Page 1 of 82 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1625

Thread: Armed Protest

  1. Back To Top    #1
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    NW Angle, MN and Little Chicago, ND
    Posts
    519
    NDA Points
    8,576
    NDA Level
    39
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 540
    Given: 1,033
    Classifieds
    9

    Armed Protest


    Read carefully as there is a lot of Media Hype here.


    Armed militia storm national wildlife refuge building following protest


    Published January 03, 2016 FoxNews.com


    Facebook3220 Twitter0 livefyre3176 Email Print

    Photo shows the landscape of the Malheur Wildlife National Refuge in Burns, Ore. (Malheur Wildlife National Refuge via Facebook)


    Members of an armed militia stormed a national wildlife building in Oregon on Saturday, following a protest in support of ranchers facing jail time for arson.
    Ammon Bundy told the Oregonian that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Burns. Ammon Bundy is the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights.
    Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page urging militia members to come and support the cause. He said “this is not a time to stand down. It’s a time to stand up and come to Harney County,” where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."
    He told reporters late Saturday that the group was occupying the government building because “the people have been abused long enough.
    "I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," Ammon Bundy added.
    He said the group plans to stay at the refuge indefinitely.
    "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
    Ammon Bundy’s brother, Ryan, told the paper the group isn’t looking to harm anyone, but wouldn’t back down if police try to remove them from the refuge site.
    "The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.
    Another member in the takeover of the building, Blaine Cooper, told KTVZ-TV the occupation is similar to what is done about bullies in school: “You have to put him in his place.”
    "Now, I'm not going to be best friends with the BLM," he said. "The point is, until that line is drawn, that we have had enough of this tyranny and you are going to leave us alone, it will not change. This is the power of America, right here. ... This could be a hope that spreads through the whole United States,” Cooper added.
    Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities try to defuse the situation, according to the Oregonian.
    "A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.
    An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.
    Ammon Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the building.
    Bundy said his son felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.
    "That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."
    His son Ammon told him they are committed to staying in the building, Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting.
    "He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes and I don't know what that means," Cliven Bundy said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."
    The Oregonian, citing government sources, reported the militia aims to occupy a closed fire station near Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sends its crews there during the fire season.
    Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told the Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge, but didn’t give any other details.
    Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.
    As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.
    A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife Susan greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.
    Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
    Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
    The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.
    In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.
    Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.

    0 Not allowed!

  2. Back To Top    #2
    VIP Member
    Obi-Wan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    798
    NDA Points
    21,822
    NDA Level
    64
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 935
    Given: 598
    So if you smoke weed Obama lets you out of jail but if you burn weeds you have to serve your sentence twice.

    I don't agree with the ranchers going back to jail but the bundy's takeover of the building is not going to help them. The Bundy's have gotten away without paying their grazing fees for years and in my feeble mind that makes them nothing but a bunch of squatters. To many ranchers believe just because they have had the grazing rights for years that they own the land.

    0 Not allowed!

  3. Back To Top    #3
    Ultimate VIP Member
    eyexer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    williston
    Posts
    2,446
    NDA Points
    9,832
    NDA Level
    42
    Report Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,545
    Given: 1,606
    let's get it on

    0 Not allowed!

  4. Back To Top    #4
    Silver Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    71
    NDA Points
    1,214
    NDA Level
    13
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 39
    Given: 5
    Quote Originally Posted by eyexer View Post
    let's get it on
    You'd crap your pants before you'd get this far, tough guy. HAHAHA

    2 Not allowed!

  5. Back To Top    #5
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi-Wan View Post
    So if you smoke weed Obama lets you out of jail but if you burn weeds you have to serve your sentence twice.

    I don't agree with the ranchers going back to jail but the bundy's takeover of the building is not going to help them. The Bundy's have gotten away without paying their grazing fees for years and in my feeble mind that makes them nothing but a bunch of squatters. To many ranchers believe just because they have had the grazing rights for years that they own the land.
    There is a WHOLE lot more information regarding the Bundy situation than what was made public by the media. The Bundys attempted to pay their grazing fees ot the Clack County Commissioners instead of the BLM as the BLM were using those fees to remove the Bundy's from land (just as they had dozens of other ranchers) they had proven the right ot graze under western water law by maintaining and improving the water sources that enable land usage. (See Wayne Hage's case) Basically Hage was able to prove a continued usage and improvement of water thus giving them those water rights and the ability to graze the lands tied to those developed water sources. The BLM and USFS were found to have lied during the hearings on this case.

    http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/2...97/9e9d8d7a64/

    That was the reason the first thing the BLM did when their armed guards took over the Federal lands Bundy had his cattle on were to destroy the water improvements.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHdK962bqY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvZ_Q0zrhz4


    In the Bundy case, add in Harry Reid, this connections to Chinese energy companies buying federal lands, lands being needed to mitigate those solar company land purchases, Reids son Rory chairing the Clark County Commission which was brokering these deals, plus his involvement with these Chinese companies, his (Reids) former chief of public lands policy Neil Kornze being appointed to head the BLM shortly after Reid introduced the bill to prevent filibustering Federal appointees along with some other shenanigans and you didn;t hear any of that on MSNBC.

    Oh yeah MSNBC had stories on the desert tortoise being the issue behind Bundys cattle, but cattle grazing and the developed water sources actually benefit the desert tortoise and the agency that was in charge of protecting the desert tortoise in this area actually killed a few hundred of them when their funding from selling public lands to housing developers
    ran out. MSNBC forgot to mention that part though.

    http://www.kingsnake.com/blog/archiv...-of-money.html

    And there is far more information in this situation than what the media is telling the public.



    http://thewashingtonstandard.com/blm...ith-terrorism/

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...Opposition.pdf

    there is a lot of info here but it provides a bit more information than idiots like Montel Williams will tell you.

    http://dailyheadlines.net/2016/01/mo...fuge-building/

    If you want to see some irony.........here is a little info about a more local fire that was set by the USFS in SD a couple years ago that burned 11000 acres of which about half was private lands.

    http://www.thune.senate.gov/public/i...ot-responsible

    So how can the Hammonds be held responsible for 150 acres when the USDA or USFS are not for 11,000 acres???

    http://www.tsln.com/news/17055993-11...forest-service

    People that may not be as familiar with cases such as these that are happening all across the west as the BLM and USFS force grazing off of multiple use public lands may not understand why many in the ranching industry distrust the govt agencies and those that work with them.

    Hopefully this information is viewed as just that, a different light being shined on a story so people can have a better and more factual insight into what is happening and the typical crap from a couple other websites can be left there.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Another read with a little more information regarding the actual cases.

    http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

    4 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 01-04-2016 at 12:48 AM.

  6. Back To Top    #6
    VIP Member
    Sum1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Bismarck
    Posts
    1,190
    NDA Points
    4,928
    NDA Level
    29
    Report Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,139
    Given: 961
    So you ask "So how can the Hammonds be held responsible for 150 acres when the USDA or USFS are not for 11,000 acres??? "

    How?? Cause we have a lawless government that gets away with murder and thievery. Thier punishment... questioning in front of a panel of thier peers. Must be nice.

    2 Not allowed!

  7. Back To Top    #7
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Drifting the high plains
    Posts
    2,135
    NDA Points
    9,944
    NDA Level
    42
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,077
    Given: 1,330
    Classifieds
    1
    I keep hearing the name Bundy. I predict we will hear their name one day in a murder case.
    http://www.infowars.com/oregon-stand...-control-push/
    Looks like these crazies will help Obama.

    Trying to get the public land for their private ownership is a long long struggle to get something for nothing. Then they will complain about welfare. All they will accomplish is make normal people question their sanity. They are playing right into Obama's hands, and at a very bad time. I doubt they care.

    1 Not allowed!
    Last edited by PrairieGhost; 01-04-2016 at 08:31 AM.

  8. Back To Top    #8
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Prairie, none of these ranchers were trying to get these public lands for nothing. They have had generational agreements under the original multiple use contracts that were tied to western water law that gave them the right (for a fee, albeit low) to graze these lands.

    The BLM has systematically been forcing these ranchers off these lands thru breaking and "modifying" these agreements often times as the result of pressure from radical environmental groups, other times resulting from ideals of a "new" group of people in the BLM, other times just out of "greed" of politicians that abuse their positions.

    The Bundys along with the dozens of ranchers forced off before them, were being displaced so people like Harry Reid and family could sell these PUBLIC LANDS to housing developers and Chinese energy companies.

    I am always curious when people make comments about these ranchers being "greedy" (FBO lingo) for wanting ot keep honoring generational long agreements yet no one says anything about the crooked politicians and business people behind most all these deals.

    Even many of those environmental groups behind these deals do not want you or I to have access to these public lands anymore than they do these ranchers.

    These instances are not about one single rancher, but more about our govt ignoring it's boundries and limitations set forth long ago by people that stood up against another govt that believed it was all powerful.

    I read an article once that during the time of the Revolutionary War only about 15% of the people were actively involved. Perhaps the rest of the "normal people" did not see a need to be.

    2 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 01-04-2016 at 10:48 AM.

  9. Back To Top    #9
    VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,004
    NDA Points
    4,842
    NDA Level
    29
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 666
    Given: 227
    Enviro groups are actually controlled opposition or surrogates to those who fund them. The money they receive comes with directives.

    There is no environmental movement which does not operate in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the period permitted by money, and all this without the idealist in its ranks having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

    1 Not allowed!

  10. Back To Top    #10
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Davey Crockett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Boondocks
    Posts
    2,585
    NDA Points
    18,950
    NDA Level
    59
    Report Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,619
    Given: 1,731
    I'm not up to snuff on these easements, When did these contracts originate and what were the terms ? 99 years ? lifetime ?

    0 Not allowed!
    Life is Good

  11. Back To Top    #11
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Drifting the high plains
    Posts
    2,135
    NDA Points
    9,944
    NDA Level
    42
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,077
    Given: 1,330
    Classifieds
    1
    I don't think the liberal politicians should sell our public land to the power companies or developers, and I don't think our conservative politicians should sell it to the ranchers.
    At one time all of the Western lands belonged to the government. My grandfather received free land durring the homestead act. He only had to improve part of the land. Many of us native North Dakotan's had family benefit from that. Many tried to farm unsuitable land and lost it to taxes in the depression. Much of our Western lands went back to government in that same time period. I am surprised we now have a generation of ranchers who think they can make it on that same land. Maybe I read some of that seeing, but didn't they say there has been a long struggle to return this land to private ownership? I think it should remain the property of all Americans, not only a select few somehow special people.

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by PrairieGhost; 01-04-2016 at 12:38 PM.

  12. Back To Top    #12
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    There has been no "struggle" to return the lands in question to ranchers . It has been proven time and again properly managed grazing is beneficial to both the land and wildlife. These ranchers by enlarge simply want to continue doing what they have done in conjunction with the govt for generations.

    The earliest form of the BLM was actually started by ranchers seeking a better management plan for improving these Federal lands. That agency has moved away from the original intent much like most other Federal agencies have (think EPA) and are now being used by corrupt politicians to gain personal or political values and further environmental ideologies.

    There are many stories such as these across the west. Many ranchers that simply quietly comply are never heard about. It is the ones that stand up that are targeted that make the news. By then the Federal govt has done their best to make them look the criminal or offender. (that is why so many simply comply)

    In states where the BLM has been successful even us here in ND have felt the direct effects of this new "management" of these Federal lands. How many days did smoke from fires on Federal lands pour over ND last summer (yes I know some were in Canada but some were out west as well)

    No managed logging or grazing for a couple decades has now destroyed many areas of western wilderness. Indeed, it is so much more productive and less impacting to the spotted owl to see these vast expanses of forest go up in smoke and flames rather than to be properly managed.

    Govt over reach and abuse of power is something we ALL must guard against.

    1 Not allowed!

  13. Back To Top    #13
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Drifting the high plains
    Posts
    2,135
    NDA Points
    9,944
    NDA Level
    42
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,077
    Given: 1,330
    Classifieds
    1
    Govt over reach and abuse of power is something we ALL must guard against
    .

    You will get no argument from me. However your wrong about the land grab. Remember sec of Interior Watt? Before becoming sec of Interior he was an attorney for the Sagebrush Rebellion. Some of those same people and their kids are now continuing with the same ghoal of having our public land turned over to them. They say "returned to them", but most of it never has been private land. That's all a person needs to know to understand they are dishonest. When it comes to dishonest Hillary isn't alone. There is dishonesty all over and in all political persuasions. We vote to replace one group of currupt with another group of corrupt.

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by PrairieGhost; 01-04-2016 at 01:12 PM.

  14. Back To Top    #14
    Ultimate VIP Member
    Davey Crockett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Boondocks
    Posts
    2,585
    NDA Points
    18,950
    NDA Level
    59
    Report Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,619
    Given: 1,731
    [QUOTE=gst;49525]There has been no "struggle" to return the lands in question to ranchers . It has been proven time and again properly managed grazing is beneficial to both the land and wildlife. These ranchers by enlarge simply want to continue doing what they have done in conjunction with the govt for generations.

    So there are no contracts for grazing rights ? I'm not sticking up for one or the other all I have is questions. I did read that the rate per cow unit was something like $ 1.80 per month per cow calf pair, That's cheaper than dirt. We would all be in the cattle business if we could pasture them for that kind of money.


    I realize not all land is the same but some of the best wildlife production area I know of has not been grazed in 30 years.

    0 Not allowed!
    Life is Good

  15. Back To Top    #15
    VIP Member
    Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Lincoln, kinda...
    Posts
    1,095
    NDA Points
    7,221
    NDA Level
    36
    Report Entries
    2
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,024
    Given: 512
    gst

    The "right to graze" comes via Western Water Law?

    Fairly familiar with what is commonly referred to Western Water Law, I am not familiar with any passages in it that pertain to grazing of grass. Can you point me in the right direction via the applicable century codes?

    0 Not allowed!

  16. Back To Top    #16
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Drifting the high plains
    Posts
    2,135
    NDA Points
    9,944
    NDA Level
    42
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,077
    Given: 1,330
    Classifieds
    1
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...-to-stand-down

    Picked up this on the Drudge Report. Cruze is telling the squaters to stand down.

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by PrairieGhost; 01-04-2016 at 05:49 PM.

  17. Back To Top    #17
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,765
    NDA Points
    5,497
    NDA Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,627
    Given: 1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Allen View Post
    gst

    The "right to graze" comes via Western Water Law?

    Fairly familiar with what is commonly referred to Western Water Law, I am not familiar with any passages in it that pertain to grazing of grass. Can you point me in the right direction via the applicable century codes?
    Here is what I said. "They have had generational agreements under the original multiple use contracts that were tied to western water law that gave them the right (for a fee, albeit low) to graze these lands."

    (agricultural usage)

    Allen, I don't recall off the top of my head and heading ot a ball game but research the Wayne Hage case. If I am recalling right, Hages were able to show a continued maintainance and development of water developments on these Federals lands thru the Mining Act of 1866 back to the begining and as such were granted usage ot those Federal lands by the courts.

    States developed "acts" of their own as well. Here is some information regarding Nevadas.

    http://dcnr.nv.gov/documents/documen...water-law-101/

    "In 2002, the final factual opinion confirmed that the Hages successfully established that they, together with their predecessors in interest, had created and used “a subset” of the claimed 1866 ditches prior to the creation of the Toiyabe National Forest in 1907. 83 In addition, the Hages presented evidence demonstrating that those same ditches had been consistently maintained and used since 1907. 84 Undisputed trial testimony regarding “historic use of [those] ditches for livestock watering,” and congressional intent expressed when passing the 1866 Act, revealed that “the United States intended to ‘respect and protect the historic and customary usage of the range.”’ 85 In accordance with congressional intent, the court affirmed several of the Hages’ claimed vested ditch rights-of-way. "86



    C. Federal Statutes Related to Water Rights Prior to the legitimization of appropriative rights through states’ laws, “the federal government by silent acquiescence approved the rule–evidenced by local legislation, judicial decisions, and customary law and usage–‘that the acquisition of water by prior appropriation for a beneficial use was entitled to protection.”’ 146 In addition, for over a century, the United States has formally acknowledged the validity of vested water rights obtained pursuant to state law. 147 This recognition was codified in the Mining Act of 1866. In pertinent part, the Act states that: Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed. 148
    The 1866 Act expressly recognized Congress’s intent to protect water and ditch rights established in western states under the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. 149 An amendment to the Act in 1870 (Placer Act of 1870), confirmed that those possessing vested water rights in the public domain would maintain priority over all subsequent appropriators, including the federal government and its grantees. 150 Finally, in the Desert Land Act of 1877, Congress legislated that the right to use water in certain western states and territories “depend[s] upon [a] bona fide prior appropriation [of water],” and that all surplus water “shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining and manufacturing purposes subject to existing rights.” 151Together, these statutes sanctioned the states’ and territories’ customary system for allocating water, thereby ensuring productive economic use of the western lands through security in water rights.

    http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/archives/1007

    In the arid west for generations it has been understood that land usage is tied directly to water supplies and water rights. This is a longstanding ("customary") practice and ideology that these new govt bureaucrats are changing to force ranchers off these lands.

    Without the water in these arid lands, land usage is worthless. So in essence if Wayne Hages permit to graze cattle on the range that the water source that he has "proven" over historic time is denied, who then CAN graze cattle on these lands?

    Answer ......no one........ so in reality under what was once considered "western water law" those that had the "rights" ot the water were the people that could graze the lands. a

    Now to someone sitting behind a desk reading current Western water Law dealing only with water and not land usage tied to that water that maybe a foreign concept, but to those living on the land it is common sense.

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by gst; 01-04-2016 at 07:12 PM.

  18. Back To Top    #18
    Ultimate VIP Member

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Drifting the high plains
    Posts
    2,135
    NDA Points
    9,944
    NDA Level
    42
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,077
    Given: 1,330
    Classifieds
    1
    On the news tonight the Hammond's said they have nothing to do and want nothing to do with the protest group. Bundy says they are supporting the Hammond's. Am I the only one that thinks this doesn't add up.

    0 Not allowed!

  19. Back To Top    #19
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    370
    NDA Points
    2,580
    NDA Level
    21
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 282
    Given: 0
    Classifieds
    1
    Throw them all in prison along with the "Black lives matter" crowd.

    These self styled militia groups are the best thing ever for the anti-gun lobby,

    1 Not allowed!

  20. Back To Top    #20
    Bronze Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Flasher
    Posts
    45
    NDA Points
    2,466
    NDA Level
    20
    Report Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 27
    Given: 146

    I agree that this week barry will milk that hammond situation for all its worth. At some point a stand will have to be taken but i dont think bundy or the hammonds are worthy of getting behind. He has tried to tell the public for years that these so called homegrown terrorists are to be more feared than islamist extremists. Anyone who is naive enough to think this upcoming executive action on guns this week will be the only crap he pulls in his last year will be sadly mistaken. I can see him doing much worse decrees later in the summer to push gun owners right to the brink in hopes that sporadic armed uprisings will give him the reason he has always wanted to institute martial law then all bets are off and he will be essentially a monarch and the nov elections can be cancelled and he can serve as many years more as he likes. I dont think he plans on going anywhere after this year cause hes not done transforming america.

    1 Not allowed!

Page 1 of 82 1231151 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About Nodak Angler

    NodakAngler is a community of outdoors enthusiasts. Our primary focus is to provide a great place for North Dakota sportsmen to gather, discuss, and participate. All are welcome.

Business & Contact

Follow us on

Facebook Instagram Twitter