Then lobby your govt to remove them by force. Or go up there and do it yourself.
Last edited:
150 Armed Militia take over Oregon Federal Building
- Thread starter Shotgun Jeremy
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Then lobby your govt to remove them by force. Or go up there and do it yourself.
You know that isn't the law right? The Feds were not granted any more land during the creation of the US but they were not limited on the amount of land they could own. Just on what the Feds could separate from the States.
- "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings" (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17)
There is a difference. The Feds can buy land and build a office or courthouse it just isn't separate and under exclusive control of the Feds.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Why? The government appears to be handling this pretty reasonably. They are keeping a low profile and waiting for the militia rats to get tired and go home (evidently they don't have real jobs-typical; welfare queens) vs. escalating the situation. As long as no harm is being done they can reasonably do that.
Or until the natives realize now is the time to take back their lands from da evilz white man who speaks with forked tongue.
You could get your brothers from the occupy wallstreet crew and team up with black lives matters and mount an assault on the cabin. Your girl Hillary will be praising you on TV. It'll be great.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
You know that is the common law back to William the Conqueror right?
If the fed doesn't own the land then the land belongs to the previous owner, which would arguing be the natives, Mexico, or even Spain. Please show me what messed up train of law you think gives a complete stranger the right to occupy land they have no claim to.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Go for a personal attack when you can't argue your claim. Got it. Considering you're arguing for government cheats, and occupiers I'm surprised you're not claiming BLM for your own. Thats their play not law abiding citizens. You do remember the concept of law abiding citizens right?
having said that, HRC coming at me would definitely make me bail out.
Argue what claim?
Not a fan of HIllary? Maybe comrade Bernie will praise you guys. He could get on tv and compare you to the Bolsheviks.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
You mean you guys. You seem to be arguing in favor of illegal occupiers and law breakers. And you seem more in line with Bolsheviks. After all they had no problem using force to seize property that didn't belong to them, which you apparently favor.
There is no argument that can be made to support the militia nutjobs illegally tresspassing on property that doesn't belong to them.
There is no argument that can be made to support the militia nutjobs illegally tresspassing on property that doesn't belong to them.
There's a difference between moral, Constitutional, and legal... Sadly
Texas has Squatter's Laws so those laws exist, but I agree they are messed up.
Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk
Texas has Squatter's Laws so those laws exist, but I agree they are messed up.
Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk
Well I don't know if that's the whole story or not, but it would seem that the terms of the 1868 treaty should be honored. After doing some more reading it seems like Grant declared part of the reservation open for settlement in 1876. So the Paiute's agression in the "Indian war" you spoke of earlier was not unjustified.
No one is arguing that the protesters occupying the refuge headquarters own it. The legality of who owns it is the argument. Please stay on topic.
Right, that's what I was getting at in post #127. The feds have to buy or lease the land from a state. That does not seem to be what happened in this instance. Since Oregon became a state in 1859, I'm not sure the federal government even had the authority to grant the reservation to the Paiute's in 1868. Oregon might have been in support of it at the time, tho.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
No, just getting the illegal trespassers back out. You know what the Iroquois should have done. If only Tecumseh had had propr border control!
Well, under the argument they are using, if its not federal property then it still...Mexican property. I doubt they have squatter's law.
But I'll agree, if they occupy the park office for 21 years continuously, then I'd say let them have it.
Respectfully the thread is about the militia nuts. As noted, please stay on topic.
Last edited:
Well I'm not surprised, are you? They aren't going to just let them sit out there forever.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Yes I am sure that will be especially helpful. We need intermediary militia groups between the one militia in the office and the non existent Black Helicopters, to facilitate communication. Because ...reasons...
Sounds like a college protest. When do they start demanding safe spaces?
Sounds like a college protest. When do they start demanding safe spaces?
