dakota.potts
New member
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...ith_quiet.html#incart_river_mobileshort_index
There are reports that up to 150 armed militiamen have taken over the building for a national wildlife refuge in Oregon. There are some connections to the Bundy family, wherein apparently the younger sons of the family have either joined or are leading the militia in this case.
They are protesting the imprisonment of two ranchers convicted of arson for setting fires on federal lands. They claim the fire was used to control invasive species of plants, but regardless the fires caused damage.
The two ranchers were due to report to federal prison on Monday and have stated that they have no interest in refusing the order. They had some credit for time served and some say they have a legitimate grievance for having that time served extended.
I am hesitant to see how this plays out. I would say that, as a board that supports the second amendment, many of us support the fact that the people who hold the power to abolish or change government if necessary where government is found to be oppressive. However, the documents that spell that out also say that these uses of force should not include light transgressions, that grievances should be publicly stated, that all other forms of political power should be exhausted, etc. I really don't see that that's happening here. I don't know that I've seen any of the members representing bills in congress or lobbying for change or anything of that nature. I worry that this is just a militia looking for an opportunity to flex their muscle using the constitution as a crutch.
This is bad PR as it is, in my opinion. It makes militias look trigger happy and as though they're looking for a fight. I really hope this ends in a way that no violence or force is necessary to end it. I don't see it ending well any other way.
There are reports that up to 150 armed militiamen have taken over the building for a national wildlife refuge in Oregon. There are some connections to the Bundy family, wherein apparently the younger sons of the family have either joined or are leading the militia in this case.
They are protesting the imprisonment of two ranchers convicted of arson for setting fires on federal lands. They claim the fire was used to control invasive species of plants, but regardless the fires caused damage.
The two ranchers were due to report to federal prison on Monday and have stated that they have no interest in refusing the order. They had some credit for time served and some say they have a legitimate grievance for having that time served extended.
I am hesitant to see how this plays out. I would say that, as a board that supports the second amendment, many of us support the fact that the people who hold the power to abolish or change government if necessary where government is found to be oppressive. However, the documents that spell that out also say that these uses of force should not include light transgressions, that grievances should be publicly stated, that all other forms of political power should be exhausted, etc. I really don't see that that's happening here. I don't know that I've seen any of the members representing bills in congress or lobbying for change or anything of that nature. I worry that this is just a militia looking for an opportunity to flex their muscle using the constitution as a crutch.
This is bad PR as it is, in my opinion. It makes militias look trigger happy and as though they're looking for a fight. I really hope this ends in a way that no violence or force is necessary to end it. I don't see it ending well any other way.
