Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

[jmotivator]

Not 1 charge was laid after the last Bundy standoff. Have loaded weapons aimed at LEO's, anywhere else charges would be filed.

That's because the one picture everyone rages over is not evidence.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't know the circumstances of that picture, so I can't definitively answer the question.

But in general, no.

Our police are overarmed and overly militaristic, IMO.

But they're kinda' screwed there, because American society is overarmed IMO as well.

Boston bombing. this was taken by a random citizen during the warrantless house to house searches.

Those men there, are police officers, not military.


and statistically, no, police do not have to be armed because of legal gun ownership.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Doesn't justify sedition. You can dance all around it, but these guys are doing an armed takeover of a federal property. They are terrorists bent on sedition, and they are itching to shoot their guns.

Which has nothing to do with what the BLM is doing to the local ranchers.

I'm less concerned about the militia than I am about the bogus BLM case.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

What laws are they breaking?

Do you believe that people breaking laws should be brought to justice?

So "law breaking" is "terrorism" now?


I guess dissent is no longer the "highest form of patriotism" to you lefties as well as the idea that civil disobedience is terrorism is an alien one to me.

Did you read my link? you should. maybe understand the deeper history and not what you are being spoonfed by the media and federalis.

 

[Chomsky]

Which is fine, but beside the point. These people haven't hurt anyone.

No, at least not yet.

But their bringing firearms is an intimidation factor and leaving liable more danger than is needed.

There's reasons why armed crimes have higher penalties than the same crime unarmed.

I hope these guys pay appropriately for their transgression.



But I see a large distinction between unarmed

 

[Hawkeye10]

Boston bombing. this was taken by a random citizen during the warrantless house to house searches.

Those men there, are police officers, not military.

The illegal actions of the government in the days after the bombing were deeply disturbing.

Even more so was the lack of objection.

 

[poweRob]

Hopefully. 53% of Oregon land is owned by the Federal Government. And the Federal government seems to be a lot more autocratic and rigid today about their ownership then they were in the real progressive days 100 years ago when Gifford Pinchot made it clear that federal land belong to the people. Power to the people.

I'm not pleased with the case. It's smacks of double jeopardy. No matter how much the Bundy's are trying to tie themselves to this case, I think these are two completely different issues... The case and the standoff that is.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'm not pleased with the case. It's smacks of double jeopardy. No matter how much the Bundy's are trying to tie themselves to this case, I think these are two completely different issues... The case and the standoff that is.

You would have never heard about the case had it not been for the standoff

 

[Montecresto]

I was not aware of new charges; my understanding is the original sentencing was in error and didn't meet federal guidelines.

That was an opinion. The judge that meted out the original sentence felt that the federal standard sentence was a violation of the eighth amendment. That's why he issued a different sentence.

 

[HowardBThiname]

But in general, no.

Our police are overarmed and overly militaristic, IMO.

I agree. The militarization of our police was a mistake. SWAT teams breaking down doors and throw flash bangs that blind babies is out of line. We're going to have to start holding our "authorities" accountable. The more we see issues like BLM overreach, the more we're likely to see armed standoffs. It's almost like we're close to seeing repeats of the violent 60s protests.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I was not aware of new charges; my understanding is the original sentencing was in error and didn't meet federal guidelines.

You can only be sentenced once, you can appeal to have it reduced, the federalis for obvious reasons are not allowed to arbitrarily add more punitive actions.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I'm not pleased with the case. It's smacks of double jeopardy. No matter how much the Bundy's are trying to tie themselves to this case, I think these are two completely different issues... The case and the standoff that is.

Agreed. The case, itself, stinks.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

While it's their rights to carry (good for them) the reasons they are carrying in this situation is due to an intimidation factor. Come mess with us. Usually these types fantasize about engaging in some sort of perceived patriotic cause with the hopes of being involved in a gun battle.

You mean... They're carrying in case someone tries to cross them in a violent way? Wow. I thought that was exactly what carrying was for!

 

[Chomsky]

Is it the guns you disagree with or the occupying a federal building?

Will you answer my question regarding the Bundy standoff and the Ferguson protest? Which was more peaceful?

I'm not crazy about either.

Picketing is one thing, occupation is another.

But the gun intimidation factor is probably what upsets me the most.

As to your question, Ferguson was more violent of course. I believe the only reason the Bundy incident was not violent is due to the feds backing down. I commend them for their mature restraint, but believe they set a bad precedent as can be seen with the Bundys' latest shenanigans!

I really have little respect for armed lawbreakers, and find them far more detestable then plain vanilla law breakers.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Re: Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers’ Prison Terms

You'd see no problem with that if they did, right? Or, where would you draw the line?

Ideally speaking, I would draw the line at where the state drew the line (not the feds).

With the fourteenth amendment of course... Things aren't so clear cut.

I draw the line at ordinance. The second amendment doesn't cover ordinance. That would be a state issue (once again, not for the feds to decide). But all manners of purely ballistic, hand-held weaponry I know I would defend in a heartbeat. Yes, this includes all of those dreaded "Assault weapons..."

 

[Montecresto]

Our government isn't perfect, but I'm not going to sign-off on vigilantism, terrorism, or circumventing the courts.

A little peaceful non-violent civil disobedience is fine.

Guys that do this, are not fine:

View attachment 67195119

That's a picture nearly two years old in Nevada. That's not what CNN's showing in Oregon today. And no, we don't want vigilantism, at the same time, the courts are wrong on this case. Furthermore, our government is far less than "not perfect" and civil liberties are violated by them everyday in America. Probably never more so than by our widespread illegal surveillance by the NSA.

 

[jmotivator]

I'm not crazy about either.

Picketing is one thing, occupation is another.

Like the Wisconsin protestors, or Occupy Wall Street?

But the gun intimidation factor is probably what upsets me the most.

I don't think there is a "probably" about it. I think that is obvious.

As to your question, Ferguson was more violent of course. I believe the only reason the Bundy incident was not violent is due to the feds backing down. I commend them for their mature restraint, but believe they set a bad precedent as can be seen with the Bundys' latest shenanigans!

So, you see, an armed protest yields more peaceful results. With guns the Feds back down and everyone goes home, without guns it is tear gas, billy clubs and violence.

I don't think peacefully and effectively opposing government force is not setting a bad precedent, it is only demonstrating the wisdom of the 2nd amendment.

I really have little respect for armed lawbreakers, and find them far more detestable then plain vanilla law breakers.

So as long as the law breakers are just setting fires and destroying property it's OK, but if they sit quietly with a gun it's bad? I think you are on the verge of discovery, here.

 

[Chomsky]

Boston bombing. this was taken by a random citizen during the warrantless house to house searches.

Those men there, are police officers, not military.


and statistically, no, police do not have to be armed because of legal gun ownership.

Huh?

In an Armed society (like America), the police need not be armed?

 

[Montecresto]

But you guys that do this are a-ok?

No, that's not ok and represents a serious blemish on America and a window into the direction we're heading. Far too many Americans are supportive of authoritarianism.

 

[HowardBThiname]

The illegal actions of the government in the days after the bombing were deeply disturbing.

Even more so was the lack of objection.

Agreed. Rolling in armored vehicles down residential neighborhoods, routing people from their homes barefooted or in their pajamas, pointing guns at their faces as they left with their hands up. None of that was necessary. And, it wasn't even instrumental in catching the bomber.

I objected - and I heard others object. But, too many were complacent.

 

[Montecresto]

The more I'm reading about the case and the sentencing the more pissed off I am getting. I can certainly understand and support the protest.

That being said, the method of protest has turned the focus of the protest from the serious miscarriage of justice to a discussion about guns and militia. It's detrimental to the ultimate cause. What they need is a good spokesman who can lay the issues out for the public instead of simply creating a scene.

Yep, they need Gerry Spence.

 

[JANFU]

That's because the one picture everyone rages over is not evidence.

Other than that, there is no evidence to support any charges?

 

[Chomsky]

The Bundy clan got away with it last time.
They have proven the Federal Govt will back down.
Last time was due to the Ruby Ridge and Waco mess.
And they should not get away with this crap regardless of where they are.
Not 1 charge was laid after the last Bundy standoff. Have loaded weapons aimed at LEO's, anywhere else charges would be filed. And it only take one wacko on the other side to initiate a gun battle.
1 person has an accidental discharge and it all goes to hell.

Interesting article
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/u...nd-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news



Why is this man not charged?

Yes, I very much agree.

I can't imagine any other situation where one can train a long-gun on LEO and not face charges.

The feds blew-it, and now they're paying the price again.

And they will continue to pay if they don't issue consequences for transgression.

There's always a certain small narcissistic segment of society that will flaunt the law unless they suffer consequences. They believe they are above the law. They're special. Hell, the Bundy's have gone so far as to claim they don't even recognize the federal government, even though it's in their state's constitution!

Which is why the owe the people $1.2M in taxes!

 

[Montecresto]

What laws are they breaking?

Do you believe that people breaking laws should be brought to justice?

Yes, unless they are in an official capacity. Then they should be awarded.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Huh?

In an Armed society (like America), the police need not be armed?

Police officers chance of being shot is only slightly higher than a civillians, and if you don't have a criminal record you are statistically less likely to be shot than in most western countries.