Why are people defending Cliven Bundy?

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Mon, 26 May 2014 19:36:39 -0400

Everyone loves debating the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I want to discuss a recent event and hear some interpretations from my brothers and sisters in arms.

The whole Cliven Bundy incident. Ok, the guy's a racist schmuck. Let's not go into that. I want to know why people are defending a man who is breaking the law and doing so by exercising their rights as they perceive them: Standing against law enforcement, armed, and willing to defend/engage. They have said they would put women up as human shields and have threatened law enforcement officers.

Whatever your opinion on the subject, Bundy has broken the law and continues to do so. The courts have spoken.

He has a well-regulated militia guarding his cattle. Is this what the 2nd Amendment was all about? Protecting a citizen (Who doesn't recognize the American Government yet parades about carrying the flag) who violates the law?

Sean Hannity was a big supporter before it turned out he was a racist pig. What's the deal with defending a criminal???

I don't understand the defense. It is indefensible... why???????????????

Thoughts?

Response by SFC Kevin Cornett made May 26 at 2014 9:59 PM

SFC Kevin Cornett — Mon, 26 May 2014 21:59:58 -0400

Well Chief, the Bundy incident brought out people who believe that his constitutional rights were being trampled upon. Actually, check that; his INALIENABLE rights. It is my belief that our founding fathers wanted and designed a system where the federal government was to be non intrusive in the lives of it's citizens; and the monstrous bureaucracy is anathema to what they wanted. That's just my opinion. As to why other private citizens rushed to his defense..? I don't know. Possibly they had enough of Washington...? The same that our Founding Fathers had had enough with London? You'd have to ask them. I'm not sure you'll find many candid responses on this particular forum, though; related to who makes up it's members.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2014 10:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 May 2014 22:43:02 -0400

Sir, just because the courts have spoken doesn't mean they are right. The courts have been wrong before.

Where is the proof that Mr Bundy is a racist? A deliberately twisted and edited tape? If you watch the ENTIRE video, and not just the parts the lamestream media want to put out, you'll see what he's talking about. There have also been many military personnel, of various skin colors and ethnic backgrounds, who support and defend him as well as being his friend.

There is also a huge difference between loving one's country and parading the flag around vs worshiping the government. HUGE difference.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2014 11:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 May 2014 23:02:47 -0400

Reference militia act of 1792. My opinion is that armed citizens representing one another's liberty against what they perceived to be a tyrannical government act is valid. I am specifically pleased that all involved were mature enough to keep ethically grounded and not act irrationally, which in my opinion is the basis of "well regulated." I don't believe "well regulated" references drill or structured organization, but rather ensuring that if arms are brought against a domestic enemy, the militia maintains the moral high ground so-to-speak. I find that no matter Bundy's legal missteps, the arrival of a government militia with extreme firepower was highly inappropriate, and the arrival citizens who presented themselves in kind was an appropriate response. I would not have advocated any violence on either side, but when the government went too far the PEOPLE showed up. That is a pretty significant glimmer of patriotic hope if you ask me. I don't believe there was any intention of aggression and wouldn't agree with a deliberate act of aggression towards the agencies. Once again, I am not advocating ANY specific acts of violence against the government, but do firmly believe in the protections established by the Constitution for the citizen's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 9 at 2014 12:30 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 00:30:26 -0400

Well regulated militia, a well armed, unregulated populace, meh, same thing...

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Sep 4 at 2014 2:05 PM

LTC Barry Hull — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:05:30 -0400

To Cornett and SSG at Campbell: I think if you actually do some research you can find that individual states have the right to maintain a "well-regulated" (Key words) militia. Not any individual who is POed. Bundy is a POed individual and not part of any government. As a matter of fact, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper number 29 "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...[but] reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia." Bo you really want anyone with excess cash forming their own militia? The mafia? The Bloods and Crips? Bill Gates? Nancy Pelozi? Bundy should be tried for insurrection and tax evasion. Bundy does not have ANY right to form a militia...unless he is elected Governor.

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Sep 4 at 2014 2:16 PM

LTC Barry Hull — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:16:45 -0400

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 20 at 2015 11:22 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:22:01 -0400

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 20 at 2015 11:45 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:45:27 -0400

As you stated, any racism aside. This comes down to the Constitutional powers of the Federal government, specifically in it's ability to own land and for what purposes.

Article I Section 8 says Congress has the power to:

"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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

That being said, and understanding there is no subsequent amendment expanding the scope of that clause, can you argue that the Federal government should be owning, maintaining, or otherwise controlling all that grazing land?

The Simple fact that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to control that land means they shouldn't be there in the first place to kick him, or any other rancher off of it so long as they are operating inside the boundaries of a STATE, and outside the boundaries of the lands permitted the Federal government, by the Constitution.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2015 1:43 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:43:43 -0400

I disagree that Bundy is a racisit he hires people of color, he grew up in a different time then we do now. Does that mean he hates people of another color? Who knows? Does he have the right to that land and should the government be trying to force him out? I have an issue with government overstepping its boundaries

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 23 at 2015 3:59 AM

SGT Tyler G. — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 03:59:03 -0400

The honest answer is probably because people are quick to immediately jump on board with people they perceive as agreeing with them, and are usually unwilling to then jump off the boat when they realize they made a mistake, because that would require admitting they were wrong about something (something nobody likes to do). This especially happens with hot topic issues like the second amendment. That or they truly do believe he is in the right, we can't disregard that possibility.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 26 at 2015 9:00 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:00:49 -0400

Looking at the case itself, it sounds like he got fed up with the deal he had, and decided to change the terms.

Everything after that is just a man fighting from what is essentially an indefensible position.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Apr 1 at 2015 1:56 AM

PO3 John Jeter — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:56:03 -0400

In the broadest most general terms, The govt. was originally tasked with organizing the most efficient and beneficial use of the ranges by the residents of the states involved. Over time the agency took more and more statutory authority and began imposing fees and regulations against the will of those who they were supposed to be assisting. The "range fees" that the govt is imposing is for using the open range land that these ranchers have been using for multiple generations. They have invested money and effort in conservation and improvement projects, yet the govt. has failed to credit them for this. It has become highly likely that this entire land incident was part of a politically connected business deal. (Who knows if we'll ever know the truth on that one).
What I find curious is that the federal govt rolled in with heavy handed storm trooper tactics, roughing up citizens and setting up "Free Speech" zones, not to mention slaughtering a number of cattle, rather than having the local Sheriff handle a land forfeiture process as would be usual.
They even went to the extreme of having the FAA declare the entire area a no-fly zone, thus ensuring that no news helicopters could witness events. I thought that was a war zone tactic.........
The racism thing, while deplorable, was only brought up to divide the support he was getting.
I will note that while his supporters were armed, it seems they acted with a great deal more restraint than some of the so-called agents they faced.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2022 4:07 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:07:41 -0400

I have never heard of this before your report. However his armed band most likely doesn't constitute the "militia" envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
At the same time (don't misconstrue this comment as supporting that person) we all need to realize that the men and women that fought the armed forces of King George III, were considered criminals. They were liable to be hanged and all their property forfeit to the Crown. The lawful government of what became the USA was at that time vested in the Crown.