quote:

---

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” the Oregon police said in a statement on Sunday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
How can anyone justify support for armed action against the government of their country? How is this anything other than treason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
How can anyone justify support for armed action against the government of their country? How is this anything other than treason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Given the US habit of trying to overthrow legitimate governments (and sometimes succeeding), on what basis can USA argue that seeking to interfere with or overthrow a government is bad behavior?

Others who do not endorse or participate in efforts to overturn governments might have a leg to stand on.

---

quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're a shining, glaring, blinding example of white privilege. Anybody else would be toast by now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The definition of treason in the Constitution is:

quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

---

How is an armed force occupying a government building not "levying war"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're a shining, glaring, blinding example of white privilege. Anybody else would be toast by now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

If a group of urban, east-coast, middle-class college kids with a self-righteous bee in their collective bonnet about some perceived injustice took over a building and defied the government, we would regard them as passionate idealists, and characterise any attempt to evict them as fascist.

---

Up to a point. That point, for me and I suspect for most people, is where they pick up guns and start threatening to shoot people. I've never known a group of middle class students arm themselves to the teeth in order to undertake an occupation. There is a difference between peaceful civil disobedience and armed insurrection.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kwesi--

Yes, which is one reason the Founders' little experiment is so complicated. They weren't at all sure it would even work. One (Paine?) said flat out that we'd need a bloody revolution, once in a while.

And since the Founders' writings are holy writ, or nearly, to many people, and the federal gov't isn't exactly good at the whole "We The People" thing (under any president, Congress, or Supreme Court), we've got this precedent haunting us. When countries have popular revolutions, ISTM that the new Powers That Be say "Yes, thank you, but don't you dare try to pull any of that sh*t against *us*. Go about your business, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

The Egyptian Spring comes to mind. Didn't work twice.

We (the US) desperately need some positive social revolutions that actually stick long-term. But not violent revolutions. Period.

 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Kaplan Corday: Guns are the difference.

Kwesi: That their first resort is guns is a refutation of that argument, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Guns, brain-cells and education are the difference.

When you have shit for brains and a proof-texting response to any document - be it the Bible or the US Constitution, this us the result - irrespective if any kegitimate demands or concerns you might have.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kwesi--

Yes, which is one reason the Founders' little experiment is so complicated. They weren't at all sure it would even work. One (Paine?) said flat out that we'd need a bloody revolution, once in a while.

And since the Founders' writings are holy writ, or nearly, to many people, and the federal gov't isn't exactly good at the whole "We The People" thing (under any president, Congress, or Supreme Court), we've got this precedent haunting us. When countries have popular revolutions, ISTM that the new Powers That Be say "Yes, thank you, but don't you dare try to pull any of that sh*t against *us*. Go about your business, and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

The Egyptian Spring comes to mind. Didn't work twice.

We (the US) desperately need some positive social revolutions that actually stick long-term. But not violent revolutions. Period.

 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
John Harrington (1560-1612)
(alleged to have also invented the flushing lavatory)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
When you have shit for brains and a proof-texting response to any document - be it the Bible or the US Constitution

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If a group of urban, east-coast, middle-class college kids with a self-righteous bee in their collective bonnet about some perceived injustice took over a building and defied the government, we would regard them as passionate idealists, and characterise any attempt to evict them as fascist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The "Occupy" movement, for instance? It does feel to me like these guys and Occupy are two sides of the same coin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting how the language being used about this situation is being seen as so obviously racially biased.

A group of Muslims who did this would be instantly described as "terrorists", black people likely described as a "mob" or that they were "rioting", whereas when they're white, somehow it is acceptable to describe them as a "milita" - with implications of an honourable history back to the early history of the US Constitution.

Also it is pretty hard to imagine a Muslim group being allowed to do this for more than, well, 5 minutes before a swat team is sent in to kill all of them - even if they'd not fired a shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's interesting to note that both MrCheesy and the media use "Muslim" as a racial term when, of course, it isn't.

But in many peoples' minds "Muslim" is largely equated with "Middle Eastern" and "Central Asian" - yet there are millions of Muslims in places such as Bangladesh, Indonesia or Malaysia.

And, of course, some Muslim extremists have been converts from "respectable white backgrounds".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

However, it's perhaps not entirely fair to make accusations of double standards. Part of the question is how the authorities perceive the threat. Islamist terrorists have an unfortunately good record of shooting first and actually being prepared to die for the cause rather than just claim to be so prepared. These guys? Not so much, perhaps.

---

quote:

---

One (Paine?) said flat out that we'd need a bloody revolution, once in a while.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, and I guess the fact that black, unarmed men are regularly killed by the police is a function of a demographic that regularly endangers law enforcement personnel.

Funnily enough, I don't accept that analysis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not quite sure how we jumped from armed white "yee-hahdists" to black victims of police shooting, but do you seriously believe the bunch holed up in the wastes of Orgeon pose as lethal and immediate a threat to the civilian population as IS-inspired terrorists, and that the law enforcement response should be exactly equivalent?

---

Equivalent, maybe not - I don't know the details about the level of threat here. This whole thing could easily end in a bloodbath, I've no idea how you're able to tell that this is automatically less dangerous than a group of Muslims with guns.

Either way, the plain fact is that they're terrorists who have taken over a federal building by force. That's a serious crime which warrants a serious response (and, I understand, if convicted would lead to very serious jail time).
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, technically it's probably seditious conspiracy rather than terrorism.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, Kaplan, it does work both ways ... there are people on the left who have shit for brains too ...

But I'd be wary about playing the religion card too strongly in terms of the First Amendment and the ever-so-saintly Founding Fathers ... who denied many of the theological tenets that the Religious Right often sees itself as divinely appointed to protect ...

One could argue that humanist-inspired erosion of 'religious privileges' are more subtle and insidious than a bunch of yahoos armed with assault rifles and dribbling about the Second Amendment ...

But does it have to be so binary, I wonder?

It's a tricky one ... I confess myself to having a knee-jerk aversion to anything labelled 'US Patriot' or 'NRA' or 'One nation under God' and all that malarkey ... and that's understandable, because I'm you typical Guardian reading UK lefty/liberal type.

If I were a Daily Mail or Telegraph type -- or politically conservative as you appear to be - then I might take a different view.

As it is, I don't.

In terms of 'religious liberties' and so on threatened by liberals, humanists and agnostics/atheists -- what do you have in mind?

Public prayer in schools?

The right to teach Evolution as some kind of historic, scientific fact?

I'm no expert on the US - but I am aware of concerns about personal freedoms and liberties aired by both right and left of the political spectrum over there ... I don't know enough about it all to comment on that ...

But it does strike me as a truism that those of us outside the US - as well as internally - are going to be selective about those aspects we consider important ... be it gun nuttery on the one hand or apparently out of control political-correctness on the other ... all that 'Happy Holidays' rather than Merry Christmas malarkey ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Equivalent, maybe not - I don't know the details about the level of threat here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Equivalent, maybe not - I don't know the details about the level of threat here. This whole thing could easily end in a bloodbath, I've no idea how you're able to tell that this is automatically less dangerous than a group of Muslims with guns.

---

quote:

---

Either way, the plain fact is that they're terrorists who have taken over a federal building by force. That's a serious crime which warrants a serious response (and, I understand, if convicted would lead to very serious jail time).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
For a start, nobody's done any shooting yet. From what I can tell, about 15 people took over a deserted national park refuge in the middle of nowhere. As Alan says, it's sedition or insurrection rather than terrorism, especially so because they have broken into Federal property. On the basis of the track record of such groups, they are likely to get bored and cold quite soon.

---

quote:

---

It's easy to try and score "oppressed minority" points by attempting a comparison with how a foreign terrorist group would be treated, but the fact is that they didn't go in guns blazing and look highly unlikely to attack civilians as things stand.

---

quote:

---

Their rhetoric of staying for "as long as it takes" and going out in a blaze of glory is not fuelled by the facts, first and foremost because local militia groups and the people whose imprisonment they are claiming to be opposing have distanced themselves from these nuts.

---

quote:

---

Doubtless the offence is serious - taking over a federal building no matter how humble appears to be right next to flag-burning in the American psyche - and yes they should face serious jail time, but there is plenty more opportunity for negotiating with these people than there has been with any IS terrorists in action that I've noted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(why would guns be needed at peaceful event?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the significant difference is the likelihood that the group in question will attack others. The stereotypical "group of Muslims with guns" (as you put it) actively seeks to use those guns to kill others, whereas this group says they only intend to use their guns to fight off any others who come to attack them.

---

quote:

---

There are many other nuances to this incident, of course. But the immediate threat to innocent lives is distinctly different - this incident could only end in a bloodbath if federal troops attack the building, whereas a different terrorist threat would end in a bloodbath if the group wasn't confronted. And the hypothetical bloodbath in this case wouldn't involve any innocents (unless the occupiers have taken any children with them).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ryan Bundy, the apparent leader of this episode, has been reported as saying that he is prepared to kill, or be killed. That sounds like a fairly significant threat to me.

---

quote:

---

I never said anything about "foreign" terrorist groups, I was talking about Muslims and Black people - both of whom could be USAmericans.

I'll say again: US citizens who happen to be Muslims or Black are very unlikely to be treated with kid gloves in the same situation. There is no need to be making any comparison with IS, and I haven't made that comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
White terrorists have in the past murdered police officers, set off bombs, holed themselves up in sieges and so on.

---

quote:

---

In fact the evidence suggests that white terrorist groups very often become violent in these kinds of circumstances.

---

quote:

---

A (admittedly very stupid) group of Muslims could get guns and take over an isolated federal building in exactly the same way and be treated differently to this white group

---

quote:

---

Only if we're assuming all Islamic groups would act like IS and the Paris attackers and the white militas just give up without violence. I'm not sure how anyone can be so sure about this.

---

I think that llumping together all actions by any "stereotyped group" with no regard for operational considerations would be really dumb. This happens in the media, in various ways depending on which particular hobby horse one is riding, but again, that's not the same as how an operation is conducted on the ground. Most of the media can't even accurately report how many people are on site, let alone discuss the finer points of terrorism vs. sedition.

[ 04. January 2016, 13:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Apologies, upthread I meant, 'The right to teach Creationism as an historic, scientific fact ...'

Not 'Evolution' ...

I must have had shit slopping about in my brain when I typed that ...



Let's hope this incident does pass off peacefully, the last thing anyone - right, left or centre - needs is a bunch of martyrs for a knuckle-dragging right-wing cause ...

And, sorry Kaplan, I know it's both/and and there are loonies on the left too ... but in this instance we're dealing with a bunch of can't chew gum and think at the same time Neanderthal bozos ...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The last time something like this happened (I can't rememebr the name of the incident) the Feds sat outside for 80 days or so until the occupants gave up. No loss of life involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If a group of urban, east-coast, middle-class college kids with a self-righteous bee in their collective bonnet about some perceived injustice took over a building and defied the government, we would regard them as passionate idealists, and characterise any attempt to evict them as fascist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Those who proof-text from the First Amendment to argue anti-religion measures of which the Founding Fathers would never have dreamt, are every bit as brainless as the gun nuts to whom they consider themselves intellectally superior who proof-text from the Second Amendment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
White terrorists have in the past murdered police officers, set off bombs, holed themselves up in sieges and so on.

---

Who's doing the stereotyping now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Up to a point. That point, for me and I suspect for most people, is where they pick up guns and start threatening to shoot people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The point I was actually making was that white terrorists have been known to be violent and Muslims with guns are not all aping IS.

---

quote:

---

So we shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction to treat the former as a joke because they're white nor the latter as part of a murderous cult because they're Muslim. That's it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
the last thing anyone - right, left or centre - needs is a bunch of martyrs for a knuckle-dragging right-wing cause ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
the last thing anyone - right, left or centre - needs is a bunch of martyrs for a knuckle-dragging right-wing cause ...

---

Though, at the conclusion of the stand off they'll be in front of a court. They probably should be charged with sedition, but probably end up facing a lesser charge. If that ends in a custodial sentence then they'll be the next 'martyrs' for the conservatives. And, probably less of an embarrassment than a Kentucky clerk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And cutting off the electric. My son, who follows this kind of thing, notes that the actual space is about the size of a living room. Fifteen guys in there, without electric (I assume that the water comes from a well), and it'll get pretty nasty pretty fast. Let 'em marinate for ten days or so, and then lob in the tear gas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The fact is that the modus operandi of this group is nothing like anything I can think of in the name of either Muslim or black activism, so drawing hasty comparisons to make a point about how different minorities get treated will likely lead to erroneous conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that the right of armed rebellion is implicit in the political philosophies of limited government which informed the constitution of the United States, notably that of John Lock, which regarded the role of government as constrained by its essential duty to protect natural rights. Consequently, when governments, either autocratic or democratic, transgress those limitations its contract with the the citizenry is broken, and it is their right to overthrow that government. Is not that notion enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which itself includes the right of the citizen to bear arms against such circumstances? Is that not what is claimed by the rebels in this case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that the right of armed rebellion is implicit in the political philosophies of limited government which informed the constitution of the United States, notably that of John Lock, which regarded the role of government as constrained by its essential duty to protect natural rights. Consequently, when governments, either autocratic or democratic, transgress those limitations its contract with the the citizenry is broken, and it is their right to overthrow that government. Is not that notion enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which itself includes the right of the citizen to bear arms against such circumstances? Is that not what is claimed by the rebels in this case?

---

No, that notion is not enshrined anywhere. If it was, the Civil War would never have happened. The states of the South would have been perfectly free to overthrow the tyrannical federal government up north.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
So maybe the takeaway is that faced with a group action, the police do attempt to make judgement calls on the basis of a situational perceived threat and not on the politics or ethnicity of those involved. Which is what I have been trying to argue all along here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Golden Key posts:

quote:

---

One (Paine?) said flat out that we'd need a bloody revolution, once in a while.

---

It was Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison. It's always been a theoretical challenge for states founded by revolutionary means.

---

quote:

---

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. [...] The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Up to a point. That point, for me and I suspect for most people, is where they pick up guns and start threatening to shoot people.

---

As I understand it, the building that they have occupied is in the middle of nowhere. Which means that they can threaten all they like, but it's not really an active threat yet. Had they taken over a building downtown somewhere, there would be a danger to third parties that isn't present here.

It's also not obvious to me that their occupation of this building is preventing much in the way of useful or necessary work. Which makes "wait them out" look like a good strategy right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
We have this thing called a court system for people who are unhappy with how government is run. If the government is not following it's own rules citizens can go to court to make the government toe it's own line. Citizens can also participate in lobbying and peaceful protest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I'd be wary about playing the religion card too strongly in terms of the First Amendment and the ever-so-saintly Founding Fathers ... who denied many of the theological tenets that the Religious Right often sees itself as divinely appointed to protect

---

quote:

---

One could argue that humanist-inspired erosion of 'religious privileges' are more subtle and insidious than a bunch of yahoos armed with assault rifles and dribbling about the Second Amendment

---

quote:

---

I confess myself to having a knee-jerk aversion to anything labelled 'US Patriot' or 'NRA' or 'One nation under God' and all that malarkey

---

quote:

---

politically conservative as you appear to be

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Stating that you're willing to use violence in self-defense isn't an active threat so much as a statement of fact that is fairly common among people who have either been in the military or know a lot of military people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
Can you threaten to kill or injure someone if they attempt to arrest you in Oregon with impunity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
The commandeered building, AIUI, was unoccupied and no violence has been used against people. ISTM that the takers-over aren't *really* in a hurry to kill or be killed, or they would've picked some place else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Stating that you're willing to use violence in self-defense isn't an active threat so much as a statement of fact that is fairly common among people who have either been in the military or know a lot of military people.

---

I'm pretty sure that armed seizure of someone else's property is stretching the term "self-defense" past its breaking point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that the right of armed rebellion is implicit in the political philosophies of limited government which informed the constitution of the United States, notably that of John Lock, which regarded the role of government as constrained by its essential duty to protect natural rights. Consequently, when governments, either autocratic or democratic, transgress those limitations its contract with the the citizenry is broken, and it is their right to overthrow that government. Is not that notion enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which itself includes the right of the citizen to bear arms against such circumstances? Is that not what is claimed by the rebels in this case?

---

No, that notion is not enshrined anywhere. If it was, the Civil War would never have happened. The states of the South would have been perfectly free to overthrow the tyrannical federal government up north.

---

The Declaration of Independence certainly talks about the right of the people to overthrow tyrannical governments. The Declaration, however, has no status as a legal document.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Stating that you're willing to use violence in self-defense isn't an active threat so much as a statement of fact that is fairly common among people who have either been in the military or know a lot of military people.

---

I'm pretty sure that armed seizure of someone else's property is stretching the term "self-defense" past its breaking point.

---

Someone else's property? Whose property is it?

Have you talked about Occupy protesters seizing parks or Black Lives Matters protesters seizing streets, city hall, etc.?

I doubt it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
But then, my guess is that your post was disingenuous. I was responding to someone who claimed that the protesters were simply threatening to shoot people, when (at least in what I've read) they were clear that they didn't intend to fire unless fired upon. Both the law and common sense draw a distinction between those two things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
(I'm pretty sure the armed seizure of citizens' property stretches the word government past its breaking point, but the people who believe that understand why people are protesting).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Yeah, but people who are complaining that the entire court system is broken don't necessarily trust it to fix itself, nor do they trust the people who benefit from it to fix it.

---

If the article at that link is even remotely accurate, then:

a) I feel sorry for the Hammonds, and some big-deal lawyer should take on their case; and

b) Cliven Bundy is a True Believer in certain interpretations of the Constitution, and IMHO might have a screw or two slightly wobbly, if not actually loose. (See his letter near the end of the article.)

On a whim, I did a little digging. Once upon a time, just before WWII, there was a movement to make Southern Oregon and Northern California into a new state: "Jefferson". That got lost during the war; but people still hold onto it, some for fun and some as a way to vent their grievances against government.

The Jefferson News Service has an article on the Bundys, and their own encounters with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (The "About" section of the site is also worth a read.)
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And yes, saysay, liberals can have wobbly or loose screws, too.

 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I find some of the rhetoric coming from the Left a lot more frightening than most of what I've read about what the protesters have actually said.

---

We're probably seeing different things from "the Left" (and, probably disagree about who the Left are). But, most of what I'm seeing is a combination of comparison with the tactics employed by police in other recent protests/occupations (and, also nature of media coverage) and comments on the particular cause behind this particular event.

The vast majority of comments on tactics have pointed out the significantly more aggressive response in other situations. This has almost entirely to point out that the approach in Oregon is appropriate, and that it's the other situations where the police have been excessive in their response. I fail to see what's frightening about this rhetoric, unless you consider that the police should always go in fully armed, aggressively and early in any circumstance and it's dangerous to the rest of society to wait things out and try to talk.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Their main beef <nyuk nyuk> is that the federal government is administering federal lands. When the government gives them cheap water, cheap land, cheap grazing, etc. it's all good and they suck away at the public teat, literally as if there is no tomorrow. When the government sets aside land for other uses, it's terrible and awful and tyranny and must be resisted. I have absolutely no patience and no respect for these insurrectionist yahoos. They are the worst sort of traitors.

And yes, law enforcement's response is pathetic, compared to, oh, say, how they deal with a 12-year-old with a toy gun. They didn't keep a safe distance or negotiate; they didn't say, "Well, nobody else is in the park, so who cares", they just drove up and blew the poor kid away.
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The vast majority of comments on tactics have pointed out the significantly more aggressive response in other situations. This has almost entirely to point out that the approach in Oregon is appropriate, and that it's the other situations where the police have been excessive in their response. I fail to see what's frightening about this rhetoric, unless you consider that the police should always go in fully armed, aggressively and early in any circumstance and it's dangerous to the rest of society to wait things out and try to talk.

---

quote:

---

Thankfully, more responsible voices on the left are meeting tribal illogic and demonization with reason. “I understand the gut satisfaction of fantasizing about a Bonnie & Clyde style shootout that leaves the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge soaked in terrorist blood, but that's really not what any of us should want,” Kevin Drum writes at Mother Jones. “These guys aren't terrorists, anyway. They're just as misguided as real terrorists, but they haven't taken anyone hostage or threatened to blow up an airplane.” I don’t actually understand why a shootout is appealing even as fantasy, or how someone can be “just as misguided as real terrorists” without committing any acts of terrorism, but I’ll take it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And yes, law enforcement's response is pathetic, compared to, oh, say, how they deal with a 12-year-old with a toy gun. They didn't keep a safe distance or negotiate; they didn't say, "Well, nobody else is in the park, so who cares", they just drove up and blew the poor kid away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Their main beef <nyuk nyuk>...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Who the hell is Mark Draughn and why should I give a fuck what he says?

---

quote:

---

What concerns me about so many liberal commenters insisting that this is terrorism (or this or this or this) is that nothing good will come from encouraging an expansive definition of terrorism.

If you look at the huge list of things described as terrorism in the Patriot Act, almost every one of them is already illegal. So calling these things “terrorism” doesn’t make them illegal — they’re already crimes — it just allows prosecutors to demand ever harsher penalties. Since we already have a larger percentage of prisoners than any other country, is it really wise to encourage prosecutors to be harsher?

<snip>

Perhaps a better question is why do I think nice liberal people should back off on demanding that the situation in Oregon be called “terrorism”? My answer is that when it comes to tough-on-crime attitudes, what goes around, comes around.

<snip>

For the folks on the left, it’s all fun and games watching right-wing white guys get in deep trouble, but getting tough on crime has a funny way of turning into massive incarceration of young male minorities. If the nice liberal people crying “terrorism” get their way, it could end up influencing the way prosecutors charge crimes, and it could encourage lawmakers to pass tough new laws to fight “right-wing anti-government terrorism.” Then a few years from now those same nice liberal people will be angry that 18-year-old black kids are being charged with some new crime called “terroristic damage to federal property” because they broke in and spray painted “Black Lives Matter” on the walls of a post office.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

But there's no particular reason for you to care about that, just as there's no particular reason for you to care about the way many well-intentioned laws disproportionately affect the poor, minorities, and other vulnerable populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

But there's no particular reason for you to care about that, just as there's no particular reason for you to care about the way many well-intentioned laws disproportionately affect the poor, minorities, and other vulnerable populations.

---

I must cry Bullshit. Many tough on crime laws are enacted specifically because they do not affect the well off majority. Look at crack v. cocaine sentencing.

---

The existence of laws that are enacted because they do not affect the well-off majority does not disprove the existence of well-intentioned laws that disproportionately affect the vulnerable.

Unless you're trying to argue that all laws are enacted by the elites against the peasants so that the elites can maintain their arbitrary power...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Who the hell is Mark Draughn and why should I give a fuck what he says?

---

Because he speaks the truth. (Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking some Shipmates might care about that).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Who the hell is Mark Draughn and why should I give a fuck what he says?

---

Because he speaks the truth. (Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking some Shipmates might care about that).

---

Translation: you agree with him, and can't imagine others wouldn't agree with the two of you.

---

quote:

---

Why some people don't want to refer to them as terrorists.

---

quote:

---

They don't automatically agree with what YOU call truth, though. There is a difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
But if you disagree with his (our) statements, why don't you argue against the (perceived) falsehoods instead of slagging people's concerns off as something you don't (and shouldn't) give a fuck about?

---

quote:

---

Oh, right, you're not speaking for yourself, you're speaking for an imaginary "them."

---

quote:

---

I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
We're obviously seeing different comments and hearing different rhetoric.

---

Clearly, but I'm still not seeing anything frightening being said by the Left (though I agree with your Poe comment that there have been parodies etc that have been taken too seriously).

The Atlantic article, for example, is mostly about the prevalence of mandatory sentencing and the use of inappropriate legislation in prosecution (eg: anti-terrorism legislation to prosecute someone who sets fires in wilderness areas). Which is something I find frightening. But, from my perspective, that's something associated with the Right rather than Left, with the Left strongly opposed. Perhaps you find the Left rhetoric frightening because you think anti-terror laws should be used to prosecute ranchers setting fires.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Apparently at least one of the occupiers has realised he forgot to make plans to get his cows milked in the meantime...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
These guys clearly aren't the brightest rhinestones in the tiara.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Perhaps, but I'm betting that link is not for real.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Kaplan ... fair enough ... to an extent ...



I'm quite happy to accept that I'm guilty of snobbery towards certain types of NRA style US 'Patriot' schtick ...

Of course I am. I fully accept that.

However, it doesn't mean I look down on 'common people' ... far from it.

If you believe that, then you've misunderstood or misjudged my position.

I can see what you're getting at and am not unsympathetic ... and George Orwell is one of my heroes too.

I'd probably part company with him on the rifle leaning against the wall of the shack, though ...

I agree with you on a 'plague on both their houses' thing when it comes to the looney extremes of both left and right ...

And no, simply because I confess to a natural aversion to right-wing US Republican / Libertarian types it doesn't mean I'd overlook shit-arse things that are said or done by those on the US (or UK) left.

I wouldn't want to see these desparadoes bombed or shelled or shot ...

I would like to send them on a 're-education' cruise though, where they are forced to listen to Billy Bragg recordings and have nothing to read but The Guardian ...



But do I have a visceral aversion to certain strands of conservative American 'patriot' - yeah, for sure I do ...

What's wrong with that?

It doesn't mean that I don't think the Colonists didn't have a case back in 1776 or that I blame the brother of one of my ancestors for going AWOL from British land-forces in 1814 for reasons of conscience and settling in Upper New York State ...

Now, I might well have done the same thing were I in his shoes ...

If I'm guilty of snobbery, then I can also be guilty of inverted snobbery ... I can easily lapse into a kind of Aneurin Bevan style South Wales socialist rhetoric against Toffs and Tories ...

And yes, I maintain some sympathy for the kind of cussed Aussie anti-establishment attitudes one sees among some of your countrymen ...

Nor does it mean that I don't have some sympathy with those in the US who - for whatever reason - think the Feds mishandle things or infringe on personal freedoms etc ...

And on both sides of the Pond it's often the white working-class voice that isn't heard ...

All of which is true ... but I've sufficient self-awareness to recognise that I'm not always 'in the middle' when it comes to certain issues - nor that I always live up to my both/and not either/or mantra.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Why some people don't want to refer to them as terrorists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Why some people don't want to refer to them as terrorists.

---

Because they're not terrorists. Sedition maybe. Treason may be. Lots of other bad things maybe. But for once, terrorists, no. They aren't so far as the stories go so far, picking out random unrelated citizens and killing them unpredictably nor blowing up underground trains or airliners, nor flying aeroplanes into public buildings. They don't even appear so far to be blowing up hotels with sleeping politicians in them .

---

quote:

---

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. (dictionary.com)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
How times change. Not so very long ago in our neck of the woods, terrorists were white Irish people. (My mother has an Irish maiden name and in the 70s in Birmingham she used to get a very hard time for it.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
We're obviously seeing different comments and hearing different rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

A leader of the small, armed group that is occupying a remote national wildlife preserve in Oregon said Tuesday [January 5, 2016] they will go home when a plan is in place to turn over management of federal lands to locals.

Ammon Bundy told reporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that ranchers, loggers and farmers should have control of federal land - a common refrain in a decades-long fight over public lands in the West.

"It is our goal to get the logger back to logging, the rancher back to ranching," said the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a high-profile 2014 standoff with the government over grazing rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is about "other". The Irish were more "other" then. And a person of Irish descent born in London looks the same as an English person born in London. Not so for a person of Afro-Caribbean descent. Or Asian, etc.

---

quote:

---

Systematic intimidation as a method of government securing political or other ends

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
We're obviously seeing different comments and hearing different rhetoric.

---

Clearly, but I'm still not seeing anything frightening being said by the Left (though I agree with your Poe comment that there have been parodies etc that have been taken too seriously).

---

quote:

---

The Atlantic article, for example, is mostly about the prevalence of mandatory sentencing and the use of inappropriate legislation in prosecution (eg: anti-terrorism legislation to prosecute someone who sets fires in wilderness areas). Which is something I find frightening. But, from my perspective, that's something associated with the Right rather than Left, with the Left strongly opposed.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you find the Left rhetoric frightening because you think anti-terror laws should be used to prosecute ranchers setting fires.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, it doesn't mean I look down on 'common people' ... far from it.

---

quote:

---

I'd probably part company with him on the rifle leaning against the wall of the shack, though ...

---

quote:

---

I'm not always 'in the middle' when it comes to certain issues

---

quote:

---

A lot of our current over incarceration problems stem from a crime bill proposed by Bill Clinton that passed with bipartisan support. Three strikes and your out laws, zero tolerance policies, broken windows policing: a lot of these were supported by people on the left (US definition).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:

quote:

---

A lot of our current over incarceration problems stem from a crime bill proposed by Bill Clinton that passed with bipartisan support. Three strikes and your out laws, zero tolerance policies, broken windows policing: a lot of these were supported by people on the left (US definition).

---

What's the US definition? (a difficult question surely) It looks like if you're a Democrat, you're considered of the left, and right if Republican.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
My best friend is also absolutely furious about the takeover - but his worry is that these gun freaks will go nuts in the wildlife refuge and shoot anything they see - birds, deer, whatever. They are angry that the reserve was created in the first place; any reports of them harassing or killing wildlife?

---

Of course there are! Because wanting local - rather than federal - control over more land in a state means that you're prone to harassing and killing wildlife! Being a rancher means you couldn't possibly understand the difference between killing for food and killing for sport! Owning and carrying guns makes you a gun nut who is probably two seconds away from shooting up an elementary school, which everybody knows because everybody knows it, and that totally justifies the search warrant and faked evidence that will be used to justify a felony conviction that means anyone who currently has legal guns will now have illegal guns! Because no normal person would believe in self defense or want to own a gun! Because I don't, I just trust the police and big government to handle my problems! The desire to own a gun is proof that the owner isn't mentally fit to own it! Except when it comes to people employed by the state to enforce unjust laws using violence! Then it's normal!

In other news, did you know there's a war on cops? No, really, there is! In spite of the fact that the rate of cops being killed is at an all-time low, there's a war, I tell you, and that completely justifies the more than 1,000 killings of civilians at the hands of police officers! Because people criticized them, and that's basically the equivalent of making a death threat! And then that black man looked at them funny! Criticizing the government (particulary the federal government) is terrorism! Or incitement to terrorism! Or something! Because everything not compulsory is forbidden!




I'm starting to think that Trump can win both the Republican nomination and the general election.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Soror Magna, your friend isn't the only one concerned about their possible mistreatment of the wildlife:

We're Watching You

It is a valid point the author makes, the wildlife refuge belongs to all of us Americans, not to the small group of private individuals Bundy wants to see it given to.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
SaySay, remember that the two men who were the original trigger for this whole thing were convicted of setting the arson in order to cover up poaching.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Nicole--

Though it seems like there may be a lot more to the Hammond case.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is about "other". The Irish were more "other" then. And a person of Irish descent born in London looks the same as an English person born in London. Not so for a person of Afro-Caribbean descent. Or Asian, etc.

---

Sorry, LilBuddha. To put it politely, that's twaddle. Like many other Shipmates, I lived through the period when the Provos were blowing people up. The issue isn't whether they're 'other'. It's whether you, as an ordinary person going about their day to day business, could be suddenly and randomly blown up, shot or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
True story. That's why so many of them came here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
We're obviously seeing different comments and hearing different rhetoric.

---

Clearly, but I'm still not seeing anything frightening being said by the Left (though I agree with your Poe comment that there have been parodies etc that have been taken too seriously).

---

There were so many calls for bombing the shit out of the protesters, not to mention calls for shoot-outs and other tactics that are known to escalate situations and increase the risk of violence and death, that a bunch of writers on the left essentially wrote pieces telling people to chill.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Atlantic article, for example, is mostly about the prevalence of mandatory sentencing and the use of inappropriate legislation in prosecution (eg: anti-terrorism legislation to prosecute someone who sets fires in wilderness areas). Which is something I find frightening. But, from my perspective, that's something associated with the Right rather than Left, with the Left strongly opposed.

---

I know the joke, you know, the one about how someone who is considered to be on the far Left in the US would be considered a right-wing loon in Europe. But you're wrong about the political situation in the US. A lot of our current over incarceration problems stem from a crime bill proposed by Bill Clinton that passed with bipartisan support. Three strikes and your out laws, zero tolerance policies, broken windows policing: a lot of these were supported by people on the left (US definition).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
My best friend is also absolutely furious about the takeover - but his worry is that these gun freaks will go nuts in the wildlife refuge and shoot anything they see - birds, deer, whatever. They are angry that the reserve was created in the first place; any reports of them harassing or killing wildlife?

---

Of course there are! Because wanting local - rather than federal - control over more land in a state means that you're prone to harassing and killing wildlife! Being a rancher means you couldn't possibly understand the difference between killing for food and killing for sport!

---

quote:

---

Owning and carrying guns makes you a gun nut who is probably two seconds away from shooting up an elementary school, which everybody knows because everybody knows it,

---

quote:

---

and that totally justifies the search warrant and faked evidence that will be used to justify a felony conviction that means anyone who currently has legal guns will now have illegal guns!

---

quote:

---

Because no normal person would believe in self defense or want to own a gun! Because I don't, I just trust the police and big government to handle my problems! The desire to own a gun is proof that the owner isn't mentally fit to own it! Except when it comes to people employed by the state to enforce unjust laws using violence! Then it's normal!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:

quote:

---

A lot of our current over incarceration problems stem from a crime bill proposed by Bill Clinton that passed with bipartisan support. Three strikes and your out laws, zero tolerance policies, broken windows policing: a lot of these were supported by people on the left (US definition).

---

What's the US definition? (a difficult question surely) It looks like if you're a Democrat, you're considered of the left, and right if Republican.

---

Pretty much. AFAICT if you actually have principles that you try to maintain (apart from saying whatever you need to say to get elected or going along with the herd) you're alternately accused of being a member of the loony left and the delusional right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
SaySay, remember that the two men who were the original trigger for this whole thing were convicted of setting the arson in order to cover up poaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but in this situation is appears that the people who have taken over the federal building do take exception to the federal curtailment of what they see as their "way of life" by restricting their tree logging and hunting activities. And so it seems that the bird/nature reserve is the focus of their anger as it is seen as being the federal government restricting their rights on land it has no right to for an end they don't believe is genuine (ie nature conservation).

Please educate me if any of that is incorrect.

---

quote:

---

OK, this is a different but important point: namely that the group might have a legitimate complaint. It appears that the law enforcement in the area is pretty bad, but this is also related to a lack of funding because nobody wants to pay increased taxes.

Anyway, even if they have a legitimate point, this isn't a justification for taking over a state building with guns. If that was seen as acceptable, that'd be a pretty stupid precedent to give, wouldn't it?

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't you say there is a qualitative difference between a state organised paramilitary force, overseen by checks and balances - and every idiot enforcing their own laws with their own guns? Even where the former is bad, it must be better than the latter, mustn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
There are two major political parties in the US. One is right-wing and the other one is very right-wing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
There are two major political parties in the US. One is right-wing and the other one is very right-wing.

---

Not sure that's accurate, actually. I'd describe the official position of the Democrats to be Center to Center Right, and the GOP to be Right. Both parties have large sections that are further left and right, respectively, but are not the bulk of the party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I heard on the radio that even Homeland Security had previously warned that the BLM's rough treatment of ranchers could lead to serious trouble.

So that may lend some credence to the Hammonds' story. And, perhaps, the Bundys'.

---

I find this very hard to believe. Can you find a source for this?

Recent news reports I've heard have suggested that the DHS has been neglecting right-wing militia activity because of political pressure, and that the Bundys et al have been emboldened by their soft treatment by the BLM.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Dave W.--

Apologies. I had it part right, and misheard the rest. I should've double-checked before posting.


What I heard was on NPR's "Weekend Edition--Saturday" (January 9, 2016). There's a transcript, and also audio.

quote:

---

SIEGLER: Smith is the only one making this assertion. A 2014 report by the Department of Homeland Security warned that the BLM's inaction would lead to more armed confrontations like we've seen this past week, not to mention several previous ones in Oregon, Montana and Utah. On Bundy, the BLM continues to say only that the agency is pursuing justice.

---

If Homeland Security wants BLM to do *worse* stuff than they've already (allegedly) been doing, then .

I also did a Web search on "blm homeland security ranchers report". Just skimming down the hits and noticing the website names, you can see that the situation is just reinforcing their narratives.
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
"Worse stuff"? What horrible things do you think the BLM has been doing, apart from trying to collect 20 years' worth of unpaid grazing fees?

The DHS report (Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat to Government Officials and Law Enforcement) says that the militia extremists' perceived victory in the Bunkerville standoff will probably embolden them and others to "actively confront law enforcement officials, increasing the likelihood of violence."
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Saysay talked about giving the land *back* to the ranchers. When did they have it, and when did the big bad Gov't steal it? I mean from ranchers, not from Indians.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re worse stuff:

Note I did say "allegedly". There've been various links. This one, admittedly from a hard-core conservative site, gave me pause. If there's any truth to what it says about BLM's treatment of the Hammonds, then, as I said earlier, I feel sorry for them, and a big-deal lawyer should take their case. I don't know if there's any truth to it. The article does have links sites that are maybe more mainstream or centrist.

I hope the BLM didn't do what's alleged. OTOH, the Feds (of various agencies) have a long history of misbehavior, prejudice, etc. Maybe 15 years ago or so, there was a lot of news about the Farm Bureau (?) not treating black farmers fairly, over a long stretch of time, IIRC.

Re MT's question:

Wikipedia's BLM is a good place to start for a basic history, though it doesn't get much into controversies.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I think this is probably a tangent, but is it entirely wholesome that the government should own such huge areas of land, or that vast areas of the western USA should be farmed by government peons? Or am I looking at the map through my Western European assumptions of what a landscape does. Are most of those areas actually useless desert? And when people are talking about logging, is this managed forest or self regenerating natural woodland? And either way, what are cattle doing grazing in it anyway?

The map I'm referring to is the one in this article that was linked earlier.

And as a matter of further constitutional curiosity, why is this vast land ownership a federal rather than a state or county land holding? If there's rent to be earned from it, wouldn't logic suggest it should go to a tier of government a bit nearer the citizens?

[ 11. January 2016, 09:53: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re worse stuff:

Note I did say "allegedly". There've been various links. This one, admittedly from a hard-core conservative site, gave me pause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I think this is probably a tangent, but is it entirely wholesome that the government should own such huge areas of land, or that vast areas of the western USA should be farmed by government peons? Or am I looking at the map through my Western European assumptions of what a landscape does. Are most of those areas actually useless desert? And when people are talking about logging, is this managed forest or self regenerating natural woodland? And either way, what are cattle doing grazing in it anyway?

The map I'm referring to is the one in this article that was linked earlier.

And as a matter of further constitutional curiosity, why is this vast land ownership a federal rather than a state or county land holding? If there's rent to be earned from it, wouldn't logic suggest it should go to a tier of government a bit nearer the citizens?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
They took over an unused federal building. Unlike Black Lives Matter protesters or any of the Occupy movements, they don't seem to be attempting to significantly disrupt the government or economy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I know it likely seems crazy to people who aren't used to seeing rural folks with open or concealed carry permits, but the fact that they have guns and have been completely up front about that fact does not in itself make them terrorists. The fact that the police have not gone in with guns blazing does not mean that they are going to get away with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I'm not sure exactly what federal charges they'll face, but they will face them.

<snip>

I haven't seen any indication that they don't know that their actions will require them to accept certain consequences.

---

quote:

---

Ammon Bundy spoke outside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, where he and others have been holed up since the weekend.

"There is a time to go home. We recognize that. We don't feel it's quite time yet," he said.

"We feel like we need to make sure that the Hammonds are out of prison, or well on their way. We need to make sure that there is some teeth in these land transfers, and also that those who have committed crimes ... those are exposed as well."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Under what legal theory is "no one was home when I broke in" a relevant mitigating factor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Under what legal theory is "no one was home when I broke in" a relevant mitigating factor?

---

All of them?

Burglars who break into houses containing people, terrorizing the occupants, are always treated more harshly than burglars who break into empty houses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet housebreaking is still a crime!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re worse stuff:

Note I did say "allegedly". There've been various links. This one, admittedly from a hard-core conservative site, gave me pause.

---

None of this has anything at all to do with the 2014 DHS report. However sympathetic you may be to claims posted on right-wing websites, it certainly isn't the case that "even Homeland Security had previously warned that the BLM's rough treatment of ranchers could lead to serious trouble."

---

quote:

---

Dave W.--

Apologies. I had it part right, and misheard the rest. I should've double-checked before posting.
[Hot and Hormonal]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Saysay talked about giving the land *back* to the ranchers. When did they have it, and when did the big bad Gov't steal it? I mean from ranchers, not from Indians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that the whole reason the facility invaders have guns is to forestall the obvious consequences of their actions, like getting arrested (guns blazing optional).

---

quote:

---

You may not have seen it, but statements like this don't sound like someone willing to "accept certain consequences":

quote:

---

Ammon Bundy spoke outside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, where he and others have been holed up since the weekend.

"There is a time to go home. We recognize that. We don't feel it's quite time yet," he said.

"We feel like we need to make sure that the Hammonds are out of prison, or well on their way. We need to make sure that there is some teeth in these land transfers, and also that those who have committed crimes ... those are exposed as well."

---

So Mr. Bundy is apparently under the impression that he can simply decide to "go home" any time he likes, free of any consequence. He also seems confident that his armed action can force "these land transfers" and, most hilariously, seems to not include himself or his co-conspirators among "those who have committed crimes".

---

quote:

---

Late Tuesday, Bundy said he's been told the FBI has obtained five arrest warrants and planned to raid the property, an allegation federal or local law enforcement did not confirm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The ranchers want a state level control because they think they will have more sway with local politicians.

---

quote:

---

It is about the powerful wanting control.

---

quote:

---

It isn't about the people v. the government.

---

According to this survey, 58% of people are afraid or very afraid of corruption in government officials. I'd bet the other 42% simply haven't encountered a government worker with a personal grudge or, you know, an erection or something.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that the whole reason the facility invaders have guns is to forestall the obvious consequences of their actions, like getting arrested (guns blazing optional).

---

And what makes you so sure of this? The awesome psychic powers that came with your totalitarian, illiberal left card? They've voluntarily met with the sheriff, which seems odd behavior for people who are trying to avoid getting arrested rather than shot in another Waco-like disaster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The ranchers want a state level control because they think they will have more sway with local politicians.

---

So people living in a democracy want to have influence with the people who not only make the decisions but also live in the communities where the effects of their decisions will be felt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I can't decide whether I should might make it my goal to get busted for tubular vermicelli or spelling syrup wrong).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The basic premise behind such actions is that the militants will not leave the facility until their demands are met (which is true in this case)

---

quote:

---

and will resist any attempts to remove them.

---

quote:

---

Given the means at their disposal include firearms, a key feature of the militants' plan, it does not seem unreasonable to assume resistance includes a potential armed confrontation with law enforcement.

---

quote:

---

(For anyone who doesn't think arson of public lands is a serious issue in the American west, I refer you to last year's wildfires.)

---

quote:

---

Militias trying to enforce their will at gunpoint isn't democracy, it's a form of warlordism. And in what sense does a militant group from Nevada "live in the communities [i.e. Harney County, Oregon] where the effects of their decisions will be felt"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are you arguing that there shouldn't be laws governing food labelling? 'Cause there are a whole bunch of laws that seem stupidly detailed, but are actually there for a reason.

---

quote:

---

These laws are what makes those words useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
If you're a large corporation doing business in multiple states and/or internationally, that may be the case.

If you're a small local business following applicable food labeling laws in your state, the federal laws are worse than useless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by saysay:
Can you convince me that having the same food labelling laws in Mississippi and Maryland is a bad idea?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave W.--

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re worse stuff:

Note I did say "allegedly". There've been various links. This one, admittedly from a hard-core conservative site, gave me pause.

---

None of this has anything at all to do with the 2014 DHS report. However sympathetic you may be to claims posted on right-wing websites, it certainly isn't the case that "even Homeland Security had previously warned that the BLM's rough treatment of ranchers could lead to serious trouble."

---

Errr...did you miss my post, just after the one where you asked for a source?

quote:

---

Dave W.--

Apologies. I had it part right, and misheard the rest. I should've double-checked before posting.
[Hot and Hormonal]

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Having the same food labeling laws in Maryland and Mississippi doesn't do most people much good, since we can't understand a damn thing the label is trying to tell us anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, God only knows what "calories from fat" means. It's not like they can, I dunno, measure grams of fat and then multiply them by the number of calories in a gram of fat. I mean, who can follow THAT logic? Sheesh, they expect you to be a fucking genius just to eat your canned chili.

---

So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care? Particularly to people who are don't know these things but are trying to sell their pickles (made from their grandmother's recipe) to their neighbors? And who don't have a chem lab in their basement?

I think I'll pop some low-fat popcorn (healthy, I've been told, as long as one doesn't add butter or salt). The coming Trump presidency and civil war will likely be at least somewhat entertaining as long as one thinks of it as a movie rather than something that harms real people.
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, God only knows what "calories from fat" means. It's not like they can, I dunno, measure grams of fat and then multiply them by the number of calories in a gram of fat. I mean, who can follow THAT logic? Sheesh, they expect you to be a fucking genius just to eat your canned chili.

---

So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care? Particularly to people who are don't know these things but are trying to sell their pickles (made from their grandmother's recipe) to their neighbors? And who don't have a chem lab in their basement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

I know, in theory, that's what the federal government does (it allows for representatives of different states to come together and create precisely those sorts of laws).

In practice, the federal government consists of a small group of elites in Washington who are dependent on the money coming from huge corporations imposing laws the people don't (and sometimes can't) understand on an increasingly unwilling populace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care?

---

quote:

---

Particularly to people who are don't know these things but are trying to sell their pickles (made from their grandmother's recipe) to their neighbors? And who don't have a chem lab in their basement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The basic premise behind such actions is that the militants will not leave the facility until their demands are met (which is true in this case) and will resist any attempts to remove them.

---

Where the hell do you get that? Do you not understand that this country has a long history of civil disobedience in which protesters refused to leave a space they were occupying until the police (frequently, but not always, peacefully) removed them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
(For anyone who doesn't think arson of public lands is a serious issue in the American west, I refer you to last year's wildfires.)

---

OMG! There were lots of wildfires! Which frequently happen in the wilderness anyway because the land is dry and lightening strikes (which is something people sometimes try to prevent with controlled burns). And they might be even more likely to happen after an extended drought! But this is somehow proof that a bunch of humans committed a bunch of crimes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are you arguing that there shouldn't be laws governing food labelling? 'Cause there are a whole bunch of laws that seem stupidly detailed, but are actually there for a reason.

---

No, I wasn't arguing that there shouldn't be any laws governing food labeling. I was trying to make something of a light-hearted comment about what I think is a serious issue and an increasing threat to free speech in the US (the serious argument part being summarized by the first link).

My imagined conversation between two prisoners (what are you in for? Murder, you? Oh, I [labeled rat feces as 'peanut butter', killing 9 and sickening hundreds]) strikes me as funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
So you have two units of measurement in the metric system (which hasn't been accepted by much of America and which isn't taught in many schools) that people are supposed to multiply in order to determine some arbitrary number (calories from fat), which means what exactly to people who neither have access to decent health education nor health care?

---

The Calorie is not usefully "in the metric system." It's not the SI unit for energy - that would be the Joule (and you'll find that the European version of the label you claim not to
understand quotes energy content in both Calories and kiloJoules.

Would you prefer a nutrition label that quoted the calorific content of your chocolate bar in BTU? Or perhaps in foot-pounds? (If it helps, there's nearly 4 BTU to the Calorie, or more than 3000 foot-pounds. Is that suitably un-metric for you?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I've asked this before on other threads. Is it possible to have a concept of peaceful protest if both the public and the police are free to carry guns?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't see why not. We have the concept of a peaceful protest when both the public and the police are free to carry fists. It becomes non-peaceful if those fists are used to punch people, or to threaten to punch people.

I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Hand are by their nature a different kind of thing to guns. Guns just are threatening, that is one of the purposes of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Similarly, if you lived in a place where everyone routinely carried a pistol on his or her hip, I think you'd consider the presence of the guns as normal, and not threatening.

---

quote:

---

It's the fact that it's uncommon to carry a gun that makes you look at a person with a gun and think "why does he have that? What's he going to do? Is he going to shoot me?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
people carrying guns are always threatening to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree that a person out shooting duck or rabbits with a gun isn't threatening. But a person demonstrating, waving placards about and shouting or doing anything else potentially aggressive, who is also carrying a gun, is.

---

quote:

---

cliffdweller: You see someone swinging a machete-- if you're in the middle of a field of sugar cane, you think nothing of it. If you're in the middle of a preschool classroom, you're going to be concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But in both cases, you keep your distance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it does mean there are reasons to be concerned and to take extra precautions/ watch carefully when someone is brandishing a deadly weapon in a situation where such weaponry is not really called for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't see how one can have a peaceful demonstration if the people demonstrating either might have firearms conceded on them, or are visibly carrying them.

---

quote:

---

“We’ve already had to speak to the police, they’ve already come and delivered code to us,” said Short, explaining what happened when the code enforcers showed up. “But, after shaking hands with them, they realized we’re all armed – and we’re gonna do what we’re gonna do because it’s not an immoral thing that we are doing.”

---

quote:

---

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 gone 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 Finicum, a member of the occupying group’s security team, accidentally led OPB into the area.

Finicum 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 Finicum 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.

---

quote:

---

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.”

---

quote:

---

Concerns about employee safety ratcheted up after several employees reported what were described as “uncomfortable incidences” in which unknown individuals from outside the Burns community have driven slowly past or idled in front of their homes, observing the residents and their activities.

Additionally, several employees told officials they have been confronted by self-identified militia members while the employees were grocery shopping, running errands and just trying to lead their day-to-day lives.

Some of these confrontations have occurred while employees were with their families.

“While not direct physical threats, these activities are clearly designed to intimidate,” Nagel told KOIN 6 News.

---

quote:

---

A self-proclaimed "U.S. Superior Court judge" who has been involved in past property rights protests in other states arrived Tuesday in Burns with plans to convene an extra-legal "citizens grand jury" that he said will review evidence that public officials may have committed crimes.

Bruce Doucette, a 54-year-old owner of a computer design and repair shop in suburban Denver, told The Oregonian/OregonLive, that he made the trip at the request of Harney County residents. He said he met with the armed occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to hear their evidence, which he called "significant," that government officials have committed crimes.

But he declined to say which officials or which crimes they discussed and said a privately appointed "grand jury" of Harney County residents, not he as a self-appointed judge, would decide whether to charge anyone with a crime.

"The grand jury will convene in private and make its decisions in private," Doucette said. "The role of a superior court judge is not very glorified. All we do is write up" what the local citizens decide, he said.

<snip>

Bundy, in a "redress of grievance" to Harney County and Oregon leaders that he posted last month, said evidence of government officials' crimes should be heard and decided in public by a hearing board of Harney residents.

Doucette, by contrast, said 25 local residents would hear testimony and make decisions in private. But both said the conclusions would be put in writing and made public.

There is no evidence to date that a legal determination by a self-styled judge associated with the sovereign citizen movement would have any effect, other than to excite people already allied with that fringe view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
On some days, I am absolutely convinced that the entire population of the USA consists of descendants of people who couldn't get along with anybody in their country of origin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Holstered, unholstered makes no difference.

---

quote:

---

If you are asking me whether I'd rather live in a country where guns can be bought and worn without restriction or one where they're rare, checked and used by police in a handful of situations, then the latter, obviously.

---

No, that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking you to consider how you would feel about seeing a man with a gun on his hip if you lived in a hypothetical, counterfactual place where everyone routinely carried a gun. I'm not asking how mr cheesy, as he exists, would feel if he were magically dropped in to Guntown, but how mr cheesy would feel if he had been brought up and lived in such a place. (Assuming also that Guntown is just one small part of Gunland - everyone carries guns everywhere you go.)


PS. Crœsos: Lights are measured in lumens
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Holstered, unholstered makes no difference.

---

You are equally scared by a man pointing a gun and a man with a holstered gun? I find that surprising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm asking you to consider how you would feel about seeing a man with a gun on his hip if you lived in a hypothetical, counterfactual place where everyone routinely carried a gun. I'm not asking how mr cheesy, as he exists, would feel if he were magically dropped in to Guntown, but how mr cheesy would feel if he had been brought up and lived in such a place. (Assuming also that Guntown is just one small part of Gunland - everyone carries guns everywhere you go.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You are incapable of distinguishing between a man with an unholstered gun and a man pointing a gun?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You are equally scared by a man pointing a gun and a man with a holstered gun? I find that surprising.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you are asking me whether I'd rather live in a country where guns can be bought and worn without restriction or one where they're rare, checked and used by police in a handful of situations, then the latter, obviously.

---

No, that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking you to consider how you would feel about seeing a man with a gun on his hip if you lived in a hypothetical, counterfactual place where everyone routinely carried a gun. I'm not asking how mr cheesy, as he exists, would feel if he were magically dropped in to Guntown, but how mr cheesy would feel if he had been brought up and lived in such a place. (Assuming also that Guntown is just one small part of Gunland - everyone carries guns everywhere you go.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And yes, guns are much more deadly than fists, and have a much longer range, but nevertheless I move into the range of people's fists a large number of times each day without the slightest fear that any of them might hit me. Because people don't, as a rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Having a weapon on the hip of random people is never normal. Ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You are incapable of distinguishing between a man with an unholstered gun and a man pointing a gun?

---

The two examples I gave were a man with a gun in a holster, and a man with a gun in his hands, held at the ready.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Perhaps it's also partly because you also realize (at least subconsciously) that hands have a thousand and one other uses, and that leaving them safely locked up in a hand cabinet at home is rarely practical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I was mugged a couple of times. Mostly, the thief would show that he had a weapon in his waste band, not point it at me. It was still frightening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.

---

It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And that's also the difference I find between holstered and unholstered. If I'm talking to a cop (the only people allowed to carry openly around here) and his gun is in his holster, I don't feel worried. He doesn't have any intent to use his gun.

If, on the other hand, his gun was in his hand, I'd be nervous, because he's now showing intent to use it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.

---

It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.

---

Indeed. Has there every been a drive-by punching?
Or considering other Clue™ weapons, has there ever been a drive by candle-sticking, lead-piping or wrenching?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
So why exactly does everyone in Gunland carry a gun all the time?

---

quote:

---

The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to “institutionalize obedience.” At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you are in a restaurant, you get up and leave. Sorry about that bar bill, but the presence of guns makes it too dangerous for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My one and only run in with US law enforcement (I'm not sure if technically the men tasked with security of US national labs are cops, but it certainly felt like they were cops) the gun remained holstered. As one cop walked towards me with his hand resting on his gun, and his partner sat in the patrol car next to what looked like a shot gun, I felt extremely nervous. But, it was the first real gun I had ever seen (except behind glass in museums).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
So why exactly does everyone in Gunland carry a gun all the time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's the fact that it's uncommon to carry a gun that makes you look at a person with a gun and think "why does he have that? What's he going to do? Is he going to shoot me?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.

---

It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Perhaps it's also partly because you also realize (at least subconsciously) that hands have a thousand and one other uses, and that leaving them safely locked up in a hand cabinet at home is rarely practical.

---

I don't think so. Like I said, I no longer pay attention to the fact that the police officer has a gun on his belt, because I've now met enough US police officers to have internalized the idea that they're unlikely to pull out their guns and shoot me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
saysay:
I don't believe you live in a place where everyone carries a gun all the time, any more than I believe that most American legal documents are in Latin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.

---

It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.

---

True, but a guy with a pocket knife actually has a better chance taking on a guy with a holstered pistol 20 feet away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
saysay:
I don't believe you live in a place where everyone carries a gun all the time, any more than I believe that most American legal documents are in Latin.

---

Well of course I don't live in a place where everyone carries a gun all the time.

---

quote:

---

My bad for picking up on a strand in the conversation after LC had acknowledged that such a place was hypothetical and counterfactual.

---

quote:

---

(And more generally for ever trying to talk to a 'progressive' without having my position deliberately misrepresented).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

And neither of these is particularly informative about what it would be like to live in a place where everyone wears a gun all the time, since you still haven't given any reason why they would do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose, in my counterfactual Gunland, I'm imagining people carrying guns more as a matter of principle or symbolism than because they expect to have to use them.

I think the word for a place where everyone expects to have to draw a gun on a daily basis is "battlefield".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The world is a scary place, and the only way to be safe in the big bad world is to have a gun always at the ready. Because with a gun you can prevent bad things from happening to yourself and those you love. They don't expect to have to draw it today, but if they do, by God, it's ready.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
There are those in this thread who have accused others of committing felonies for exercising their second amendment rights by asserting that guns are inherently threatening and those possessing them are engaged in terroristic threatening by wearing them in what is not a particularly unusual way in the US. Who have been arguing that a promise of self-defense is equivalent to an active threat.

That will not stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I was mugged a couple of times. Mostly, the thief would show that he had a weapon in his waste band, not point it at me. It was still frightening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

And neither of these is particularly informative about what it would be like to live in a place where everyone wears a gun all the time, since you still haven't given any reason why they would do so.

---

I suppose, in my counterfactual Gunland, I'm imagining people carrying guns more as a matter of principle or symbolism than because they expect to have to use them.

---

quote:

---

I think the word for a place where everyone expects to have to draw a gun on a daily basis is "battlefield".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose it's a question of whether you think the mere presence of a gun is threatening.

---

It's a hell of a lot harder to draw a fist and kill someone 100 yards away than to draw a gun and kill someone 100 yards away. There really is no comparison. Or at best, a very, very stupid one.

---

True, but a guy with a pocket knife actually has a better chance taking on a guy with a holstered pistol 20 feet away.

---

I'm failing to see your point here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suppose, in my counterfactual Gunland, I'm imagining people carrying guns more as a matter of principle or symbolism than because they expect to have to use them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The authorities have actually arrested one of the protestors!

---

quote:

---

The appellate ruling said there was "evidence that Medenbach had attempted to protect his forest campsite with fifty to a hundred pounds of the explosive ammonium sulfate, a pellet gun, and what appeared to be a hand grenade with trip wires. The government also proffered evidence that Medenbach had warned Forest Service officers of potential armed resistance to the federal government's continued control of the forest lands in question."

---

To protect a forest campsite?



The meanings of 'defence' and 'protection' have become completely mangled.

More weapons = less safety, every time. imo
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Meanwhile, law enforcement has finally decided to enforce some laws.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that the whole reason the facility invaders have guns is to forestall the obvious consequences of their actions, like getting arrested (guns blazing optional).

---

And what makes you so sure of this? The awesome psychic powers that came with your totalitarian, illiberal left card?

---

quote:

---

Sean Anderson, one of the occupiers who remains, told CNN he is there with his wife and two others.

There had been five people still in the refuge, but one man left Thursday morning. One of the others inside the refuge drove the man to a checkpoint and dropped him off, Anderson said.

The four have a proposal to leave peacefully but are not afraid to die, Anderson said.

They want the FBI to let them walk away and return to their home states without being arrested or confronted, Anderson said.

"We are willing to leave peacefully," he said. "If the FBI will let us leave without arrest or forcing us through the checkpoint, we will all go home."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At the very minimum, I think they should receive a large bill for all the damage they caused. Followed by liens, when they don't pay.

---

quote:

---

Originally quoted by Crœsos:
They want the FBI to let them walk away and return to their home states without being arrested or confronted, Anderson said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At the very minimum, I think they should receive a large bill for all the damage they caused. Followed by liens, when they don't pay.

---

Oh, they will, plus criminal charges. The eight picked up the other day have had an arraignment at the federal courthouse in Portland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The feds could always let them go, and then get a warrant and pick them up at home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course they do. As do most criminals, I should think. "Just let me go free and we'll call it even." Now THERE is a compromise, for some twisted and unrecognizeable definition of "compromise."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The easiest way for people to avoid dying in this situation is to not resist arrest.

For fuck's sake.

And yes, I know, the USA has a fair bit of recent history of people dying while being arrested, but the risks for whites is low...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
... I know of the proposed Monument in Melheur county that the rancher is talking about. I have been though that area a number of times. The proposed monument will be larger than Yellowstone National Park. It is called the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument. It is intended to protect the Redband Bull Trout and 500 significant archaeological sites. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Mousetrap

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
These ranchers graze their animals on public land because their operations are not sustainable in the long term, and not profitable without what is effectively a huge subsidy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
These ranchers graze their animals on public land because their operations are not sustainable in the long term, and not profitable without what is effectively a huge subsidy.

---

In many locations it is essential to have herds of grazers to maintain the environment. Originally they would have been bison, but since the herds of bison have been obliterated then an alternative grazer is needed. Cattle are probably the best option. It is not unreasonable that the management of these environments therefore provides a subsidy to those who are effectively part of the land management.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
My apologies, Mousethief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But in the scenario you describe, the cattle/ranchers are there to serve the federal reserve-- not the other way 'round. They may profit from the arrangement, but that is not the purpose of the arrangement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]In many locations it is essential to have herds of grazers to maintain the environment. Originally they would have been bison, but since the herds of bison have been obliterated then an alternative grazer is needed. Cattle are probably the best option. It is not unreasonable that the management of these environments therefore provides a subsidy to those who are effectively part of the land management.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]In many locations it is essential to have herds of grazers to maintain the environment. Originally they would have been bison, but since the herds of bison have been obliterated then an alternative grazer is needed. Cattle are probably the best option. It is not unreasonable that the management of these environments therefore provides a subsidy to those who are effectively part of the land management.

---

But that is not what the takeover was about. Not in any way, shape or form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It would seem the remaining four in the refuge have asked for Franklin Graham to be a negotiator with the FBI!! (3:32 onwards on the audio)

---

There's a good idea. Will he bring his own gun?
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It would seem the remaining four in the refuge have asked for Franklin Graham to be a negotiator with the FBI!! (3:32 onwards on the audio)

---

There's a good idea. Will he bring his own gun?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Gees. Sometimes it's dang hard being an evangelical, given who else is on the bus.

---

quote:

---

Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who touched off one armed showdown with federal authorities and applauded another started in Oregon by his sons, was arrested late Wednesday at Portland International Airport and faces federal charges related to the 2014 standoff at his ranch.

Bundy, 74, was booked into the downtown Multnomah County jail at 10:54 p.m.

He faces a conspiracy charge to interfere with a federal officer -- the same charge lodged against two of his sons, Ammon and Ryan, for their role in the Jan. 2 takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns. He also faces weapons charges.

<snip>

The Bundy patriarch had traveled to Portland with plans to go on to Burns, where four occupiers had been the remaining holdouts of the refuge occupation.

---

quote:

---

Alan Cresswell: Makes sense arresting him at an airport, one of the few places he wouldn't be able to take a gun.

---

You'd be surprised how many people do.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You can take a gun, but not a bottle of water. Makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I think his point was that people TRY to bring them through security, being idiots. Not that they are allowed.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Three have now surrendered, with only David Fry insisting he'll "die a free man."
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A pizza, delivered by the Domino's delivery guy but with sleeping pills ground into the sauce and baked in. Beer -- surely it is possible to adulterate beer in the can, especially if you get the canner to cooperate. People like this will always eat beer and pizza.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Three have now surrendered, with only David Fry insisting he'll "die a free man."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think this calls for this one?

---

 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What a bunch of assholes. Booby traps, what next.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Three have now surrendered, with only David Fry insisting he'll "die a free man."

---

He didn't die, and he's no longer a free man.

---

In some ways he never was.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A good sum-up.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
And the cherry on top:

Volcanic spires and Joshua trees: Obama protects 1.8 million acres in California's desert

Tarp Guy is rolling in his grave.

 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Just a bit of an update on the Melhauer Refuge incident..

24 people have now been arrested as a consequence what happened. 12 of the top leaders remain in federal custody in Portland Oregon.

The Refuge has now been returned to BLM managers after the FBI, ATC, and Bureau of Indian Affairs as well as local law authorities completed their investigations.

But this is really not over by a long run. There are almost weekly protest demonstrations in Portand supporting the insurgents and there are weekly counter demonstrations condemning what they allegedly did.

Not to be outdone, the Republican controlled US House of Representatives are considering three bills which would divest all federal properties, giving control of them to the states.

Every so often other refuges have briefly shot down when they receive information that they are about to be seized by a militia group. It just happened at another refuge less than an hour to the north of where I live

Teddy Roosevelt--and other conservationistsA-are rolling in their graves Actually, spinning is more like it
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0