But the Hammond’s violation was one of arson, starting a forest fire on government land to cover up their poaching. The Federal judge stated that the reason there was a five year minimum sentence for such acts is that they endanger lives, including the lives of those called in to fight the fire, and therefore there must be a meaningful deterrent. I accept his reasoning and do not believe the fire was a non-violent act.
Forgive me but in matters concerning the Bundies I always read BLM as Bureau of Land Management, the arm of the government that manages public lands. When I read your line about BLM being mainly concerned with urban matters I did a double take, shook my head, and up popped Black Lives Matter.
Look, in a normal news account of a demonstration in a city I would immediately understand BLM for Black Lives Matter, but with the Bundies, nah.
1 Like
“I would think that we should try to look at things from both perspectives.”
Yes, let’s try to look at things through the perspective of the occupiers. Ah, I see they are looking down their rifle scopes at some innocent federal law enforcement agents who are just trying to do their jobs. Care to comment on that “perspective” Mr. Carson?