Cowboy insurrections

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Have you been following the Oregon occupation story? I was neither supportive nor condemning, I was not really sure what they were trying to do other than make news and generate support. I think they thought they would get a big groundswell of support from people. The problem was occupying some public property, the leftists who thought occupy walls street was heroic thought these guys were traitors and rebels, the right who thought OWS were retread hippies thought these guys were nut jobs.

I understand their frustration, the federal regulation is just non stop and ever increasing. The waters of the US rules that has everyone wondering when the hammer is going to fall for non compliance which is completely arbitrary to the EPA an carries the full force of the federal prosecution. Which if we see from the Hammond case can use terrorism as its sees fit to circumvent about any constitutional limits on what they can do to you.

One thing they snuck by and was never a news story over is the regulation on chemical pesticdes. We have always had to get a chem applicators licence to use some chemicals, mostly I just wanted it for the phostoxin and poison bait for prairie dogs, but still had to get the licence. You had to go to the class which was about 4 hours, was free, and the licence was good for 5 years. Got notified even though I just retook the class last year, I now will have to take another 6 hours of workplace safety training, will cost me 90 dollars and lasts only 3 years, and if I don't the licence is invalid. So am much more of mind to support peiople taking on the fed than many are, I just was hoping for something a little more well thought out.

Anyway, ended up they tried to take them en route to somewhere, and one got himself shot. I watched the video, the guy was going to be shot doing what he did, but they lit that truck after the shot him, plain as day.

The mistake these guys made was using the bravado and being armed, but not willing to go through with it. They think they are dealing with people, they are not, they are dealing with the govt and they have no problems killing you at the slightest provocation and then justifying it.

[HiTemp]

Well I haven't followed it in much detail. What I knew was that some group of ranchers in Oregon took over some kind of unused or rarely used government building and that, at least at first, the feds were giving them wide berth.

What seemed apparent to me is that the feds were concerned about the image of another Waco, so the full-frontal assault anticipated by some I didn't think was ever going to be a reality, particularly since these people occupied a building not their own. It wasn't like they had a well-stocked compound where they could hang out for months or years. This seemed from the get-go to be just a matter of waiting them out or, as actually happened, splitting them up and taking them down one or two at a time.

I'm sure the feds knew these folks were traveling around to meetings and that seemed to me the most logical way to get them isolated on some non-populated section of road and force an encounter where the odds were going to be stacked against them. The way I see it, they could have cooperated and all of them walked away still breathing, or they could chose to fight against what was essentially an ambush and likely die trying. One at least made the bad decision with predictable results.

My thoughts on it are that the feds have a long memory and warrants don't go away overnight. In the past few years there have been some showdowns of citizens asserting rights and the government (agencies) backed off for reasons only they know. I think this has put the idea in some people's heads that they can somehow neuter the federal government's actions if only they put up enough of a fight. But they are a small group, not some large, multi-state movement with large resources and professional media spokespeople. So the odds are way, way, against them to start, but that doesn't stop some of them and I think that's what we saw in this case.

The Constitutional provisions for changing a government, even the preamble part about whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, doesn't seem to include individual protest using force against a particular law or policy. I don't see that kind of proposal ever being successful because if only one is allowed, an avalanche is sure to follow. So the feds might wait, but they won't forget and they will act when the odds are greatly in their favor with very predictable outcomes.

Look, when the Dept. of Education is buying SBRs and mountains of ammunition, what's that telling you? I think it says stand by for more and ever increasing level of nanny-statism coming home to roost, and that protesting it will be met with federal force.

The only way these environmental laws and policies will be changed is for them to start encroaching on the plans of wealthy donors or politicians, then they will either change them or carve out exceptions for themselves. But everyone else, tough luck. The EPA is at the point of declaring themselves in charge of every raindrop in the US, and I don't expect they'll stop there, they will find a way to be in charge of evaporating water (vapor) too someday. It's likely to continue like that until it costs too much to support the effort OR something else is more important and demands the funds.

[HiTemp]

Duplicate post

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Well our own revolution started with acts of protest, disobedience and terrorism of the day, and grew into an insurrection, which the over reaction of the crown caused to become a full blown rebellion. We are on track to repeat that again. Unfortunately for people like Bundy and LaVoy Finicum, they get to be martyrs.

[HiTemp]

It could come to that. The problem here is it's a microscopically tiny tempest in a teapot. It's not something where every citizen is being effected by as was the case with Britain quartering soldiers in colonial homes and appointed governors engaged in all kinds of corrupt malfeasance. Also, it isn't something where the smartest and most respected citizens are stepping forward, writing articles about it, holding town halls and educating the public about the abuses and calling for public support of actions against the powers that be. This was a handful of guys seeking to look out for their own interests, not a public interest per se, and I think that is mainly why these efforts have a tendency to fail. Overthrows don't work when only 10 or 12 people buck the law; they work when the whole community bucks the law and throws the tea into the harbor to drive the point home.

I'm not so sure the American public would be shocked anymore by a violent confrontation like the Boston Massacre. The media surely will because it gives them a story to run with a la Ferguson riots/protests/responses, but even those did not rise to the level of public discord that, say, a Kent State did. If there are only a handful of people driving a particular cause against government, and most of them die in a Kent State type event, there isn't anyone left to carry the torch so to speak. That's why I think it will take much wider support from the start than just a dozen or so folks pissed off at the feds over some regulations.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Yeah, but the British didn't quarter soldiers until after the Boston teaparty. It will likely come to nothing, but the more of these that happen the more chance it will escalate by both sides. People are not shocked, because its easy to marginalize people like cultists in Waco or some wild looking cowboys, but its trending to effecting more and more mainstream people. I guess we will just have to see if the majority of the country will want to be subjects of the state or not. I think the Ferguson riots etc, are a different deal, mainly because the evidence did not show the govt as in the wrong in many of the cases, and since it was started on the lie of 'hands up, don't shoot', it was bound to fail gaining widespread support.

[HiTemp]

Well you are correct on all counts. I am not trying to say the feds are always in the right in what they do, surely they are not. What I'm suggesting is that small groups of government opponents seem almost like hostage situations. They are in situations where there is no way out except to accept the penalty or die. Because there is no groundswell of support for any of them, they eventually face one of the two consequences as this most recent group did.

I think that in order for something to rise to the level of serious opposition or even to revolution it will require some issue that is absolutely grounded in widespread, popular support. Because we are such a fractured nation right now, you can take just about any issue and 40% will be for it, 40% against, mostly along party lines. This sort of precludes those conditions I think would be necessary to make huge numbers of people rise up against government is such numbers they couldn't possibly do anything about it.

Now this is a stretch but it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. Suppose there was a popular uprising against the US Census, and 90% or more of the people absolutely refused to even answer the door or mail or phone. What's the government going to do about that? Will they try and round up 330 million plus people and make them fill out cards?

That's the kind of support it's going to take to stop government. It's not going to work by collecting a shed full of firearms and a couple dozen rifleman; it's going to work when the resistance is so widespread it effectively grinds government to a halt.

I agree with you about people realizing they're under oppression but some seem to choose that because it's someone else dealing with a problem they don't know anything about but they "hear" it's a problem so good, let the government take care of it. It's only when government fixes come their way that they smarten up.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I disagree somewhat, We have never had 90% agreement on anything, including amendments. All we really need is enough people to be noisy enough it can't be ignored. Black people have never been more than 10% of the population back in the 60s, and they made things happen, despite a majority who opposed or were indifferent.

I do agree a dozen yahoos protesting and occupying an isolated area is not going to bring support in, depending on what happens to them may increase that support later though.

[HiTemp]

Well the 90% was just my far-reaching example. You are correct, it wouldn't take a huge majority, but what it would take is a strong, continued effort that does not meet resistance, and that's where my 40/40% thing comes in. A lot of people were on the Global Warming train, hearing about how the argument was over, there's a consensus, etc. but a recent poll released less than two weeks ago showed 91% of the people don't believe it. So there is plenty of resistance to those ideas.

On the other hand, gay marriage only had 14% popular support, but though 86% of people did not favor it, very few of them rose in opposition to it because they were instantly stigmatized. I don't know if you read that story about how the real estate flippers are ruining one of San Francisco's largest gay neighborhood (Castro district), but there these developers have been buying up older homes, modernizing them and flipping them for profit. Result is that a lot of non-gay people are buying them who don't patronize the gay bars, so the iconic gay bars are basically going out of business from lack of customer base. I found it quite amusing to read about how these gay activists were seething about how their traditional gay neighborhood was being disrupted by people who seemed to have little respect for letting people stay in one place and live their lives according to their own values. What goes around...

It's more than a matter of a simple large majority to effect change, it's more a popular cause that will gain traction and be talked about in media over and over and over. Because we tend to be an egalitarian society, it's never going to fly when you have a Governor mowing down people with firehoses and sicking police dogs on people who just wanted to attend college. Most people could not stomach those images and appropriately saw it as a great injustice, so change was inevitable. A few guys out in Oregon pissed off at government regulations - well, it just doesn't rise to the same level. It's going to take some kind of showing of just how cruel these regs are and the ruinous consequences to people's lives coupled with a lot of public discussion about it before enough people get on board that train to make a difference.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Yeah, I agree, but its the reaction of govt that causes the consternation of people more than the act of disobedience itself. So long as the govt keeps its cool it will be marginalized, but if someday they try another Waco, I don't think people will be so quick to give benefit of doubt. If they go in and kill several of the militia in trying to clear that wildlife center, it will escalate the next militia encounter. It will all depend what the circumstance was, but a lot of people supported Bundy even though he was in the wrong because govt tried to seize his property, in essence sending the tax collection army, and they may not been gung ho about him using federal land, but they sure didn't agree with that.

[HiTemp]

Ever since the days of Al Capone the IRS has been the fall-back way for the feds to take action against someone when nothing else seems to work. I have never supported the idea of confiscation of property, even that used in a crime, because I see no reason the government ought to be able to sell an individual's property for scrap as a means of punishment in addition to whatever other punishment (jail time, fines) they already get to assess. And really, this is why. It forces situations where the person faces the loss of all they have and puts them in an untenable position where many will see it as a fight for their life, and WILL fight for it.

With a lot of the Bundy type folks that run afoul of the federal gummint, I think there needs to be no more action taken than to have an active arrest warrant and the first time he pops into LE sights they take him down (meaning arrest him). If he resists, he's no different than any other criminal in any other case, and subject to the same treatment by police if he resists arrest. If he chooses to risk his life that way, he might lose and should think about that before acting.

I really have no understanding of some of the issues about grazing land and such so it's hard for me to know if these guys are truly being singled out for rough treatment by the feds or they are just pushing some envelope and hoping for the best in order to cut costs. I don't think many people do understand them, another reason why popular support never seems to be present in these cases.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

In the Cliven Bundy case the land use of federal land that was thought worthless for anything else was the issue. In the Hammond case it was about being adjacent to federal land and what they can do to you if you encroach. And then there are the federal regs for all of us in regard to endangered species and the EPA.

People hear 'federal land' and they get this idea of squatters out here wanting something for nothing, and in some cases that may be, but a lot of time if you have water rights that run through federal land, or natural trails that you have to use because terrain to even be able to use your own land because the fed usually owns checkerboard patterns of mile sections and not the huge blocks people seem to think. Dealing with the fed now more than ever is dicey at best, because they think they own not just federal land, but everything that touches it or goes over it and can dictate what happens arbitrarily. Thats why people are getting fed up with the federal govt out here in fly over country.

[HiTemp]

Those are good examples of the kind of things that most people are not going to inherently understand when it comes to these disputes. Whenever the feds make rules it always considers them to be a "one-size-fits-all" fix, and nothing in nature ever really falls into that category. Couple that with a bureaucracy that is only interested in self-continuation, never wanting to make a decision that might be called into question by superiors and you end up with a government who makes rules for government to protect the interests of government.

A living example of this is the FCC and laws regarding communications and broadband. There are good reasons for more rules to be in place but every time someone tries to make a common-sense rule into a law it's always tweaked and adjusted into some policy that's easy for government to employ or enforce and to hell with how it impacts everyone else. This is the primary reason why every government program is rife with waste and abuse and its primary focus is to continue expanding so as to justify its own existence.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Their grasp of power never stops, and eventually most people will get it because bureaucracy is the most intrusive, least effectual way to govern. Like here, now its not just impacting those nut job ranchers, but anyone who want to use the public lands. watchdog.org/218578/blm-pubic-routes-colorado/

[HiTemp]

I think this would be a great time for the city to start blocking off some streets, say, a block or so from the BLM's Mesa HQ and not let any cars pass until they've completed "underground repairs," which they don't have to consult with the federal government to perform. More than one way to skin a gummint cat.

I also think your example well illustrates what I was talking about. You'd hope people in the federal government would be attuned to the needs and desires of locals and act in a way that makes the federal government work for them, not against them. But no, this is what's easier/better/takes less effort for the government so that's what they'll do. Then, when it's brought to their attention how the decision isn't a good one, they will expend months of work to justify why they couldn't or wouldn't do something that would have taken a couple days.

Still not too late to run for Congress, Honcho. You have until April 1st to declare candidacy. I already have my bumper sticker.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Heheh, Maybe not, with the amount of patience and temper I have I would punch them, right in the face. All of them. Besides there is already about 8 yahoos ahead of me, being low man on the yahoo list is probably not good odds.