.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Except the big bad rightwing nuts arrived AFTER the feds did with their hardware.

...totally proving their point.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Hardly. You show up to a ranchers home over trespassing issues with what looks like an army in Nevada, my home state, and this is likely the response you'll get from militias and regular folks.

Let us not forget what state this incident took place in. But you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Let us not forget what state this incident took place in. But you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

Jeeez no...we barely 'speakee the Engee' up here...never mind read.

Switch lenses for a moment, though, and you might appreciate my point. All I'm saying is careful what you ask for...spend years throwing down challenges at the Feds with your big bad popguns, you can't go crying if they actually sit up and take notice.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Let us not forget what state this incident took place in. But you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

Jeeez no...we barely 'speakee the Engee' up here...never mind read.

Switch lenses for a moment, though, and you might appreciate my point. All I'm saying is careful what you ask for...spend years throwing down challenges at the Feds with your big bad popguns, you can't go crying if they actually sit up and take notice.

So asking our government to hold itself to it's stated guiding principles is to be considered as 'thrlwing down challenges?'

Well those same Feds would do well to remind themselves of history, especially these few lines from an important (to many) document:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence

Take in to account that what is known and verified through public records of the pervasiveness of corruption within our (and really, nearly ALL) government(s) is the merest scratch on the surface and one would come to the conclusion that to NOT arm oneself would be tantamount to approving of such practices.

I asked this in my thread about an investigation into corruption in this particular circumstance but the question applies here too:

Considering the following:

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. "

emphases mine

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

What option does a population have when it comes to responding massive government overreach when using the "regular channels" aren't available to those affected?

Just because something is legal does not mean it is in the best interests of those to whom the law is applied, especially when it is obvious that those writing the laws don't apply them to themselves in the same fashion as to those whom are governed.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical
So let me get this straight...you play this game:

then you pee your fatigues when the government pays attention?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

That rally and this rancher are two separate issues.

We're Americans. We reserve the right to warn the government of what the price of future trespasses can be.

What the BLM did on this ranchers land is exactly what we warned the feds about. They showed up with an army. So the militias showed up armed...This time.

The government having a monopoly on violence and information is what creates massacres like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

They were not so fortunate as to be able to run both the military operations they intended to perform nor the media narrative they attempted to create. The rancher didnt win..But the militias did.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

That rally and this rancher are two separate issues.

We're Americans. We reserve the right to warn the government of what the price of future trespasses can be.

What the BLM did on this ranchers land is exactly what we warned the feds about. They showed up with an army. So the militias showed up armed...This time.

The government having a monopoly on violence and information is what creates massacres like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

They were not so fortunate as to be able to run both the military operations they intended to perform nor the media narrative they attempted to create. The rancher didnt win..But the militias did.

Weapons begin to play their role when all else fails. Sadly, that's the point America is at today. 2nd am is that last point, and it is so only because we're to damn lazy to actually participate in our own democratic process.

We have gotten to the point where there is no democratic process left. What took place at Bundy ranch is a clear example of that. After the bonus army somebody said that great generals are not made in battle against their enemies, they are made judging by how ruthlessly they are willing to suppress common people including their own, on command of their masters.

Unless that cycle is broken, those are the generals that will fight Americas next war, even if against her self.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Hay now, u's Canadians didn't lay down your weapons when those yanks came up there looking for trouble.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
The government having a monopoly on violence and information is what creates massacres like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

I think a lack of control of the situation is what creates those scenarios. You say in your opening post..."When we do deliberate operations there are some basic things that are done: Control of the battle space: "

And given the rhetoric that the militia-types are fond of spouting...hell, we see those Keyboard Kommandos (with Action Avatars!!) all over ATS...it would seem to be a no-brainer to contain a potentially violent situation right quick. There are a lot of dufusses (dufi?) out there that dream of playing Red Dawn with the government. Should they gain control of the Bundy scenario in the hopes of triggering a new revolution (yawn)...then the Feds have a bigger problem. So I can't fault them for bringing a gun to a knife fight. I think the lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge are being exercised.