ADVERTISEMENT

150 armed terrorists take over federal building

In a culture where carrying guns is legal, why should whether they are armed or not make a difference?

It doesn't, unless the force threatened involves the guns. A civil society can't simply have people who disagree with the laws take up an armed resistance, which this is, people resisting the law while threatening to use arms.

But, if people were doing it MLKjr. style with sitins, but strapped, it shouldn't make a difference, except emotionally. But the biggest group of people who disagree with that is law enforcement, and law enforcement supporters. They, in essence, believe that ANY criminal activity whatsoever is immediately heightened simply because the person is carrying a firearm, if even completely legally.
 
That would be their actions.

Nope, but thank you for making my point. Posters and many media members use the T word when the perps' actions are merely terrifying. But that is not the right usage of the T word.

"Terrorists" are those that use violence in order to try to change the policies or actions of the governing body, by "terrorizing" the larger population into demanding these changes. The target of their actions are not the direct victims; it is the larger observing public.

From what I understand of this incident, the perps are not trying to pressure the larger public into demanding change by creating some direct victims. Rather, they are directly confronting/resisting the federal government.

Why does the word used matter? Because in order to defeat an enemy, you must understand their motivations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Nope, but thank you for making my point. Posters and many media members use the T word when the perps' actions are merely terrifying. But that is not the right usage of the T word.

"Terrorists" are those that use violence in order to try to change the policies or actions of the governing body, by "terrorizing" the larger population into demanding these changes. The target of their actions are not the direct victims; it is the larger observing public.

From what I understand of this incident, the perps are not trying to pressure the larger public into demanding change by creating some direct victims. Rather, they are directly confronting/resisting the federal government.

Why does the word used matter? Because in order to defeat an enemy, you must understand their motivations.

I like this, this is a good point.

If someone shoots the sheriff and his deputies that show up to seize his property he is directly confronting the government, same with assassinating a president one thinks is a tyrant. Terrorism is striking at the people in order to cause fear that forces the sought political change. So the Beslan School Siege would be the perfect example. Chechens upset about the Russian pushing them out and killing them ... but they respond by taking over a grade school and taking them hostage. They didn't confront the government directly, they went after children, in order to cause fear to the people.

I'll add that to my earlier definition, thank you.
 
Nope, but thank you for making my point. Posters and many media members use the T word when the perps' actions are merely terrifying. But that is not the right usage of the T word.

"Terrorists" are those that use violence in order to try to change the policies or actions of the governing body, by "terrorizing" the larger population into demanding these changes. The target of their actions are not the direct victims; it is the larger observing public.

From what I understand of this incident, the perps are not trying to pressure the larger public into demanding change by creating some direct victims. Rather, they are directly confronting/resisting the federal government.

Why does the word used matter? Because in order to defeat an enemy, you must understand their motivations.

Thats not how the criminal code defines terrorism.
 
Can you be a terrorist if no one is harmed? Is scaring the crap out of people with a plausible threat sufficient?

Yes. In fact, that really makes the point even better. Except....eventually, if the terrorists never harm anyone, the effectives of the tactic disappears. As Fonzie told Richie, "One time...you actually have to have HIT someone".
 
Treason?

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
 
DRONE'EM!!!

Buzz them with an unarmed drone and you will probably cut their numbers by at least 2/3.

These idiots are giving Obama just what he wants yet they are too stupid to realize it. I can assure you that every firearm seized when this thing finally ends will be traced and if not registered to people involved directly in this standoff will become a weapon for Obama to use to push his agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Of course not, but you are closer than usual. The Hammonds were of convicted by a jury after a 2 week trial of using fire to destroy federal property, a crime established in the 96 anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act. The crime carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years. There was no deal, and the US Attorney didn't sign off on any sentence below 5 years.

At sentencing, the Judge bought their argument that 5 years would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment and therefore disregarded the minimums. Prosecution appealed and won reversal. The reversal is absolutely unsurprising, our case law on the 8th Amendment (mostly derived from affirming drug sentences) is draconian, pretty much saying if you didn't draw and quarter its not cruel or unusual. So they were resentenced to the minimum 5 years.
This story refers to a plea deal -- as does at least one other story I've seen.
http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke
 
This story refers to a plea deal -- as does at least one other story I've seen.
http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

The plea deal was on the counts they would plead guilty to (the jury found them guilty on some counts, not guilty on others, and was working on the remaining counts when the government and the ranchers agreed to a deal to resolve all counts), not on the sentence. The ranchers, as part of the plea deal, agreed not to appeal any sentence imposed. The government position is and was that they pleaded guilty to a felony with a minimum statutory sentence of 5 years. The District Court determined not to impose the 5 year minimum. The government appealed that determination. The 9th Circuit found that the District Court could not impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum.
 
Last edited:
The plea deal was on the counts they would plead guilty to (the jury found them guilty on some counts, not guilty on others, and was working on the remaining counts when the government and the ranchers agreed to a deal to resolve all counts), not on the sentence. The ranchers, as part of the plea deal, agreed not to appeal any sentence imposed. The government position is and was that they pleaded guilty to a felony with a minimum statutory sentence of 5 years. The District Court determined not to impose the 5 year minimum. The government appealed that determination. The 9th Circuit found that the District Court could not impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum.
Thanks. And at this point I probably should mention -- not for your benefit, but for that of some others -- that I have not expressed support for the occupiers. I came in late and was looking for information.
 
12484718_1216223531721956_1706154737930945446_o.jpg
 
Minimum mandatories are a bad idea. So far the right hasn't had any problem with them because they usually just hurt the poor and minorities. This time we're seeing that they bit this rancher and his son in the ass. Why did they go after these two so hard for a couple of fires and some poaching? Well, if you dig around some more you'll find that the Hammonds have had a long running spat with the federal govt. They've gone so far as to make death threats against local govt employees. The routinely claimed that federal laws didn't apply to them or their cattle and grazed their herd on the preserve and even were arrested once for blocking the building of a fence to keep their herd out. So it's not surprising that they didn't think game regs didn't apply to them either, or no burn rules for that matter. Eventually it caught up with them and they were charged with the harshest penalty available. Jury found them guilty and minimum standard says five years.

If people want to march peacefully and protest minimum sentencing standards I'll join in. But the idiots who took over the game preserve are just Sovereign Citizen nuts with a ranching and religious twist. If you support them you're an idiot. Plain and simple.
 
Minimum mandatories are a bad idea. So far the right hasn't had any problem with them because they usually just hurt the poor and minorities. This time we're seeing that they bit this rancher and his son in the ass. Why did they go after these two so hard for a couple of fires and some poaching? Well, if you dig around some more you'll find that the Hammonds have had a long running spat with the federal govt. They've gone so far as to make death threats against local govt employees. The routinely claimed that federal laws didn't apply to them or their cattle and grazed their herd on the preserve and even were arrested once for blocking the building of a fence to keep their herd out. So it's not surprising that they didn't think game regs didn't apply to them either, or no burn rules for that matter. Eventually it caught up with them and they were charged with the harshest penalty available. Jury found them guilty and minimum standard says five years.

If people want to march peacefully and protest minimum sentencing standards I'll join in. But the idiots who took over the game preserve are just Sovereign Citizen nuts with a ranching and religious twist. If you support them you're an idiot. Plain and simple.

So, much like the Bundys, their simply deluded thieves who think they have a constitutional right to steal from the American people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
It is hard to imagine that none of the words mentioned above — particularly "insurrection" or "revolt" — would be avoided if, for instance, a group of armed black Americans took possession of a federal or state courthouse to protest the police.

If a group of armed Muslims took possession of a federal building or even its lobby to protest calls to surveil the entire group, it's even more doubtful they could avoid harsher, more-alarming labels.

But this isn't a courthouse or a federal building. It's the equivalent of a couple of hunting shacks out in the woods that no one was assigned to over the winter.
 
You must not know who Bundy is because you missed the reference. Research their history and you will learn why Ciggy called both the Bundy and Hammond families thieves.


A few things should be said:

First, a dramatic, gun-blazing conflagration is possible but unlikely. The federal government will try avoid the mistakes of the 1990s confrontations with the Branch Davidians and the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge. There is also a very real possibility that for reasons of depleted morale or even depleted rations, the occupation of the Malheur building simply can't be sustained. The Hammonds seem to have no interest in this armed protest movement on their behalf. The Bundys who have put themselves out in front of this protest may seem, even to potential allies, more like grifters than generals.

Secondly, the protesters absolutely have a point that the mandatory minimum sentencing of the Hammonds was overly-harsh. Perhaps more provocative than the harsh sentencing was the fact that the law under which the Hammonds were prosecuted was "the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996." It is provocative to use an anti-terrorism law to punish those whose defensive fire swept out of control.

Lastly, the issue of land control really is a problem that needs addressing. The federal government owns incredible acreage in the West. Many ranchers have freely grazed their cattle on it for generations, either with the federal government's implied blessing or because of a complete lack of enforcement. Over the past few decades the accepted conventions around cattle grazing and the federal code governing it have come into disharmony. Ammon Bundy's complaints about the government taking away land from the people whose way of life depends on it is really about the government's attempt to enforce federal code over previously understood conventions. If the disagreement sounds personal, that's because it is: All the high-flown rhetoric about tyranny and freedom barely disguises the grudge between ranchers and the feds. The government needs to find and enforce a new, durable settlement over these vast tracts of land and end the ongoing feud it's been drawn into.

The standoff in Oregon seems silly and serious at the same time for a good reason. The location of this occupation is absurd, and it can hardly handle the weight of rhetoric about tyranny and freedom that is being attached to it. But the protesters do have a point.

http://theweek.com/articles/597289/oregon-occupiers-have-point
 
Secondly, the protesters absolutely have a point that the mandatory minimum sentencing of the Hammonds was overly-harsh. Perhaps more provocative than the harsh sentencing was the fact that the law under which the Hammonds were prosecuted was "the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996." It is provocative to use an anti-terrorism law to punish those whose defensive fire swept out of control.
This isn't what happened. They were convicted of starting a fire on the federal land to purposefully cover up the crime of poaching. It didn't get out of control, it did exactly what they intended.
 
Grazing was never free.
Ranchers in the west currently pay $1.69 per month for each cow and calf to graze on federal land. If they were on private land in Oregon the cost is $17 a head.
This is about government handouts.
 
A few things should be said:




Lastly, the issue of land control really is a problem that needs addressing. The federal government owns incredible acreage in the West. Many ranchers have freely grazed their cattle on it for generations, either with the federal government's implied blessing or because of a complete lack of enforcement. Over the past few decades the accepted conventions around cattle grazing and the federal code governing it have come into disharmony. Ammon Bundy's complaints about the government taking away land from the people whose way of life depends on it is really about the government's attempt to enforce federal code over previously understood conventions. If the disagreement sounds personal, that's because it is: All the high-flown rhetoric about tyranny and freedom barely disguises the grudge between ranchers and the feds. The government needs to find and enforce a new, durable settlement over these vast tracts of land and end the ongoing feud it's been drawn into.

I can translate all this. Ranchers pay a flat fee per head to graze on federal land. In some places, this fee is 93% lower than market value. Some people and parties trumpet the market as the only thing that should matter and that government should stay out of the market. Sorry for injecting "partisan politics" into that statement; I feel bad about it.

Instead of paying what the market rate would be, or even the highly discounted federal statutory rate, some ranchers want to pay little to nothing to graze their cattle. They feel that prior "accepted conventions" continue to entitle them to free stuff today. And when they didn't get it -- when the government started enforcing the grazing fees -- set by law by Congress - oh - decades ago -- some ranchers got pissed. I would be too if somebody cut off the gravy train of free stuff paid for by the taxpayers.

So basically, some people are not happy that Congress decided that if you want to graze on federal land, you should pay a fee and some people are not happy that convicted arsonists were sent to prison for a time set by Congress that they feel is excessive.
 
Didn't Bundy break into the refuge building? It was closed at the time and I read they have a gift shop in there. It also sounds like they're attempting to extort land from the federal government, and that's a very serious offense. Bundy says they've been planning this for a long time, but it sure doesn't sound like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
A few things should be said:

First, a dramatic, gun-blazing conflagration is possible but unlikely. The federal government will try avoid the mistakes of the 1990s confrontations with the Branch Davidians and the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge. There is also a very real possibility that for reasons of depleted morale or even depleted rations, the occupation of the Malheur building simply can't be sustained. The Hammonds seem to have no interest in this armed protest movement on their behalf. The Bundys who have put themselves out in front of this protest may seem, even to potential allies, more like grifters than generals.

Secondly, the protesters absolutely have a point that the mandatory minimum sentencing of the Hammonds was overly-harsh. Perhaps more provocative than the harsh sentencing was the fact that the law under which the Hammonds were prosecuted was "the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996." It is provocative to use an anti-terrorism law to punish those whose defensive fire swept out of control.

Lastly, the issue of land control really is a problem that needs addressing. The federal government owns incredible acreage in the West. Many ranchers have freely grazed their cattle on it for generations, either with the federal government's implied blessing or because of a complete lack of enforcement. Over the past few decades the accepted conventions around cattle grazing and the federal code governing it have come into disharmony. Ammon Bundy's complaints about the government taking away land from the people whose way of life depends on it is really about the government's attempt to enforce federal code over previously understood conventions. If the disagreement sounds personal, that's because it is: All the high-flown rhetoric about tyranny and freedom barely disguises the grudge between ranchers and the feds. The government needs to find and enforce a new, durable settlement over these vast tracts of land and end the ongoing feud it's been drawn into.

The standoff in Oregon seems silly and serious at the same time for a good reason. The location of this occupation is absurd, and it can hardly handle the weight of rhetoric about tyranny and freedom that is being attached to it. But the protesters do have a point.

http://theweek.com/articles/597289/oregon-occupiers-have-point

Good points, so do you think they would support me, from Iowa, coming out there and utilizing the same land they demand to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Militants May Have Accessed Government Computers At Refuge
by John Sepulvado OPB | Jan. 8, 2016 6:30 p.m. | Updated: Jan. 8, 2016 7:58 p.m.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into whether militants at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge have accessed government computers during their occupation.

OPB observed militants interacting with computers in the compound that can only be accessed with employee ID badges. The armed men also appear to have riffled through materials in an office building used by federal employees.

This comes as militants rejected leaving the facility Friday, which they’ve occupied illegally since Jan. 2.

The computers are in a room of cubicles near the main compound. LaVoy Finnicum, a member of the occupying group’s security team, accidentally led OPB into the area.
Finnicum says the group plans to turn the office into a media center that would eventually house reporters.

There are four desks in the office, two on each side. Three of the computers were turned on, and in screen saver mode. Papers in the room were strewn about in a disorderly manner.

After Finnicum realized he shouldn’t have allowed OPB to access the room, he quickly picked up lists of names and Social Security numbers by the computers, and hid government employee ID cards that were previously in plain sight.

Shortly after, one of the militant leaders, Ryan Bundy, walked into the room.

When asked about the computers, Bundy emphatically denied any of the work spaces had been touched since the occupation.

“No, we haven’t touched a single personal item. We haven’t touched any of the computers, we haven’t tried to log on — we haven’t done anything. We’re not here to hurt people,” Bundy said, “not even the people who work here.”

20160108_Occupied_Burns_Militia_JS-0682_p8v0sq.jpg


The unidentified militant seen here drove the federally-owned vehicle on the right while at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. He left the area after being photographed.

John Sepulvado/OPB

Along with possibly accessing the computers, militants at the compound are using government vehicles and equipment to operate and fortify defenses.

When reached Friday, FBI spokeswoman Beth Anne Steele declined to officially comment on any activity ongoing at the refuge.

However, law enforcement officials are concerned refuge employees could potentially be harmed by members of the group. Prior to the occupation, federal employees and family members of local law enforcement had received anonymous threats.

Harney County Sheriff David Ward said at a community meeting Wednesday that his deputies and own family members had been followed home, photographed, and had personal property damaged in recent months.

In an interview Friday, Ward said he was concerned about the welfare of the employees who work at the refuge. However, he said he hasn’t confirmed militants have indeed accessed any personnel data.

“With what information we do have, we’re doing everything we can to make sure we keep our citizens and those employees safe,” Ward said.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Jason Holm also declined to confirm whether the computers had been used. But he did say the agency has taken a full inventory of what was left inside the refuge before the militants seized it.

“We are cognizant that the individuals in the refuge would have access to files, and things like refuge equipment,” Holm said. “We’re working with the FBI to mitigate any risk (to employees).”

There are 16 full-time and one part-time employee who work at the refuge, according to Holm.

“We are taking all appropriate security precautions,” Holm said when asked about employee safety.

Reporters Ryan Haas and Conrad Wilson contributed to this report.
 
Oregon Judge Sticks It To Ammon Bundy, Plans To Charge Him $70,000 A Day For Security Costs
Author: Shannon Argueta January 12, 2016 12:26 pm
An Oregon judge has had enough of the hillbilly Bundy militia and is now saying that he plans to bill the leader, Ammon Bundy, up to $70,000 a day for security costs.

The armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by the anti-government group has caused major disruptions in Harney County, and it doesn’t seem like the merry band of imbeciles plan to leave anytime soon. According to reports, the group has used federal equipment to remove fences that separated the federal property from a local rancher.

In addition to the damage they have caused on the property, the militants forced 800 kids to miss a week of school because the school board was worried about the safety of students.

Police also report that they have had to relocate the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife employees from their homes “out of an abundance of caution” because the group possibly found out their personal information. The group has been accused of illegally accessing the government computers in the building. Reporters with Oregon Public Radio claim that they say the computers on screensaver mode and a list of social security numbers out on the desks.

Harney County Judge Steve Grasty spoke at a town hall meeting on Monday night and said that the militia is costing taxpayers between $60,000 to $70,000 a day.

“We’re going to send Mr. Bundy the bill,” said Grasty.

It’s ironic that this group of jackasses, who claim to love the citizens of this country, are wasting taxpayer dollars every single day with this nonsense. Tea Party Republicans claim to be “fiscally responsible” and then waste $700,000. What’s even worse is that GOP lawmakers are supporting the continued occupation of federal land and that is costing Harney County so much money. While these lawmakers encourage this behavior, they actively deny all sorts of social programs to low-income families because they claim that we cannot “afford” it. Seems legit, right?
 
Grazing was never free.
Ranchers in the west currently pay $1.69 per month for each cow and calf to graze on federal land. If they were on private land in Oregon the cost is $17 a head.
This is about government handouts.
THIS is what the rest of us should be complaining about. Our government is giving away resources of value that belong to us, the people.

This is either corruption or theft, or both. It needs to stop.

The Bundys of the world want to be able to steal more. They belong in jail for past theft. They and their supporters belong in jail for conspiracy to commit more theft.

How is this not obvious to everyone?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT