Posted on 04/11/2014 11:23:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundys decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights has heated to the point where militia groups have joined in and taken up spots against the feds whove circled his land and talk is, theyre not afraid to open fire.
A spokesman for the one of the militia groups said as much to local 8 News Now: Im not afraid to shoot, he said.
Margaret Houston, Mr. Bundys sister and a cancer survivor, said at a town hall gathering this week that the situation was like a war zone and that she felt like I was not in the United States, The Daily Mail reported. The Las Vegas Review-Journal described it this way: Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided, in a story about how dogs were unleashed on a woman who was pregnant while the ranchers son was hit with a taser.
On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundys property, escalating a court dispute thats wound for two decades over the ranchers refusal to pay for grazing fees.
~~snip~~
Now militia groups are on the scene, promising to help the Bundys keep up the fight.
This is what we do, we provide armed response, Jim Lordy, with Operation Mutual Aid, told the local broadcast station. They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.
Mr. Lordy also said many more militia groups are coming to the site to join in the Bundy family defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
BTW, you should start a protest to deport Mr. Bundy..
Good luck with that Mr Rodgers!
Thank You for that compliment but in following many of your posts I have found you far excel me in seeking the truth. I have to follow you around to find what I've missed. I miss a lot and have to go back over and over again to re-evaluate my opinions.
Why should the federal government be involved at all? What Constitutional authority do they have to own those lands? (i.e. Are the States sovereign, or not?) Moreover, what makes the federal government a better steward of these lands than the States themselves? — Locality itself should dictate that the States, being right there, would be better positioned and more interested in their well-being than "a master in a farr0off land", no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.