Yes, the militia occupation is in support of the local ranchers who have been thrown in prison because of the result of an unfair trail and have been targeted by the BLM and other government organizations in an effort to acquire their land. The ranchers set a controlled burn to help stop as grass fire that was endangering their own land, as well as government land. Not only are prescribed burns a good tool for range land management, it helped stop a wild fire that could have damaged homes and property. To accuse these ranchers of terrorism is absurd. It is a good thing that the American people are standing up for their own and protecting a hard working American family from being bullied by the government who is abusing their power.
I never think that violence is the way to solve a problem. A peaceful protest is one thing but this is not a peaceful protest. There are other ways, non-violent ways, of getting a point across or trying to bring about change. There is no reason to resort to violent means.
It appears that some of the ranchers protesting federal land ownership have private aircraft. If they want federal land may be they should buy it? Federal land should be offered as homesteads to refugees from the middle east and illegal immigrants; folks who know all about living under a tyranical regime and thus might show some gratitude and loyalty to the people of the USA and their democraticaly elected goverment.
They are just making themselves look stupid. Although I oppose mandatory minimums and see it as a violation of the separation of powers seizing government land is just making them look stupid and undermining their cause.
As a liberal I find it interesting (I'd say "ironic" but I remembered that the word is incorrect in this case) that conservatives are the ones who invented federal mandatory minimums in the first place and now they are protesting them.
From what ive read, they are literally protesting the federal government for them doing their jobs. Let me say again, they are protesting the feds doing their jobs. These are a bunch of redneck hicks that the states would be better off without if they cant even wait for a case to get through court and instead use a very pathetic and ineffective fear tactic to get the charges dropped. I honestly hope the feds or state go in guns blazing, it'd raze the national IQ average.
Under these circumstances there are much more effective ways of handling this conflict. Armed protests will not cause the government to evaluate its policies. While the ranchers have rights and should be able to protect there land, occupying government property will not lead to the resolution they seek. Their best option would be to peacefully lobby legislation that would better protect ranch lands. Courts and Constitutional property rights are there for a reason. Choosing to circumvent those rights in lieu of violence is not the answer.
Originally, I felt sympathy for the Oregon protesters concerned about unfair treatment of ranchers who refused to sell their land. Experiencing your government exercising its right of eminent domain over your home and, in the case of ranchers, livelihood is a frightening thing.
However, I am deeply suspicious of any protest that feels the need to arm themselves and cannot articulate their aims. CNN described prominent protester Ammon Bundy's statements as vague references to "restoring constitutional rights."
At this point, the militia seems to be engaging in a low-grade, confused form of terrorism.