Doug:
I suspect that the fact that men with guns have taken over a government building in Oregon is on a lot of people's minds this past week. Describing the event has proven to be challenging for the media. Is it a "peaceful protest" or "an armed attack"? It is hard for some not to see racial correlations between these actions, and other protests of late.
David:
This particular standoff represents a long-standing dispute between ranchers and land-owners and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). For decades, the BLM has placed ever-more burdensome restrictions on federal lands that had been used by American with boring properties. In many cases, local communities argue that the restrictions are hurting their economies. In some instances, the federal government has simply claimed ownership of land that has been land owned by families for decades, and then restricted the use of that land. That is an abuse of power.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/roots-of-oregon-land-dispute-stretch-back-decades-1452042408
Doug:
That is one way to view the issue. But not the only way. There are many "long-standing disputes" in this country.
David:
But these disputes out West are different than, say, a dispute over zoning, although it is in some ways similar to "eminent domain" issues. They even have their own historic name: The Sagebrush Rebellion.
This specific protest comes as a result of two ranchers (a father and son) who set fire to their land in an attempt to curb invasive plants, and to decrease the risk of wildfires. Some grasslands in the adjoining federal reserve also burned, and the pair were charged in federal court with arson. The father spent a year in federal prison, and the son spent several months in prison as well for this infraction, believe it or not. Well, recently, a federal judge determined that the two had not spent enough time in prison for burning some grass (thanks to mandatory sentencing guidelines), and they were sent back to prison for an additional 4 years each!
Doug:
As you pointed out, there was a court case, and they were found guilty. It isn't clear what their intentions were. Some claimed that they were covering up a deer slaughter on public land. They didn't burn the land once, but twice. Doesn't really matter in the court of public opinion. But note that the 5 year minimum wasn't a "guideline"---it was the law. The law states that they must serve 5 years minimum. If you want to argue against mandatory sentencing minimums, I'm with you 100%! I thought mandatory minimums were republican ideas. In any event, judges have to follow the laws evenly.
David:
Mandatory sentencing laws were bipartisan, and a bad idea, as we've seen play out. The push now is to turn those laws back, and rightfully so. This, also, is bipartisan. Judges don't have to follow laws they feel are unjust. Hence, the original sentencing. If the appeals judge had also felt that the sentence was fair, he could have let it stand. (The only reason there was an appeal is the government lawyers called for it, even though they won the case.)
Doug:
Ah, no. Judges have to follow the laws. Otherwise we would not need three branches of government.
David:
The executive branch is supposed to follow and enforce laws. At least, it was before President Obama. The judicial branch interprets laws.
Anyway, this action sparked some understandable outrage from the family's neighbors, and a protest was started. After the meeting, several protesters took over the federal building, which I believe may be unoccupied most of the year, and serves as a small kitchen and bunkhouse for federal employees when they are there. These protesters do not appear to be locals. They are armed, but they are also peaceful. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Doug:
I think you'll find some of those neighbors did not understand that understable outrage. Armed militia threatening violence if anyone attempts to remove them from public land is not my definition of peaceful. But then again, I make a big difference between kids carrying toy guns on a playground, and militia taking over public land.
David:
Right. College professors calling for "muscle" to assault a reporter, or marching protesters chanting for the killing of police officers is your idea of peaceful, because they don't have guns. You have to remember that out West, many people outside of cities own a gun, and keep it with them. That doesn't make them dangerous.
Doug:
I don't condone advocating for violence. Yes, indeed: I see people with guns as much more dangerous than those without.
David:
And that is why you and the President feel we need to ban them.
Doug:
Pretending that you understand your opponent's position leads to a caricature rather than to a useful discussion. I think you would find that my position on gun safety (and the President's) is much more in line with your own. Suggestion: whenever you start to write "you feel..." instead try writing "how do you feel about...?"
David:
I can't fathom how you could possible tie race into this event, but then again, you tie racial discrimination into everything that happens in the country. This is a specific protest about land use in the Western states, which has been going on for decades. The issue has been coming to a head in the past 10 years, however. Just look at how much land the federal government holds out West:
Doug:
I didn't say anything about discrimination. I think some people find it ironic that there have been so many black children killed recently for possibly having weapons, when compared to a group of armed, white men taking over an area brandishing their weapons. But I'm not claiming anything here.
David:
You falsely claim that "so many black children have been killed for possibly having weapons". Many black children are killed by young black males in urban areas during shoot-outs between gangs. I know of one child whose toy gun resembled a real gun, and was shot as a result, and that was a tragedy. The last time I checked the Constitution, it was legal for these ranchers to carry rifles, whenever and wherever they want.
Doug:
We need a constitutional amendment that gives kids a right to carry toy guns, then we can both fight for justice.
David:
I would have assumed you'd be more inclined to ban toy guns. And real guns, too. At least I feel that you feel that way...
Doug:
You probably shouldn't assume so much. I don't think this is a cut and dried liberal vs. conservative issue. My friend Christy Davis has done some original research on the materials. Here are some of her references:
David:
It's a big-government vs. small government debate. This AP article may be a little less biased than the view of the "Audubon Society" or "The New Yorker's" take on these matters:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dbc59443e1314d02b02312ba356a614f/key-things-know-about-federal-land-ownership-west
"The federal government also owns significant portions of California and Wyoming, at 48 percent each; Arizona, at 42 percent; Colorado, at 36 percent; New Mexico, at 35 percent; Montana, at 29 percent; and Washington state, at 28 percent." That's a lot of land.
Doug:
Whatever it is, it is not a debate. It is a lot of land that the government bought from failing ranchers. Much of it is in arid regions, not suitable for development. Some of it is wildlife preserves.
David:
That's what the federal government says. The states in which that land resides feel differently. Many of those states have filed laws in the past 2 years to try to force the feds to turn over their control of that land to the individual states. Who knows how to use the local land better, the individual states, or a bureaucrat in Washington DC? We've seen over and over again, how big-government agencies are failing US citizens. This is just another example.
Although, to be fair, this particular group of individuals (from the Bundy family), who are not locals, make for poor spokes-persons for the cause. Every time I hear the name "Bundy", I think of "Ted Bundy". Creepy.
Doug:
I think of Al Bundy! Even more creepy.
David:
I'm reserving judgement for now, but as time passes, and their list of demands is not any clearer than the demands of the Occupy Wall Street group (or college protesters, for that matter), it makes them look more like troublemakers, than reformers.
Doug:
This is you "reserving judgment"? I don't think "angry at the government" is a cause, and I agree that they have no idea what they are fighting, nor what their demands are. I encourage everyone to send those peaceful, angry, armed, white dudes some glitter and old VHS tapes of "Married With Children." Let's not speak of these people again.
David:
Speak about who?
Doug:
Good!
I suspect that the fact that men with guns have taken over a government building in Oregon is on a lot of people's minds this past week. Describing the event has proven to be challenging for the media. Is it a "peaceful protest" or "an armed attack"? It is hard for some not to see racial correlations between these actions, and other protests of late.
David:
This particular standoff represents a long-standing dispute between ranchers and land-owners and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). For decades, the BLM has placed ever-more burdensome restrictions on federal lands that had been used by American with boring properties. In many cases, local communities argue that the restrictions are hurting their economies. In some instances, the federal government has simply claimed ownership of land that has been land owned by families for decades, and then restricted the use of that land. That is an abuse of power.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/roots-of-oregon-land-dispute-stretch-back-decades-1452042408
Doug:
That is one way to view the issue. But not the only way. There are many "long-standing disputes" in this country.
David:
But these disputes out West are different than, say, a dispute over zoning, although it is in some ways similar to "eminent domain" issues. They even have their own historic name: The Sagebrush Rebellion.
This specific protest comes as a result of two ranchers (a father and son) who set fire to their land in an attempt to curb invasive plants, and to decrease the risk of wildfires. Some grasslands in the adjoining federal reserve also burned, and the pair were charged in federal court with arson. The father spent a year in federal prison, and the son spent several months in prison as well for this infraction, believe it or not. Well, recently, a federal judge determined that the two had not spent enough time in prison for burning some grass (thanks to mandatory sentencing guidelines), and they were sent back to prison for an additional 4 years each!
Doug:
As you pointed out, there was a court case, and they were found guilty. It isn't clear what their intentions were. Some claimed that they were covering up a deer slaughter on public land. They didn't burn the land once, but twice. Doesn't really matter in the court of public opinion. But note that the 5 year minimum wasn't a "guideline"---it was the law. The law states that they must serve 5 years minimum. If you want to argue against mandatory sentencing minimums, I'm with you 100%! I thought mandatory minimums were republican ideas. In any event, judges have to follow the laws evenly.
David:
Mandatory sentencing laws were bipartisan, and a bad idea, as we've seen play out. The push now is to turn those laws back, and rightfully so. This, also, is bipartisan. Judges don't have to follow laws they feel are unjust. Hence, the original sentencing. If the appeals judge had also felt that the sentence was fair, he could have let it stand. (The only reason there was an appeal is the government lawyers called for it, even though they won the case.)
Doug:
Ah, no. Judges have to follow the laws. Otherwise we would not need three branches of government.
David:
The executive branch is supposed to follow and enforce laws. At least, it was before President Obama. The judicial branch interprets laws.
Anyway, this action sparked some understandable outrage from the family's neighbors, and a protest was started. After the meeting, several protesters took over the federal building, which I believe may be unoccupied most of the year, and serves as a small kitchen and bunkhouse for federal employees when they are there. These protesters do not appear to be locals. They are armed, but they are also peaceful. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Doug:
I think you'll find some of those neighbors did not understand that understable outrage. Armed militia threatening violence if anyone attempts to remove them from public land is not my definition of peaceful. But then again, I make a big difference between kids carrying toy guns on a playground, and militia taking over public land.
David:
Right. College professors calling for "muscle" to assault a reporter, or marching protesters chanting for the killing of police officers is your idea of peaceful, because they don't have guns. You have to remember that out West, many people outside of cities own a gun, and keep it with them. That doesn't make them dangerous.
Doug:
I don't condone advocating for violence. Yes, indeed: I see people with guns as much more dangerous than those without.
David:
And that is why you and the President feel we need to ban them.
Doug:
Pretending that you understand your opponent's position leads to a caricature rather than to a useful discussion. I think you would find that my position on gun safety (and the President's) is much more in line with your own. Suggestion: whenever you start to write "you feel..." instead try writing "how do you feel about...?"
David:
I can't fathom how you could possible tie race into this event, but then again, you tie racial discrimination into everything that happens in the country. This is a specific protest about land use in the Western states, which has been going on for decades. The issue has been coming to a head in the past 10 years, however. Just look at how much land the federal government holds out West:
Doug:
I didn't say anything about discrimination. I think some people find it ironic that there have been so many black children killed recently for possibly having weapons, when compared to a group of armed, white men taking over an area brandishing their weapons. But I'm not claiming anything here.
David:
You falsely claim that "so many black children have been killed for possibly having weapons". Many black children are killed by young black males in urban areas during shoot-outs between gangs. I know of one child whose toy gun resembled a real gun, and was shot as a result, and that was a tragedy. The last time I checked the Constitution, it was legal for these ranchers to carry rifles, whenever and wherever they want.
Doug:
We need a constitutional amendment that gives kids a right to carry toy guns, then we can both fight for justice.
David:
I would have assumed you'd be more inclined to ban toy guns. And real guns, too. At least I feel that you feel that way...
Doug:
You probably shouldn't assume so much. I don't think this is a cut and dried liberal vs. conservative issue. My friend Christy Davis has done some original research on the materials. Here are some of her references:
- http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/pissed-as-hell-rancher-blows-up-at-bundy-militants-im-not-going-let-some-other-people-be-my-face/
- http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2016/01/steve_duin_rage_reconciliation.html
- http://usuncut.com/news/oregon-militia-descends-into-fist-fights-chaos/
- http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/05/how_the_u_s_media_would_cover_the_oregon_siege_if_it_happened_in_another.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot
- http://audubonportland.org/news/audubon-society-of-portland-statement-on-the-occupation-of-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge
- http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-bundys-occupy-oregon
David:
It's a big-government vs. small government debate. This AP article may be a little less biased than the view of the "Audubon Society" or "The New Yorker's" take on these matters:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dbc59443e1314d02b02312ba356a614f/key-things-know-about-federal-land-ownership-west
"The federal government also owns significant portions of California and Wyoming, at 48 percent each; Arizona, at 42 percent; Colorado, at 36 percent; New Mexico, at 35 percent; Montana, at 29 percent; and Washington state, at 28 percent." That's a lot of land.
Doug:
Whatever it is, it is not a debate. It is a lot of land that the government bought from failing ranchers. Much of it is in arid regions, not suitable for development. Some of it is wildlife preserves.
David:
That's what the federal government says. The states in which that land resides feel differently. Many of those states have filed laws in the past 2 years to try to force the feds to turn over their control of that land to the individual states. Who knows how to use the local land better, the individual states, or a bureaucrat in Washington DC? We've seen over and over again, how big-government agencies are failing US citizens. This is just another example.
Although, to be fair, this particular group of individuals (from the Bundy family), who are not locals, make for poor spokes-persons for the cause. Every time I hear the name "Bundy", I think of "Ted Bundy". Creepy.
Doug:
I think of Al Bundy! Even more creepy.
David:
I'm reserving judgement for now, but as time passes, and their list of demands is not any clearer than the demands of the Occupy Wall Street group (or college protesters, for that matter), it makes them look more like troublemakers, than reformers.
Doug:
This is you "reserving judgment"? I don't think "angry at the government" is a cause, and I agree that they have no idea what they are fighting, nor what their demands are. I encourage everyone to send those peaceful, angry, armed, white dudes some glitter and old VHS tapes of "Married With Children." Let's not speak of these people again.
David:
Speak about who?
Doug:
Good!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!