| mornelithe said: The feds weren't there for a fight. Bundy and his merry band of inbred dumbasses better hope to hell it gets settled peacefully. As far as potential uprisings, you assume every person in the country would be with the Ranchers. I'd personally be on the other side. Pay your grazing fees, or GTFO. As far as justification? Bundy lost numerous court cases, the Fed has every right to remove them, forcibly if necessary. |
Edit: If they weren't there for a fight, they sure as heck brought a lot of guns with them. they must have been for decoration and intimidation though.
I guess you would be. The feds tried taking it by force once already and failed. dont know what else to tell you. Yes he lost many court cases, and still the feds were unable to take the land. By force or legal means. Scratch one win up to the good guys for now.
I never assumed every person would be on his side, if i assumed that there would be no conflict in the first place. i assumed that most americans would not like a government that starts killing its own citizens. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but I think an armed US federal agency shooting people over what is a simple land dispute would awaken others to the possible harm of what an armed to the teeth federal government can do.
Perhaps you should read on his grazing fees and you will understand the situation. If not its ok, many people choose to just believe what they are told and not research, I can't fault you for taking the easy way out.
