150 armed terrorists take over federal building

[What Would Jesus Do?]

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.

No penalty?

Let them leave with their guns?

Let people who think like this still be able to purchase guns?

Make the taxpayers foot the bill?

Can I do this, too? Take over some federal vacation spot, live there for free for the duration of my vacation, and then just walk away? Cool.

 

[22*43*51]

No penalty?

Let them leave with their guns?

Let people who think like this still be able to purchase guns?

Make the taxpayers foot the bill?

Have they used their guns in an illegal fashion?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Have they used their guns in an illegal fashion?

I have heard reports of threats being made. Is that correct?

Is armed trespass legal?

 

[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?

I'll go first. I think defining things strictly for purposes of emotion and fear is largely antithetical to finding solutions, but we logically group things to compare them and try to learn from them, so here goes:

The definition necessarily includes some form of "terror", so filling the streets with bubbles wouldn't fit the bill. But how do we define terror for this purpose? I think its just a stronger word for fear, so an act which is intended to strike fear. But I don't think it can be singularly, or else it would simply be some version of assault, so it needs to be to a large group of people. Even more specifically, probably against society in general, striking fear in everyone, but not necessarily each and every specific person, but society as a whole.

A riff on a classic Halloween scare tactic, putting a razor blade in an apple and handing it out to a kid might work to scare society, but probably not on that small of a scale, because people will think it just happens in that one location by that one bad guy. Last year, iirc, somebody put razor blades all over a kids' park in the Quad Cities, an absolutely terrible thing to do, but I don't think it strikes enough at society to fit the bill here. But systematically placing razor blades in candy that is widely delivered somehow, maybe hitting multiple locations and making multiple news stories? Sure, that is probably up there.

But is the act alone enough? I don't think so, there needs to be some sort of political purpose, even if we can't always figure out what it was. Maybe the candy-blader wanted to show the country that Americans indulge too much in commercial means, or something? I think that would fit. Also, I think it needs to be political, and not solely personal. By political, I don't mean D vs. R or even right wing vs left wing, but I mean in the actual "political" sense, relating to government or the public affairs of society ... or more simply, not personal, not some sort of vendetta. Taking a gun to school because a group of bullies beat you up doesn't fit, that is simply revenge. That can fit with a normal middle eastern jihadi "terrorist" as well, in the movie-sense, that he is exacting revenge on the country that killed his parents. I don't think that fits either, revenge =/= terrorism. But revenge can, and does, lead to a political view that can become terrorism. That same jihadi may blame an entire society for the acts and believe that the root of a culture (American infidels) needs to be destroyed, becoming textbook (since 9/11 terrorism).

Also, I think it needs to be an act causing serious harm, almost always to be death (or attempt thereof). Large-scale scare-tactics, even uber-political wouldn't count, imo, if its purpose was not to physically/emotionally harm. This becomes my thinnest line of reasoning, admittedly. Is the ending of Fight Club terrorism? Destroying the financial sector without causing anyone specifically physical harm? Probably, because it inflicts fear in multiple ways, including fear of financial ruin, fear that the government will collapse, can't protect you, etc. What about doing the same thing through hacking, no explosives? I don't think I'd cry terrorism on that.

Which leads me to my last point, and maybe the easiest. Foreign actor not sanctioned by foreign government. If the actor is that of a foreign nation, without sanctioning by that foreign nation, attacking the US for political purposes, it is easy to call it terrorism.

So: Intentionally doing a seriously harmful act brought on by a political motivation which causes, and is intended to cause, widespread fear. Or something like that. I would have it be constrained extremely narrowly, largely because the person's acts can already be punished harshly under a myriad of state charges, even without devolving to screaming terrorism all the time.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Collectively the people are the Feds.

no, only the satanic demon sect

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Let us take this time to define terrorism,
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?

well, all of these were cia and our feds doing them, so yes, we agree the feds are terrorists!

 

[theIowaHawk]

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.

Well this conversation can only go in two directions, and it is dependent on one thing you need to answer:

Did they make threats to use those weapons?

 

[22*43*51]

I have heard reports of threats being made. Is that correct?

Is armed trespass legal?

Trespassing is illegal. But, that hasn't been enforced during recent protests.

BLM hung their hats on their right to assemble. Though they threatened and is some cases physically barred other citizens.

What has this group done differently besides carry?

 

[theIowaHawk]

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?

I do, I don't think you do. The actor in San Bernadino, one of them, was American and did it here in his native country. Are you wanting terrorism to only be "foreign influenced"? What about someone who studied at Oxford committing an atrocity?

 

[22*43*51]

Well this conversation can only go in two directions, and it is dependent on one thing you need to answer:

Did they make threats to use those weapons?

If you threaten to kill a cop should he take it less serious because he can't see a weopon?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I do, I don't think you do. The actor in San Bernadino, one of them, was American and did it here in his native country. Are you wanting terrorism to only be "foreign influenced"? What about someone who studied at Oxford committing an atrocity?

what about Obama who studied at some California school under the guise of being a Kenyan, then Harvard, where he did nothing?

 

[22*43*51]

I do, I don't think you do. The actor in San Bernadino, one of them, was American and did it here in his native country. Are you wanting terrorism to only be "foreign influenced"? What about someone who studied at Oxford committing an atrocity?

So you are saying that was a protest where 14 people died.

Not an attack?

 

[theIowaHawk]

If you threaten to kill a cop should he take it less serious because he can't see a weopon?

I'm asking whether they threatened to use their weapons. That can come in various forms. You can say, "I have a gun and I will shoot you", you can say, "I will shoot you", implying the gun, or you can point the gun and simply use that as the threat.

You would agree with all of that, right? Again, I'm asking whether they threatened to use their weapons.

Obviously saying something like, "Come any closer and I will tickle you", is not tantamount to threatening to use a gun. We can't really move the discussion along unless we know your stance on this fact.

 

[22*43*51]

I'm asking whether they threatened to use their weapons. That can come in various forms. You can say, "I have a gun and I will shoot you", you can say, "I will shoot you", implying the gun, or you can point the gun and simply use that as the threat.

You would agree with all of that, right? Again, I'm asking whether they threatened to use their weapons.

Obviously saying something like, "Come any closer and I will tickle you", is not tantamount to threatening to use a gun. We can't really move the discussion along unless we know your stance on this fact.

Yes. Both the BLM and this group in Oregon threatened Cops.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

So you are saying that was a protest where 14 people died.

Not an attack?

yes, it was workplace violence. a calm guy , probably Bernie sanders voter, he thinks the jews are like rich dudes taking over, like the Koch brothers, or trump, and he was protesting lack of pay equity. jeez, get with the program. and he was protesting his workplace not doing enough for climate change.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So you are saying that was a protest where 14 people died.

Not an attack?

What? No, you can find none of that in my post, here I will repost it:

theIowaHawk said: ↑

I do, I don't think you do. The actor in San Bernadino, one of them, was American and did it here in his native country. Are you wanting terrorism to only be "foreign influenced"? What about someone who studied at Oxford committing an atrocity?

I'm trying to collectively define terrorism, which you have now multiple times pushed foreign influence. I'm saying that foreign influence is not necessary for terrorism, but that terrorism can be by foreign influence. I'm not sure you agree with the former. Also, "foreign influence" is another simplistically vague term designed to push an "us vs. them" emotion. What is foreign influence? If someone learns to hate the American system of finance because he studied at Oxford, is he now a terrorist if he acts? What if he did the same at Berkley?

 

[naturalmwa]

No penalty?

Let them leave with their guns?

Let people who think like this still be able to purchase guns?

Make the taxpayers foot the bill?

Can I do this, too? Take over some federal vacation spot, live there for free for the duration of my vacation, and then just walk away? Cool.

I thought we were going to bill them. I say we deal with any penalty a month later when they aren't armed for combat. Everyone lives, no headlines, minimal cost, it's all easy and forgotten.

 

[22*43*51]

What? No, you can find none of that in my post, here I will repost it:

theIowaHawk said: ↑

I do, I don't think you do. The actor in San Bernadino, one of them, was American and did it here in his native country. Are you wanting terrorism to only be "foreign influenced"? What about someone who studied at Oxford committing an atrocity?

I'm trying to collectively define terrorism, which you have now multiple times pushed foreign influence. I'm saying that foreign influence is not necessary for terrorism, but that terrorism can be by foreign influence. I'm not sure you agree with the former. Also, "foreign influence" is another simplistically vague term designed to push an "us vs. them" emotion. What is foreign influence? If someone learns to hate the American system of finance because he studied at Oxford, is he now a terrorist if he acts? What if he did the same at Berkley?

I would call swearing allegiance to ISIS(an entity we are actively waging war against) as foreign influence.

I don't see any similar foreign influence in the other examples.

 

[naturalmwa]

If you threaten to kill a cop should he take it less serious because he can't see a weopon?

yes, duh.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yes. Both the BLM and this group in Oregon threatened Cops.

Interesting that you still refuse to answer the actual question, the one that is necessary to discussing it: Were there threats to use their firearms.

I'll just presume yes, since you likely would have denied it by now if untrue. If yes, than according to MOST opinions of the 2A, they are no longer exercising their 2A rights, and have become criminals. That is why answering that question is important, it isn't Constitutionally protected if threatened violence in response to government.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I would call swearing allegiance to ISIS(an entity we are actively waging war against) as foreign influence.

I don't see any similar foreign influence in the other examples.

What is your point? What are you missing? How plain do I need to be for you to actually respond to the actual posts? Does terrorism require "foreign influence"? I say no, you seem to say yes, but here is your opportunity.

 

[tad0339]

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

Do you REALLY think there are only 150 in this group? I am sure they are all over the country. So, "Hopefully they all end up in federal prison" is really rather stupid.

 

[22*43*51]

Interesting that you still refuse to answer the actual question, the one that is necessary to discussing it: Were there threats to use their firearms.

I'll just presume yes, since you likely would have denied it by now if untrue. If yes, than according to MOST opinions of the 2A, they are no longer exercising their 2A rights, and have become criminals. That is why answering that question is important, it isn't Constitutionally protected if threatened violence in response to government.

Oh, so it's important to you that the weapon be visible?

Since it wasn't visible when the BLM made the threat it isn't as bad. Though I am pretty sure the BLM didn't allow anyone to frisk them.

It's scarier to you that the white protestors in Oregon are threatening and you can see the big black guns.

 

[theIowaHawk]

yes, duh.

And it should be glaringly obvious that it is true. Every assault statute ever created includes the ability to actually carry out the threat. As I said earlier, the weapon need not actually be shown, but without it there will necessarily be doubts about the efficacy of the threat, hence leading to a lesser response.

But now it makes some of 22's other posts more clear. Handcuffed guy on his stomach on the ground, but says he will kill you? Shoot him, he might actually follow through with that threat.

 

[22*43*51]

But now it makes some of 22's other posts more clear. Handcuffed guy on his stomach on the ground, but says he will kill you? Shoot him, he might actually follow through with that threat.

Now you're getting emotionally unhinged again.

And you were doing so well up to this point.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Oh, so it's important to you that the weapon be visible?

Since it wasn't visible when the BLM made the threat it isn't as bad. Though I am pretty sure the BLM didn't allow anyone to frisk them.

It's scarier to you that the white protestors in Oregon are threatening and you can see the big black guns.

Wait, what? When you tell someone you are armed and then you make a threat to do harm ... you have threatened to use that arm. Is that really up for argument?

I don't know what threats were made, this is from one of the articles: "We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

Ammon Bundy said that the group in Oregon was armed, but that he would not describe it as a militia. He declined to say how many people were with him, telling CNN on Sunday that giving that information might jeopardize "operational security."

When you a) tell someone you are armed and b) tell them that you will defend yourself, there really is only one reasonable presumption, right?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Trespassing is illegal. But, that hasn't been enforced during recent protests.

BLM hung their hats on their right to assemble. Though they threatened and is some cases physically barred other citizens.

What has this group done differently besides carry?

Actually, trespass is a fairly common charge when, for example, protesters stage a sit in near a nuclear power plant. They get found guilty of simple trespass and get a fine and maybe a night or a weekend in jail. Sometimes it gets out of hand - as when the prosecutors loaded up the charges on a recent trio and they got 2 years (iirc).

That was simple trespass plus some graffiti and damage to the fence. This is armed trespass and, if I heard correctly, threats of gun violence.

If they can send an elderly nun to jail for 2 years for a totally peaceful protest, what should they do to armed protesters who are threatening violence?

 

[22*43*51]

Wait, what? When you tell someone you are armed and then you make a threat to do harm ... you have threatened to use that arm. Is that really up for argument?

I don't know what threats were made, this is from one of the articles: "We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

Ammon Bundy said that the group in Oregon was armed, but that he would not describe it as a militia. He declined to say how many people were with him, telling CNN on Sunday that giving that information might jeopardize "operational security."

When you a) tell someone you are armed and b) tell them that you will defend yourself, there really is only one reasonable presumption, right?

So he said he would defend himself if violence was used on him.

That is very different from initiating a threat of violence.

Thanks for the quote.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

no, wait, a weapon does not have to be visible with isis, heck, isis is invisible. no country. no leader. no weapons. why does this guy have to have a visible weapon? and isis does not? and, even Obama does not say isis exists. he says isil exists.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm not verifying the accuracy of any of this, but from this link:


I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary. #OregonUnderAttack

— Ian Kullgren (@IanKullgren) January 3, 2016

 

[naturalmwa]

Oh, so it's important to you that the weapon be visible?

Since it wasn't visible when the BLM made the threat it isn't as bad. Though I am pretty sure the BLM didn't allow anyone to frisk them.

It's scarier to you that the white protestors in Oregon are threatening and you can see the big black guns.

Is this getting sexual? If so I think it's time for pics.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So he said he would defend himself if violence was used on him.

That is very different from initiating a threat of violence.

Thanks for the quote.

Right, so any "thug" in an inner city saying the same thing to an officer would carry the same response to attempted arrest .... right? Even if they openly carried?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Isn't Bundy essentially saying:

"I am breaking X law because I think X law is wrong, if someone tries to arrest me for breaking that law I will kill them."

? And you think that is "protest" comparable to other recent ones?

 

[22*43*51]

[QUOTE="What Would Jesus Do?, post: 1669155, member: 1166/]
That was simple trespass plus some graffiti and damage to the fence. This is armed trespass and, if I heard correctly, threats of gun violence.[/QUOTE]

Threats of self defense according to TIH.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Is this getting sexual? If so I think it's time for pics.

excuse me while I whip this out

 

[theIowaHawk]

I just have no idea how someone can support this and claim that other, less openly hostile (you know, not threatening to kill people in response) are wrong and illegal and whatever else. I could see someone complaining about all of these, but not defending this one alone.

 

[theIowaHawk]

[QUOTE="What Would Jesus Do?, post: 1669155, member: 1166/]
That was simple trespass plus some graffiti and damage to the fence. This is armed trespass and, if I heard correctly, threats of gun violence.

Threats of self defense according to TIH.[/QUOTE]

Self defense is a legal term, do you believe someone breaking the law can defend themselves, legally, from law enforcement action? I would wager that every state has a law saying the opposite.

If you aren't talking about in a legal sense, then all resisting arrest is simply self-defense, which is an absurd position to take considering your political stance.

 

[22*43*51]

Right, so any "thug" in an inner city saying the same thing to an officer would carry the same response to attempted arrest .... right? Even if they openly carried?

why do you gotta call them thugs.

And why was the cop making an arrest in your example.

What is arrest worthy in Oregon so far?

 

[22*43*51]

Threats of self defense according to TIH.

Self defense is a legal term, do you believe someone breaking the law can defend themselves, legally, from law enforcement action? I would wager that every state has a law saying the opposite.

If you aren't talking about in a legal sense, then all resisting arrest is simply self-defense, which is an absurd position to take considering your political stance.[/QUOTE]

They're protesting. What have they done that is arrest worthy?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So he said he would defend himself if violence was used on him.

That is very different from initiating a threat of violence.

Thanks for the quote.

So . . . a wannabe bank robber goes into a bank, waves his gun around and then realizes he may have bitten off more than he can chew. The cops call in and he tells them he's just protesting low savings account interest rates but he is armed and would defend himself."

Same thing?

At some point we're going to have one of these things happen:

1. The "militia" guys will cool off and agree to disburse peacefully.

2. The authorities will advance on the facility to take control.

3. Some hothead will turn it into a shooting war.

How do you see #2 playing out? Do the militia guys allow the authorities to take control, hand over their guns, and submit to arrest? Or do they start shooting?