150 armed terrorists take over federal building

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I gathered from his interview that he hoped we wouldn't siege. Just ignore and let them have their protest in the woods. Apparently the spot they picked is pretty remote.

What are the usual rules governing use of that facility? Can people rent rooms or convention halls and such? Is there a restaurant or canteen? Paid parking?

What I'm driving at is that maybe we should just charge them for the exclusive use of the facilities.

No law against trying to make a profit, is there?

Are there rules governing guns on the property?

 

[lucas80]

When the Bundy Ranch thing was erupting I warned several of you folks to back off in supporting him. Just as the politicians started to flock to him I warned that you had a white supremacist and an anti-Semite, not a hero. I guarantee you there are some Jew hating white supremacists in the group occupying this building.
It will be interesting to see the 2016 candidates tip toe around trying to support their anger without supporting the criminal actions of the occupiers, and of the criminals who sparked all this by committing arson.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

When the Bundy Ranch thing was erupting I warned several of you folks to back off in supporting him. Just as the politicians started to flock to him I warned that you had a white supremacist and an anti-Semite, not a hero. I guarantee you there are some Jew hating white supremacists in the group occupying this building.
It will be interesting to see the 2016 candidates tip toe around trying to support their anger without supporting the criminal actions of the occupiers, and of the criminals who sparked all this by committing arson.

but we were victorious in supporting him and he won and the feds backed down

 

[ottumwan in tx]

feds provoking civil war 2016? Obama uses this to take our guns?

http://www.infowars.com/live-now-civil-war-2016/

http://www.infowars.com/live-now-civil-war-2016/

 

[naturalmwa]

What are the usual rules governing use of that facility? Can people rent rooms or convention halls and such? Is there a restaurant or canteen? Paid parking?

What I'm driving at is that maybe we should just charge them for the exclusive use of the facilities.

No law against trying to make a profit, is there?

Are there rules governing guns on the property?

I like the idea of sending them a bill for use of public land. Isn't that what started all this? It would be poetic.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I like the idea of sending them a bill for use of public land. Isn't that what started all this? It would be poetic.

so the people should send the feds the bill?

 

[LuckyNed]

It's starting to unravel for Barack and his ilk, this is only the beginning of a very tumultuous year in which the American citizen turns into the American Patriot and challenges will be made toward the Administrations disregard for the Constitution.

 

[lucas80]

but we were victorious in supporting him and he won and the feds backed down

Actually the Feds didn't back down, they just took things more vigorously through the courts. Bundy is still a crazy old man who was exposed as a white supremacist. That isn't winning. He has no voice in America beyond the extremist groups who want a race war in America.

 

[LuckyNed]

Actually the Feds didn't back down, they just took things more vigorously through the courts. Bundy is still a crazy old man who was exposed as a white supremacist. That isn't winning. He has no voice in America beyond the extremist groups who want a race war in America.

It goes way beyond that, he is a hero to many because he stood up to the persecution of the Government.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

exposed as a white supremacist? oh lord

you do realize this is exactly the route the feds took when they A: recruited Clinton follower tim McVeigh to take the fall for okc, and B: set up randy weaver???

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

I missed the part of this story where the students took out their guns and threatened to shoot people. Could you highlight that part which would make your argument reasonable? TiA

Well they did set fire to the buildings on multiple campuses.

BTW......how do you terrorize an empty building? No one was there......they are trespassing. Where is the act of terror?

 

[theIowaHawk]

So by that definition would you consider a rancher that was burning off weeds from his own property and accidentally has that fire spread to BLM land and actually improve the BLM land a terrorist? Because that is what this protest is about.

Serious question looking for a serious answer:

I only looked that thing up once the last time someone posted about it, but weren't the two ranchers convicted by a jury after determining they were on federal land and purposefully setting fire? They've appealed and lost multiple times, right? The last one was about the harshness of the mandatory sentence? Was the outlet I was reading just massaging the facts?

 

[naturalmwa]

Well they did set fire to the buildings on multiple campuses.

BTW......how do you terrorize an empty building? No one was there......they are trespassing. Where is the act of terror?

Why are you asking me? I didn't call them terrorists. But if you want me to make the case they are armed and have threatened to shoot any authorities that try to stop their trespassing. If the threat of violence is enough, they are terrorists. Now the legal definition posted in this thread seemed to indicate a person needed to do more than just threaten, they had to actually attempt the violence, which this group hasn't done. But it's a pretty fine line wouldn't you agree? They are clearly trying to intimidate and provoke violence. And they are clearly trying to incite others to join them.

 

[naturalmwa]

so the people should send the feds the bill?

Collectively the people are the Feds.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I always enjoy when a group says that "government A" has not authority over them, and they cite to law, but then reason that "government B" does have authority over them, citing to basically the same law.

Look, the founders knew that England and the crown controlled and were the "rightful" authority ... they just didn't want to be controlled anymore, so they revolted. That is very different than trying to claim that the government you want (county/state) somehow agrees with you that the government you don't want (fed) has no authority.

 

[LuckyNed]

Why are you asking me? I didn't call them terrorists. But if you want me to make the case they are armed and have threatened to shoot any authorities that try to stop their trespassing. If the threat of violence is enough, they are terrorists. Now the legal definition posted in this thread seemed to indicate a person needed to do more than just threaten, they had to actually attempt the violence, which this group hasn't done. But it's a pretty fine line wouldn't you agree? They are clearly trying to intimidate and provoke violence. And they are clearly trying to incite others to join them.

They are not terrorists you are just being plain silly.

 

[22*43*51]

Why are you asking me? I didn't call them terrorists. But if you want me to make the case they are armed and have threatened to shoot any authorities that try to stop their trespassing. If the threat of violence is enough, they are terrorists. Now the legal definition posted in this thread seemed to indicate a person needed to do more than just threaten, they had to actually attempt the violence, which this group hasn't done. But it's a pretty fine line wouldn't you agree? They are clearly trying to intimidate and provoke violence. And they are clearly trying to incite others to join them.

You are the one always advocating for a well regulated militia being the intent of the 2A.

Well, here it is.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Serious question looking for a serious answer:

I only looked that thing up once the last time someone posted about it, but weren't the two ranchers convicted by a jury after determining they were on federal land and purposefully setting fire? They've appealed and lost multiple times, right? The last one was about the harshness of the mandatory sentence? Was the outlet I was reading just massaging the facts?

According to this: http://federalcrimesblog.com/tag/dwight-hammond-jr/

They were on federal land, where they had grazing rights, and were purposefully burning the trees/brush in order to improve the grazing for their cattle. So they were on federal land purposefully burning that land in order to improve their own ranch financially, presumably without permission from those who actually own the land.

Now whether you agree with that being a crime doesn't really matter, it is a crime. And the most pro-Bundy crowd have been saying that crimes are crimes and should be punished for decades. It is silly and stupid that there are mandatory sentences, which removed any discretion the judge (you know, the guy we pay to use discretion) had to not send them to prison, as he tried not to do.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You are the one always advocating for a well regulated militia being the intent of the 2A.

Well, here it is.

So, according to your definition, any Black Lives Matter would be equivalent and protected?

 

[naturalmwa]

You are the one always advocating for a well regulated militia being the intent of the 2A.

Well, here it is.

You have an odd notion of a well regulated militia. But if you are right, the governor should be able to just tell them to disperse. Do you think they would follow that order?

 

[22*43*51]

You have an odd notion of a well regulated militia. But if you are right, the governor should be able to just tell them to disperse. Do you think they would follow that order?

If you form a militia to face tyranny, you are not going to be regulated by the tyrant.

They are regulating themselves.

 

[naturalmwa]

They are not terrorists you are just being plain silly.

Silly is the wrong word. I'm being indulgent of SEC's question and you're being obstinate. Sure terrorists is slightly hyperbolic, but you love hyperbole and use it in most every post. You should appreciate the rhetorical device. But again, the device isn't mine, I didn't label them terrorists.

 

[naturalmwa]

If you form a militia to face tyranny, you are not going to be regulated by the tyrant.

They are regulating themselves.

Then they aren't regulated. See how this works? And this group thinks States have rights, so you fail on that analysis too.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Let us take this time to define terrorism, we've tried in other threads and it always headed in the direction of the middle east.

This was the federal definition posted on page one, but let's put it aside and define it ourselves:
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

First, some examples I think we might all agree on:
9/11
Oklahoma City
Boston Marathon
Unabomber
WTC Bombing
Atlanta Bombing

Do we agree on those as a good baseline for definitive terrorism?

 

[22*43*51]

Then they aren't regulated. See how this works? And this group thinks States have rights, so you fail on that analysis too.

Last week you were comparing BLM at MOA to the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party.

That was either a rediculous comparison, or no different than what is going on in Oregon.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If you form a militia to face tyranny, you are not going to be regulated by the tyrant.

They are regulating themselves.

Do you think what they are protesting is tyranny?

 

[22*43*51]

Do you think what they are protesting is tyranny?

They do. That's what matters right.

That was the song being sung during all of the BLM calamity.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If your kid plops himself down in his room and refuses to leave, likely even kicking and screaming to ensure he doesn't, is that comparable to him plopping himself down with a gun and pointing it at you making open threats to harm you?

Me thinks you would treat it differently. Smart, influential people in our history understood this, it was the backbone of the civil rights movement. Those who used weaponry and open violence were and are vilified.

There really is only one time where you don't become the villain: win, overthrow the government, then you are the hero.

 

[22*43*51]

If your kid plops himself down in his room and refuses to leave, likely even kicking and screaming to ensure he doesn't, is that comparable to him plopping himself down with a gun and pointing it at you making open threats to harm you?

Me thinks you would treat it differently. Smart, influential people in our history understood this, it was the backbone of the civil rights movement. Those who used weaponry and open violence were and are vilified.

There really is only one time where you don't become the villain: win, overthrow the government, then you are the hero.

Better example if it was your adult kid doing that in the local community center.

 

[theIowaHawk]

They do. That's what matters right.

That was the song being sung during all of the BLM calamity.

Well, no, that isn't the same. You are pointed in the right direction, but you miss the obvious. WE still get to determine whether they are "right" or "wrong", and that is true for both groups. We are the ones who arrest/charge/prosecute, we are the ones that make up public opinion. Both groups are trying to sway public opinion. I was asking your opinion. I don't see it as tyranny, at least not any more tyrannical than all government's in history, including the one we've been proud of for 240 years.

Otherwise, according to your posts, what happened in San Bernadino was "no different as well", since they were standing up to "tyranny"/whatever in their own minds.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Better example if it was your adult kid doing that in the local community center.

Ok, go with that, it doesn't change the analogy.

 

[anon_snp6dc585nnj4]

Hopefully they all end up in federal prison and get taken to pound town.

 

[naturalmwa]

Last week you were comparing BLM at MOA to the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party.

That was either a rediculous comparison, or no different than what is going on in Oregon.

Sons of Liberty were neither a militia nor obviously covered by the 2nd. And if these protesters want to be elevated to the status of BLM they will need to take their guns home and reverse their threat to kill police. I love that when other recent protesters chant they are going to fry police like bacon, you get all upset and see that as an unacceptable threat. Yet here were they bring the instruments of violence and flat out say they will fire on police, you call that well regulated. Your moral campus needs a little adjusting.

 

[22*43*51]

Well, no, that isn't the same. You are pointed in the right direction, but you miss the obvious. WE still get to determine whether they are "right" or "wrong", and that is true for both groups. We are the ones who arrest/charge/prosecute, we are the ones that make up public opinion. Both groups are trying to sway public opinion. I was asking your opinion. I don't see it as tyranny, at least not any more tyrannical than all government's in history, including the one we've been proud of for 240 years.

Otherwise, according to your posts, what happened in San Bernadino was "no different as well", since they were standing up to "tyranny"/whatever in their own minds.

San Bernadino was a foreign influenced attack on our soil that lead to 14 deaths.

This incident and the BLM incident are protests.

Certainly you know the difference between an international attack and domestic protests? Right?

 

[22*43*51]

Sons of Liberty were neither a militia nor obviously covered by the 2nd. And if these protesters want to be elevated to the status of BLM they will need to take their guns home and reverse their threat to kill police. I love that when other recent protesters chant they are going to fry police like bacon, you get all upset and see that as an unacceptable threat. Yet here were they bring the instruments of violence and flat out say they will fire on police, you call that well regulated. Your moral campus needs a little adjusting.

BLM hasn't/didn't threaten police? Please.

The group in Oregon just happens to be carrying. Not sure why BLM didn't.

 

[naturalmwa]

BLM hasn't/didn't threatened police? Please.

The group in Oregon just happens to be carrying. Not sure why BLM didn't.

Did I not just say both teams had, but BLM wasn't armed. That makes a big differance. I'm not sure why this point keeps escaping people.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It's not too late for this to be treated as civil disobedience. But it will be fairly soon.

Typically in a civil disobedience case - as these things have evolved over the years - the result is that some of the protesters choose to be arrested (to make their point) while the others disburse.

Those who choose to be arrested, go peacefully and usually get a slap on the wrist.

This case is different because (as far as I know) we are on unfamiliar ground with an ARMED instance of civil disobedience. But we could try to treat it the same way.

Suppose the negotiators (I assume there are negotiators) make it clear to the demonstrators that they need to decide whether they want to be treated under the usual civil disobedience rules. Then it's up to them.

1. How long should we give them to decide?

2. If they decide to go the civil disobedience route, do they get to keep their guns?

3. What if they don't decide to go down the peaceful, civil disobedience path? What happens next?

4. What happens if some hothead opens fire?

 

[22*43*51]

Did I not just say both teams had, but BLM wasn't armed. That makes a big differance. I'm not sure why this point keeps escaping people.

The BLM shutdown an international airport and the worlds largest retail outlet.

The Oregon group shutdown a glorified community bingo parlor while excercising their right to carry.

So far the government hasn't been compelled to do anything about either group.

 

[22*43*51]

Ok, go with that, it doesn't change the analogy.

It does. I'm a tyrant in my own home.

 

[naturalmwa]

It's not too late for this to be treated as civil disobedience. But it will be fairly soon.

Typically in a civil disobedience case - as these things have evolved over the years - the result is that some of the protesters choose to be arrested (to make their point) while the others disburse.

Those who choose to be arrested, go peacefully and usually get a slap on the wrist.

This case is different because (as far as I know) we are on unfamiliar ground with an ARMED instance of civil disobedience. But we could try to treat it the same way.

Suppose the negotiators (I assume there are negotiators) make it clear to the demonstrators that they need to decide whether they want to be treated under the usual civil disobedience rules. Then it's up to them.

1. How long should we give them to decide?

2. If they decide to go the civil disobedience route, do they get to keep their guns?

3. What if they don't decide to go down the peaceful, civil disobedience path? What happens next?

4. What happens if some hothead opens fire?

IMO, if they want to go the sit in demonstrations path, they will need to take their guns out of the picture. But I really think the best way to deal with this is just to close down the road to the location. Allow people to leave, but not enter. They will all be home by the super bowl.