Anti-Bundy Talking Point
So I keep hearing from certain elements of the "progressive" movement opining or even fantasizing about a situation where the Bundy protesters/activists hypothetically take over a federal building where there is a substantial or continual federal presence instead of a remote location that is lightly and intermittently staffed like the one they actually occupied. The fantasy aspect involves these activists basically being blown away by an overwhelming federal presence. But I'm pretty sure this actually proving the activists' point, even if it's going over most people's heads. Simply put, they specifically choose this location because it WASN'T some big deal federal installation that is assigned a high priority by the federal government. It's just one of many little federal dots or patrols in the federal archipelago throughout the western US that's main purpose is to impose the federal government's capricious will on the states. And we KNOW that states can have almost NO federal land ownership and still have public conversation programs. It's almost like Americans generally favor conserving their local environment and would generally do so without the federal government coming in and dictating to them how half of their state is going to be managed.
The federal government owns hundreds of millions of acres throughout the western US and they are basically treating these massive areas as museums where states, localities, and individual Americans cannot use them for economic purposes that benefit the entire country. Bundy and his family, whatever you may think of them, have put steak on America's plates and burgers on their grills. This ranching industry can expand on federal territories in the western US without endangering the larger scale ecological balance. There is A LOT of vacant/idle land. At the very least, the land can be devolved to the states, which is how it works in EVERY US state in the east and midwest. Have those states turned into vast industrial wastelands as a result of a more localized, decentralized approach? In Illinois, where I live, there is a tiny percentage of federal territory, yet we have lots of preservation programs throughout the state. There is actually a county level preservation program where I grew up. If the feds left that building and never came back, it would barely make a difference in the larger scheme of things, and the state and local police could still arrest them or negotiate with them.
What percentage of the anti-Bundy crowd has actually gone this specific area? And how many hours total have you spent there in your life? Personally, I've never been there and had no plans to go there anytime soon. I wasn't even aware of its existence until the Bundy brothers occupied it. It's about 2,000 miles away from where I presently live. I'm guessing a tiny, tiny percentage of Americans have ever actually been to this particular location, and I'm also guessing that most people who have been there a non-negligible amount of time are the people who live in the region. There is literally zero argument for siding with the feds EXCEPT rigid enforcement of the law. But let's face it, if every law on the books were enforced as rigidly as some "progressives" suggest, at least 90% of the population would be facing jail time at any given moment, and these particular "progressives" are not even consistent in wanting the law to be applied harshly and rigidly. In fact, they argue strongly against such enforcement in other contexts, especially the context of illegal immigrants, which is an example of MASSIVE illegality - committed by foreign nationals, no less! At least Bundy and crew are the same American citizens who certain people claim are the owners of the contested property. They have much more right to occupy a federal territory than foreign nationals have to immigrate into US territory in direct violation of the federal statutes/codes, yet the former are seen as "terrorists" while millions of foreign nationals coming into America illegally are seen as "undocumented immigrants".
The objection of many people to this protest has nothing to do with practicality or even the law. It's just about crushing white guys with guns. Granted, there are Republicans and conservatives who are against the Bundy protest. Heck, there are even "radical right-wing" groups who are disavowing their actions. But those people are more or less consistent or practical in their reasoning. They don't want to see the Bundy bros riddled with bullets or otherwise massacred by a phalanx of federal agents because they're white and pro-second amendment.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Common Sense
