The Oregon militia standoff shouldn’t end in bloodshed

posted at 5:01 pm on January 3, 2016 by Taylor Millard

There’s a lot going on as regards the standoff in Oregon involving three of Cliven Bundy’s sons and the federal government. Jazz has already offered his opinion on the matter, and I mostly agree with him. But I’m not sure the term “armed troops” is appropriate to describe Bundy’s group because that suggests they’re in tactical gear. That doesn’t appear to be true based off what Ammon Bundy’s video posted on Facebook.

Standing for the rights of men & women

BREAKING! SHARE! Standing for the rights of Men & Women. Calling all freedom loving people to come to Harney County Oregon, come to the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility.

Posted by Bundy Ranch on Saturday, January 2, 2016

He repeated the comments to CNN this morning, calling his group “concerned citizens” who are acting to make sure ranchers have land for their children. It makes sense for Bundy to be concerned about ranchland, given what’s been going on with his father, but his methods are questionable because of how it can be spun in the media. The group showed foresight in taking over a remote, empty facility, but the way it’s being portrayed publicly is different. The Oregonian certainly seems to be ramping up the rhetoric against Bundy’s group (emphasis mine).

Among those joining Bundy in the occupation are Ryan Payne,  U.S. Army veteran, and Blaine Cooper. Payne has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move.

He has been a steady presence in Burns in recent weeks, questioning people who were critical of the militia’s presence. He typically had a holstered sidearm as he moved around the community.

The problem is The Oregonian is overblowing what Payne actually told Missoula Independent about what the “militia snipers” were doing during the Bundy Ranch situation last year.

“We locked them down,” Payne says. “We had counter-sniper positions on their sniper positions. We had at least one guy—sometimes two guys—per BLM agent in there. So, it was a complete tactical superiority. … If they made one wrong move, every single BLM agent in that camp would’ve died.”

That’s a lot different than the vague term “federal agents,” and suggests Payne was just making sure his men could beat the Bureau of Land Management if it came to that. It’s also possible Payne was just bragging to puff up his own self-image, as BLM denied using snipers. But it’s ridiculous for The Oregonian to not provide better context to Payne’s statements. It’s also foolish to emphasize the fact Payne was armed whenever he talked to people. This may be a bit of a shock to the Left, but Oregon is an open carry state so Payne can carry a handgun without a problem. It doesn’t appear he was walking up to people, showing the gun and yelling, “WHO DO YOU SUPPORT?” but just carrying the gun for protection. It probably seemed odd to some people, but to others in rural Oregon it may not have been an issue. One thing which is an issue is the fact people in Burns don’t want Bundy’s group there. Bob Owens at BearingArms.com has a piece pointing this out, and how it could end up hurting more than helping.

These militiamen seem to be forgetting a key fact: a force opposing government only has a measure of philosophical legitimacy if the people want their support. In this instance, the Hammonds simply want to turn themselves on Monday and finish serving their time.

These militiamen need to stop attempting to hijack the Hammond case in an attempt to stay relevant, and let Dwight and Steven Hammond peacefully turn themselves in and finish serving their time.

So what happens if Bundy’s group decides to stick around and won’t leave the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? Hopefully, not violence. This is where authorities need to show patience, and not do anything which ends up endangering the lives of anyone. Bundy’s group isn’t hurting people, and, at worst, is guilty of trespassing. Yes, they’re armed but that doesn’t mean SWAT needs to go rolling into the refuge or a drone be used to end the standoff. That would be the worst thing to happen, and bring back memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Federal and local authorities will just have to wait out Ammon Bundy and the rest of the occupiers, until they decide to leave. It may take a while, but it’s well worth it if no lives are lost. Bundy’s group needs to go, but having it happen through a haze of gun smoke and bodies is a bad idea.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I did read a number of rightwing sites that got the story wrong.

Moloch on January 3, 2016 at 9:34 PM

How did you know they got the story wrong? Where did you go to get the story right, Gawker?

Joseph K on January 3, 2016 at 9:41 PM

This is a no win for Clinton. If it’s bloodshed, oops. If it’s no bloodshed, what was wrong with Reno?

Love it.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:42 PM

How did you know they got the story wrong? Where did you go to get the story right, Gawker?

Joseph K on January 3, 2016 at 9:41 PM

Because I also checked places like caselaw.

Tlaloc on January 3, 2016 at 9:42 PM

This is a no win for Clinton. If it’s bloodshed, oops. If it’s no bloodshed, what was wrong with Reno?

Love it.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:42 PM

???

Tlaloc on January 3, 2016 at 9:43 PM

Start with the ones that get the story right.

Tlaloc on January 3, 2016 at 9:39 PM

Easier said than done as nearly everyone comes from a particular world-view, either right or left, and report what they deem important and appropriate.

I personally try to use media from all viewpoints (even Al Jazeera on occasion) and piece things together from there.

The beautiful thing about HA is that the majority link to a variety of sources in support of the point they’re trying to make.

Interesting in retrospect I don’t recall the libs or trolls in general linking to sources to substantiate their claims … not directed to you, just a thought I just had.

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 9:44 PM

???

Tlaloc on January 3, 2016 at 9:43 PM

Have to agree … huh???

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 9:44 PM

???

Tlaloc on January 3, 2016 at 9:43 PM

Reno. Look her up.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:51 PM

Get the Reno reference, but don’t understand this:

If it’s no bloodshed, what was wrong with Reno?

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 9:53 PM

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 9:53 PM

If you can end this without killing EVERYONE why didn’t you.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:56 PM

If you can end this without killing EVERYONE why didn’t you.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 9:56 PM

Ahh … gotcha!

Easy answer – because you’re a totalitarian libtard who values nothing except money and power!

(You’re being Reno.)

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 10:04 PM

Because I also checked places like caselaw.

Moloch on January 3, 2016 at 9:42 PM

How about a link for us rubes, or are you above that?

Joseph K on January 3, 2016 at 10:06 PM

I agree the smart thing to do is wait them out BUT, this is the government and they are a hammer looking for a nail. First will come a few lies about what is happening repeated endlessly by the Regimes media and then the threats and next action.

JIMV on January 3, 2016 at 10:07 PM

#VanillaISIS

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 10:10 PM

#VanillaISIS

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 10:10 PM

Hee!

Had to laugh though don’t agree – still funny! :)

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 10:14 PM

#CivilDiscourse

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 10:14 PM

#VanillaISIS

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 10:10 PM

^^^ Self-admitted troller. Violation of Terms Of Service.

Can we get the banhammer here?

BTW, I’m putting aside any snark and troll baiting for this thread—I genuinely want to understand this. It’s a reaction that I truly don’t get.

CivilDiscourse on December 18, 2015 at 2:28 PM

ShainS on January 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM

And, just for shyts, does anyone think Reno did that without approval?

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM

smokeyblonde

Thanks for laughing—that’s kind of the point. :-) trending on Twitter: #VanillaISIS, #YallQuaeda, #YeeHawdists

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 10:23 PM

Thanks for laughing—that’s kind of the point. :-) trending on Twitter: #VanillaISIS, #YallQuaeda, #YeeHawdists

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 10:23 PM

LOL! Really?!? Not on Twitter – HA is my only “public” presence – so miss alot of those things.

But all those are fairly clever!

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 10:26 PM

Actually glad your back, CD. While we disagree on nearly everything, still find you fun and interesting. Most of the time … :)

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 10:28 PM

smokeyblonde
Aw. Glad to be back. Cheers, smokey!

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 10:37 PM

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 10:23 PM

EABODADIAF

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 10:44 PM

Start with the ones that get the story right.

Kenny Bania on January 3, 2016 at 9:39 PM

“RAISE THE U.S.S. LIBERTY!”

Del Dolemonte on January 3, 2016 at 10:57 PM

Sooo. Just to double check. Obola needs to approve sniper shots at 2 Somali pirates, but Reno has free reign to burn 60ish Waco women and children.

got it.

WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 11:09 PM

Breaking into a federal building and squatting is not a right.
Moloch on January 3, 2016 at 8:44 PM

True, it’s only a right if you occupy the college administration building, or burn down a Wal-Mart.

Joseph K on January 3, 2016 at 8:56 PM

Or a State Capitol: Protestors Take State Capital in Wisconsin

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 9:03 PM

I remember being pissed at Walker for letting it go on. Peoples lives were disrupted by these hippy throwbacks.
I also believe that the passive stance that was taken here in Wisconsin and the “look the other way” that was taken with the OWS retards is directly to blame with their confidence and stronger actions in later cases. Then they are overtly calling for the killing of police and “whitey”, and still not valid response.
But refuse to bake a cake and it’s a federal case costing you your whole life savings and business.

Mimzey on January 3, 2016 at 9:10 PM

It’s a corollary of the Giuliani “broken windows and graffiti” crack-down, but in reverse.

In international affairs, we are seeing it played out in the Saudi response to the Iranians burning their embassy. Iran has been thumbing their noses (and killing people) for decades now with no disciplinary action by the West.
SA doesn’t play by the same rules.

AesopFan on January 3, 2016 at 11:13 PM

I agree the smart thing to do is wait them out BUT, this is the government and they are a hammer looking for a nail. First will come a few lies about what is happening repeated endlessly by the Regimes media and then the threats and next action.

JIMV on January 3, 2016 at 10:07 PM

I agree. The one thing a government cannot tolerate is the disregard of its power and authority. So far they don’t seem to have anyone on the scene and have issued no directives or even comments. However, the government always has to do something, even if it’s best to do nothing.

claudius on January 3, 2016 at 11:14 PM

At that point, Bundy’s group will either fight or fold. This could very easily devolve into a Waco / Ruby Ridge all over again.
Stoic Patriot on January 3, 2016 at 5:34 PM

Waco and Ruby Ridge were situations where the gov’t was the aggressor. In this situation the Bundys and their supporters are the aggressors.

kcewa on January 3, 2016 at 5:39 PM

False. The BLM has been the aggressor to the Hammonds for FOUR DECADES. Now they want to throw a 74 year old man, who’s never harmed anyone, in prison for 5 years. At some point enough is enough.

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 6:40 PM

Even though Hammond seems willing to go along with it, this is an unreasonable action (even sex predators get to be home with ankle bracelets).
Plus, the Obama administration is in the process of RELEASING druggies and felons with much worse records because of “overcharging” and “unfair sentencing.”
Curious double-standard here, donchathink?

AesopFan on January 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM

This is silly.
The authorities should make a perimeter fence and hold the line in the manner of a medieval siege.

This is not rocket science.

APO_AE_09173 on January 3, 2016 at 11:19 PM

EABODADIAF

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 10:44 PM

Literally LOL. Thanks for the laugh.

CivilDiscourse on January 3, 2016 at 11:22 PM

Sammo21 on January 3, 2016 at 5:25 PM

You’re an idiot !

Solaratov on January 3, 2016 at 11:25 PM

Curious double-standard here, donchathink?

AesopFan on January 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM

Priorities!

As others have mentioned: illegals and even Gitmo detainees accused and adjudicated of worse get less time than the Hammond father and son.

Not to mention they already served their duly adjudicated sentences and this is a second sentence imposed on top of the first!

But the Hammonds are the wrong color and, more importantly, the wrong political persuasion.

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 11:27 PM

The bottom line seems to be that the feds want the Hammond ranch, just as the bottom line was they wanted the Bundy place.

claudius on January 3, 2016 at 11:48 PM

Even though Hammond seems willing to go along with it, this is an unreasonable action (even sex predators get to be home with ankle bracelets).
Plus, the Obama administration is in the process of RELEASING druggies and felons with much worse records because of “overcharging” and “unfair sentencing.”
Curious double-standard here, donchathink?

AesopFan on January 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM

It’s a f*cking outrage, and clearly I’m not the only one who thinks so. These heroes in Oregon are inspiring.

fossten on January 3, 2016 at 11:52 PM

Would anyone have sympathy for these guys if they were guys from the inner city? As far as I’m concerned the federal government is within its rights to deal with these guys like the criminals they’re.

moebius22 on January 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM

The bottom line seems to be that the feds want the Hammond ranch, just as the bottom line was they wanted the Bundy place.

claudius on January 3, 2016 at 11:48 PM

That’s the bottom line I’m getting.

Odd in how our trolls see only white men with guns and not the over-arching issue.

Willful blindness or stupidity? Does it matter if the outcome is the same?

smokeyblonde on January 3, 2016 at 11:58 PM

moebius22 on January 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM

because they’ve killed so many.

WryTrvllr on January 4, 2016 at 12:01 AM

Would anyone have sympathy for these guys if they were guys from the inner city? As far as I’m concerned the federal government is within its rights to deal with these guys like the criminals they’re.

moebius22 on January 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM

Well … as observed in Ferguson and Baltimore and the St Matthews Mall and Mall of America and MSP Airport to name a few: No.

There is no sympathy as the outrage is based on a lie.

In regards to OR, there is a well-documented history going back at least 50 years regarding targeted oppression of the Hammonds by the government.

And if you can show where the government has oppressed or harassed ANY minority like they did the Hammonds, I may reconsider …

smokeyblonde on January 4, 2016 at 12:03 AM

Break the law pay the consequences. Nothing keeping these guys from protesting the legal way.

moebius22 on January 4, 2016 at 12:04 AM

I’m curious how the government’s handling of this “protest” compares to that of the Black Lives Matter “protest(s)” which were, prima facie, far more violent and destructive than anything this group is pulling off. Is the government racist/prejudiced in its enforcement of the law?

We should also note that Millard is right in how the media is portraying this protest in Oregon but also note how the media described and covered the Black Lives Matter “protests.” The tone is set.

Speakeasy on January 4, 2016 at 12:07 AM

Break the law pay the consequences. Nothing keeping these guys from protesting the legal way.

moebius22 on January 4, 2016 at 12:04 AM

Sweetie, we all break the law so many times a day it is not even humorous anymore.

Shall we chat as the armed drones are circling YOUR house for some relatively minor regulatory infraction, like collecting rainwater for your garden?

smokeyblonde on January 4, 2016 at 12:16 AM

Shall we chat as the armed drones are circling YOUR house for some relatively minor regulatory infraction, like collecting rainwater for your garden?

smokeyblonde on January 4, 2016 at 12:16 AM

“We noticed you never applied for the downspout permit, nor filed the environmental impact statement for the wood used for the barrel.

And we would like to point out that your diversion of meteoric waters of the United States has negatively impacted the endangered soil inhabiting flatworm darter. So endangered, we could find a living example on your property.

Go directly to jail, do not pass GO!”

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 4, 2016 at 12:28 AM

Break the law pay the consequences.

moebius22 on January 4, 2016 at 12:04 AM

Yup.

Just like all those illegal immigrants.

Or just like Hillary! putting Secret and Top Secret documents on a homebrew email server that any competent hacker could access?

SubmarineDoc on January 4, 2016 at 1:24 AM

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 4, 2016 at 12:28 AM

Welcome to life in the West, where water rights are EVERYTHING!

smokeyblonde on January 4, 2016 at 1:43 AM

These Oregon militia should adopt the totally non-funny mass communication skills from Occupy Portland. We need Twinkles, and we need it know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaVvzTyMcls

guido911 on January 4, 2016 at 2:57 AM

And, just for shyts, does anyone think Reno did that without approval?
WryTrvllr on January 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM

I will go to my grave swearing I saw and heard an ABC News report at the time with then president Bill Clinton saying, “What do we care about a bunch of religious fanatics.”

When I tried to search their website for a copy of that night’s report, it had been scrubbed.

Cleombrotus on January 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM

Break the law pay the consequences.

moebius22 on January 4, 2016 at 12:04 AM

When unelected bureaucrats keep changing the law in a forty year effort to move you off your land, the law stops having real meaning.

fossten on January 4, 2016 at 7:24 AM

Can’t defend these clowns. This is not how you protest.

EVSCBT on January 4, 2016 at 7:51 AM

Bullies hate pushback.

CurtZHP on January 4, 2016 at 7:54 AM

As a retired police detective and a Constitutionalist who hates the “administrative government” that is driving this mess, I am at odds with myself.

First, I hope it ends peacefully. The reason isn’t that citizens shouldn’t strike back in some form, but it because the target these guys will be facing aren’t the problem, they are just the spear. it is the person HOLDING the spear that needs addressing.

Worse, and the Bundy people should know this from experience, 3/4 of the guys standing against them, who are ordered there by the faceless bureaucrats that are behind the effort to destroy the Hammonds, AGREE with the Bundy crew!! It’s been my experience that when you had four cops in a car, three of them were patriots. The other was the drone you had to worry about that would follow orders blindly (Think the sniper at Ruby Ridge)

It is always this way. Don’t get me wrong, you can get the one guy and team him with like minded drones and make a unit, but that’s hard. At some point even they begin to question their masters.

If you want to affect change, real change, you have to know your enemy. Research the career people inside the BLM and I’m betting you’ll find moderately qualified lawyers from some lib school like Berkley who are strident environmentalists. They’ll be easy to find. The women will look like they haven’t been intimate, well since college, and the men will be elitist looking pinheads. Like Rahm in Chicago.

They have learned the lesson Hillary learned, change from the inside by USING the power of the government against the people, not the people against the power of government (like Alinsky pushed). Times are different now. The power has shifted to the government organ.

We are falling dangerously close to that time period in French history where the people, when they rose up, realized to start over they couldn’t just strike off the heads of royalty but go after that faceless bureaucrat that was the hands holding the spear.

Think Lois Lerner in the IRS for an example. She was using the power of government to push her personal agenda for decades, through different political leadership. And when she needed to lay low she did, knowing she still gets paid, retirement, health benefits and all she has to do is wait until another Obama comes along.

The danger of going after the faceless bureaucrat is you’ll end up getting the good ones too. I suggest that places like HotAir and others do the research and find out who these people are and bring them to light. Cockroaches and rats don’t like the light. Make Congress address the abuses by dragging them up and explain themselves.

Sadly, the only way this stops is when the money runs out and government can’t pay these people to keep doing the damage. Until then, it will be a game of whack-a-mole.

archer52 on January 4, 2016 at 8:34 AM

archer52 on January 4, 2016 at 8:34 AM

A well reasoned, thought out approach. I like it. I find myself at odds also. What caused the problem in the first place isn’t even being discussed and I’m hoping someone who actually has a voice can bring that to light.

gator70 on January 4, 2016 at 8:50 AM

Lost in all this is the reason the group is there in the first place. I’m sure that HQ they took over is nothing more than a shack in the wetlands or woods. If the feds just sit on their humpus and do nothing which is what they do best, the group will decide that they made their point and go home. Time will tell.

Kissmygrits on January 4, 2016 at 9:03 AM

The Hammond’s say they don’t want outside help. They’ll handle their problems through the courts. I think they need better lawyers if that is their intention. So far they have been steam rolled by both the Government and the judge that sides with the Government. Thanks to the original judge it was a kangaroo court that convicted them not allowing adequate time for a defense.

TerryW on January 4, 2016 at 9:29 AM

The reason Texas has such a small proportion of Federally-owned land, is that Texas was never a Territory of the United States.
It won its independence from Mexico following the battles of The Alamo, and San Jacinto, and became the Republic of Texas in 1836. In 1845, it was admitted to the Union as a State. All land titles at that time were pretty much settled – what wasn’t privately owned was land under the title of the Republic/State of Texas.
And that is what sets them apart from all other states west of the Mississippi.

Another Drew on January 4, 2016 at 12:05 PM

archer52 on January 4, 2016 at 8:34 AM

I like the idea of Lois Lerner’s head in a wicker basket!

Another Drew on January 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM

I do find it interesting how many times I see conservatives claim the 2nd amendment is a way to combat tyranny but then something like this comes up and the balk down and consistently side with the feds.

Sammo21 on January 3, 2016 at 5:25 PM

Like you and the phony “conservatives” you mention, the copsuckers on this blog are all fascists.

earlgrey on January 4, 2016 at 1:05 PM

The reason isn’t that citizens shouldn’t strike back in some form, but it because the target these guys will be facing aren’t the problem, they are just the spear. it is the person HOLDING the spear that needs addressing.

archer52 on January 4, 2016 at 8:34 AM

Exactly.
That’s why I’ve been saying that we need “term limits” for the unelected bureaucrats, not the elected officials. We can deal with the elected ones, at the next election. Or push them, betweentimes. But bureaucrats can continue to bore from within, unimpeded. THEY are the enemies of freedom, just as they were in Byzantine Rome, or Mandarin China; or the Soviet Union’s “nomenklatura”.

Target the Enemy.

ReggieA on January 4, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4