The Las Vegas shooters who killed a bystander and 2 police officers had expressed anti-government views. Would you classify their actions as an act of domestic terrorism?
No, just an act of stupidity.
They weren't doing it in the name of anti-government. They were doing it because police attempted to confiscate their guns
Where did you hear this?
Who had terror in then after eating this?
He was a crazy Meth addict. I watched several of his YouTube videos. In several of them, he looked like the walking dead. They both had mental issues.
They were so crazy they were asked to leave the group of crazies who blocked off our freeway with guns to "protect" That Bundy guys right to steal federal land. That's like level 500 domestic terrorist.
How do you steal land your family has grazed cattle on for over a century that the federal govt only recently decided was theirs?
Aside from that error, the point that they were nuts is accurate.
Sounds like you got the "selective information" version of the story. His family always paid rent on that land, 20 years ago he stopped paying, and the Feds finally decided to take his cattle off it once he owed $1 million in back rent.
Stop paying your rent or mortgage and see if you get to slide for 20 years before the owner "suddenly" decides the property is theirs.
Nope. His family always paid the county, and they continued to pay the county after the BLM decided he should pay them instead. It's state land, imaginary endangered turtles or not.
The state used to control access and collect the money and pay it to the BLM. Now the BLM handles all of it. Check out a satellite image of the City of Las Vegas on Google maps. We'd love to have built on all that empty land north of the city.
Clark county and the state would love to collect real estate tax on that land. If either had been allowed their own way, there would be homes up the side of those mountains on the north side like there are on the south side.
The BLM decided that a city of 1.5 million in the desert was big enough when Lake Mead started to dry up, and took over all control.
But the land has always been Federal land.
Nope. The BLM expanded the extent of the land it manages to "protect the desert tortoise" in '93. It's been state land since the establishment of the state.
You're sourcing very skewed information I hate to tell you. If you'd like to know the truth about how the BLM "handles" wildlife, and bends over backwards to accommodate ranchers, google "Nevada wild mustang round ups"
This Bundy thing and the half baked info surrounding it makes for great anti-government fodder on Fox News, but the truth is actually quite different.
And if you really have some time on your hands... Try finding a quote from any government official/source that ever said anything about the Bundy situation involving turtles. The political talking heads decided it was a turtle issue lol
The right wing national propaganda, and the facts here on the ground for those of us who actually live in the area are night and day different. The entire state has had a collective "WTF are these people smoking" laugh on this issue.
As for that poor turtle.. They might be listed as endangered, but the only actual protection they get is when they're in the middle of the road and a local stops to carry the stupid things back as far into the desert as our flip-flops will allow us.
I totally get how the media never gets anything right. What I'm hearing though is coming from people like your governor. I'm aware there are a number of states pushing back against federal land grabs. And Obama is going to make another 500,000
acres along the border with Mexico a "national monument."
You know the federal govt owns about 25% of ALL the land in the country, right?
The term "land grab" is once again just political spin. The Federal government always owned the land, it was managed by states. Now the BLM wants to control the land itself. For Fed land to become state land, the state has to buy it.
No, it became state land when the state was established.
they are just crazy!
What's wrong with simply saying, "MURDER ONE!"
The Jury says, "First Degree Murder, GUILTY!" The Judge says, "HANG 'EM,"
The coroner says, "Already dead!"
I would classify it as domestic dipsh*ttery. Their cowardly criminal act didn't instill fear in the general population, nor was it intended to. Evil and mean-spirited as it was, it wasn't terrorism by nature.
Bad and terrible things aren't necessarily terrorism. Terrorism has a specific definition.
Simple hate crime.
This user is currently being ignored
Speaking of which, anybody heard from RebelFury lately?
Oops, I meant to post that link below.
I guess Nevada could charge such people with criminal anarchy or criminal syndicalism.
"Criminal syndicalism is the doctrine which advocates or teaches crime, sabotage, violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform."
"Criminal anarchy is the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means."
Nice find, that's interesting stuff. Thx.
Court decisions on the First Amendment have somewhat curbed state power, but criminal anarchy laws are still on the books and could be used in the most extreme cases to shut down violent, anti-democratic groups.
SQUID - the did much more than that. Definitely terrorists.
Definitely more, just trying to keep the question simple.