Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
PlasmaDogPlasma

Oregon Militia Takeover - Ammon Bundy arrested

Recommended Posts

Damn... NCCommish is usually a pretty level headed dude, but he's sorta off his rocker in this thread :unsure:

You are ignoring years of criminal activity and killings laid at the feet of the militia movement. Including the murder of police officers. While the country wets themselves over refugees they ignore the danger next door. It's real and I am not off my rocker to point it out. Perhaps those ignoring it are the ones with a rocker problem.
I don't think civil rights era killings of police officers should be laid at the feet of the BLM movement, nor do I see why the actions of previous federal government protests should be laid at the feet of these people.

This is a peaceful protest right now. It's certainly illegal, but so are a lot of other peaceful protests. Until that changes I don't see why it should be treated as anything different.

Yes all peaceful protests include threats to kill federal law enforcement and proclamations of being willing to die at the hands of those officials to spark a civil war. Just like Gandhi these guys.

They said they would defend themselves if attacked. Until that happens it's peaceful. I walk by protests every week. The crap people say is pretty outrageous. It doesn't mean they are going to follow through.

It's possible it won't end peacefully, but I don't see any reason to believe that right now.

Yeah, I mean just because they brought a bunch of guns and said they will use them if anyone tried to remove them from federal property shouldn't lead anyone to believe it won't end peacefully.... :crazy:

If they wanted to have a peaceful protest, they would've left their guns at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn... NCCommish is usually a pretty level headed dude, but he's sorta off his rocker in this thread :unsure:

You are ignoring years of criminal activity and killings laid at the feet of the militia movement. Including the murder of police officers. While the country wets themselves over refugees they ignore the danger next door. It's real and I am not off my rocker to point it out. Perhaps those ignoring it are the ones with a rocker problem.
I don't think civil rights era killings of police officers should be laid at the feet of the BLM movement, nor do I see why the actions of previous federal government protests should be laid at the feet of these people.

This is a peaceful protest right now. It's certainly illegal, but so are a lot of other peaceful protests. Until that changes I don't see why it should be treated as anything different.

Yes all peaceful protests include threats to kill federal law enforcement and proclamations of being willing to die at the hands of those officials to spark a civil war. Just like Gandhi these guys.
They said they would defend themselves if attacked. Until that happens it's peaceful. I walk by protests every week. The crap people say is pretty outrageous. It doesn't mean they are going to follow through.

It's possible it won't end peacefully, but I don't see any reason to believe that right now.

Yeah, I mean just because they brought a bunch of guns and said they will use them if anyone tried to remove them from federal property shouldn't lead anyone to believe it won't end peacefully.... :crazy:

If they wanted to have a peaceful protest, they would've left their guns at home.

Nobody has been harmed. That's a lot more than I can say about other recent protests.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which federal firearms charges?

Do we have images/evidence of them taking weapons inside the building? I ask because I genuinely don't know. If it's been posted, I've missed it.

Yes, I am sure these dolts just leave their rifles outside the building when they go in to raid the vending machine or use the can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking over a federal building armed with a gun is most definitely illegal.

Actually it's only illegal, from a firearms perspective, if they take the weapons inside the building (Source : TITLE 18 > PART I CHAPTER 44 § 930) . Otherwise the firearms themselves are of no consequence in this example.

So what you're saying is that what they are doing is in fact illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
Seditious conspiracy

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

and they are doing it with the assistance of firearms, which ups the ante.

I never said it wasn't illegal.

I said the presence of firearms is irrelevant at this point. To my knowledge the weapons were not used in the "taking" of the property... where they fired or used to threaten anyone in the building? Again... I don't claim to be an attorney, so you may be aware of specific laws being violated here.

Re-iterating for the 20th time, I think these guys are idiots for this stunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said they would defend themselves if attacked. Until that happens it's peaceful.

But how do you define "attack"? Some of these guys are looking for any excuse to "defend" themselves. Many of them don't recognize the authority of the federal government, so any attempt to arrest them (or even give them a parking ticket) could be considered to be an attack from their warped worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same can be said for a lot of protests. Some are treating this differently because they don't agree with these people politically. This isn't a "militia" any more than any other group of protesting citizens. They are armed, but that's not illegal. They haven't put anybody in harms way.

I find a lot of the BLM movement a non-issue, but I don't have a problem with their protests. As long as no one gets hurt anyway. We give a lot of slack to protests in general (as I think we should).

Taking over a federal building armed with a gun is most definitely illegal.

There is a HUGE difference between a peaceful protest and what these guys are doing.

If they wanted it to be a "peaceful" protest, they shouldn't have brought guns. And they definitely shouldn't have called for people all over the country to come join them with their guns as well.

Maybe there's another way you can spin this favorably for the militia.

The peaceful protest ended and most people went home. The KooKs stayed and commandeered a building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said they would defend themselves if attacked. Until that happens it's peaceful.

But how do you define "attack"? Some of these guys are looking for any excuse to "defend" themselves. Many of them don't recognize the authority of the federal government, so any attempt to arrest them (or even give them a parking ticket) could be considered to be an attack from their warped worldview.

You are making a lot of assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it i so peaceful i think the local and state authorities should just walk right up there

of course, as with inner city cops if anyone displays a gun in a threatening manner the cops should open fire in self defense

lets see just how peacful this is

Or your previously mentioned drones. Why do you want to see these people killed so badly?

as i said that was a joke

i think these people should be thrown in jail when they finally leave, however.

i want to see them brought to justice, they are domestic terrorists who are attacking our nation. The land they have seized is Federal Land, they have no right to set up an armed perimeter and control it as their own. they have been told to leave and they say they plan to stay there "for years"

Terrorists?

:lmao:

Who are they terrorizing? The local fauna?

you, me everyone in this country

they have seized our land as their own, set up armed sentries to restrict access, and state they will not leave until the federal government ceases to own or control land in their state

sounds like fort Sumter more than Occupy Wall Street

That's a load of horse####. I'm no more threatened by these guys than any other illegal protest. I was more impacted by the BLM protestors who shut the freeway down and tied themselves to mass transit vehicles.

The intent of these protesters is, as stated, to stay there until the federal government is not permitted to own or control land in the state

The only demand they have made is to strip the US government of all land it owns within state borders. I am not sure what you call that if not a threat to our national sovereignty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which federal firearms charges?

Do we have images/evidence of them taking weapons inside the building? I ask because I genuinely don't know. If it's been posted, I've missed it.

Yes, I am sure these dolts just leave their rifles outside the building when they go in to raid the vending machine or use the can

It's cool that you're willing to charge people with crimes based on your hunches and preconceived judgements rather than evidence of said crime.

I'm not quite ready to do that just yet. Different strokes, I guess. :thumbup:

*If BDeep is right and theres a pic of one of these dickmittens with a rifle in some sort of watchtower portion of this structure, then he certainly is guilty as hell.

Edited by [icon]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it i so peaceful i think the local and state authorities should just walk right up there

of course, as with inner city cops if anyone displays a gun in a threatening manner the cops should open fire in self defense

lets see just how peacful this is

Or your previously mentioned drones. Why do you want to see these people killed so badly?

as i said that was a joke

i think these people should be thrown in jail when they finally leave, however.

i want to see them brought to justice, they are domestic terrorists who are attacking our nation. The land they have seized is Federal Land, they have no right to set up an armed perimeter and control it as their own. they have been told to leave and they say they plan to stay there "for years"

Terrorists?

:lmao:

Who are they terrorizing? The local fauna?

you, me everyone in this country

they have seized our land as their own, set up armed sentries to restrict access, and state they will not leave until the federal government ceases to own or control land in their state

sounds like fort Sumter more than Occupy Wall Street

That's a load of horse####. I'm no more threatened by these guys than any other illegal protest. I was more impacted by the BLM protestors who shut the freeway down and tied themselves to mass transit vehicles.

The intent of these protesters is, as stated, to stay there until the federal government is not permitted to own or control land in the state

The only demand they have made is to strip the US government of all land it owns within state borders. I am not sure what you call that if not a threat to our national sovereignty

OWS wanted complete wealth redistribution before they left. Somehow, they ended up leaving anyway.

Most protestors are extreme and make extreme demands. That doesn't mean they are terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sad that many Conservatives seem to be supporting these guys.

Taking over a federal building armed with guns and threatening violence if they are removed.

Doesn't get much more Anti-American than that.

Who is supporting them?

Lots of conservatives over at freerepublic:

"Hope we don't end up with another Branch Davidian massacre or Ruby Ridge assasination."

That won't happen. Other situations in other times. Since the recent Bundy stand-off, the American gun-owning populace will not allow it. The FEDs backed down because of trained snipers on Fedgov snipers and ground forces. It was the biggest win for Constitutional freedom loving folks of our time.

That's all it needs: Bring enough military/hunting trained snipers on site and what is the Fedgov going to do when they attempt to take your last god-given rights? Does anyone really think the National Guard soldier-wannabes really want to die and leave their children fatherless for some socialist political cause? It won't happen.

Keep buying guns and ammunition. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says why. If you don't understand the simplistic phrase in that Amendment, look in the debates, papers, publications, diaries, phrases of our Founding Fathers why every citizen should have the right to defend themselves. IT WAS NOT ABOUT HUNTING, as the liberals like to say. It was about having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government as King George III was imposing on the colonies, plus the right to defend yourself against evil.

Time to turn this Nation back to its original intent. Everyone thinks progress is always the way, but what has more progress done to the most benevolent, charitible, freedom fighting Union of the this rock? It has only decreased the original values that much of the World has copied for decades!

We need to begin again...

Bundy Ranch changed everything. ISIS know the US gov is a paper tiger and a house of cards. So do we.

Media calls these people terrorists, yet you have Black Fecal Lives Matter protesters taking over schools, and calling for cops to be murdered and that is considered Democracy

You looked through all of free republic and found one post supporting these guys? Your second two quotes do not support these guys, they are just making tangential quips Edited by Rove!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have become a people capable of reading any event along partisan political divides. It is amazing to me how we can see our agendas in any scenario.

I have no opinion on the underlying case(s) against the Hammonds. I have found the Hammonds response, thus far, to this matter, to be responsible. I will be interested to see whether they follow through and do in fact surrender themselves to authorities to serve out the remainder of their jail term.

The militia folks, well they are looking, in my opinion, to redress grievances real or imagined. That is dangerous particularly when they have lost the discernment to ascertain the difference.

I find the daughter hot.

I like the looks of the building being occupied.

figures someone on your side would say that

I will need clarification. What side am I on, and say which of the 5 observations I made? I mean, if my side is aging frustrated heteros, obviously I would observe that the young lady is attractive. If my side is admirers of stone work, well then I might enjoy the rustic work in the building.
Hey man. Get with the program. If you don't pick a side, you can't be categorized. If you can't be categorized people from the other side can't make sweeping generalizations about you. If people can't make sweeping generalizations about people they disagree with the entire internet social structure could crumble. Do you want to be responsible for that?

Pick a damn side and stick to it.

Thank you for the perspective. I did not mean to advocate anarchy.

BTW, Fennis is good people. I am certain his clarification will be enlightening. If not enlightening, it will be funny because he is also one of the better wits around here and he may be getting ready to slap me out of my slumber.

Just a failed humor attempt.

FWIW, I was an early supporter in this thread of the Hammonds, but not so much the militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those looking for the Government to get in there and shut these guys down, despite them not actually having damaged anything or hurt anyone yet.....

Did you support Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake's position to let protestors let off steam during the Baltimore Riots, or should the government have responded promptly with a direct confrontation to contain/neutralize the protests like the one used in St Louis?

Honest question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said they would defend themselves if attacked. Until that happens it's peaceful.

But how do you define "attack"? Some of these guys are looking for any excuse to "defend" themselves. Many of them don't recognize the authority of the federal government, so any attempt to arrest them (or even give them a parking ticket) could be considered to be an attack from their warped worldview.

You are making a lot of assumptions.

Their leader has made it clear that he does not recognize the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking over a federal building armed with a gun is most definitely illegal.

Actually it's only illegal, from a firearms perspective, if they take the weapons inside the building (Source : TITLE 18 > PART I CHAPTER 44 § 930) . Otherwise the firearms themselves are of no consequence in this example.

So what you're saying is that what they are doing is in fact illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
Seditious conspiracy

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

and they are doing it with the assistance of firearms, which ups the ante.

I never said it wasn't illegal.

I said the presence of firearms is irrelevant at this point. To my knowledge the weapons were not used in the "taking" of the property... where they fired or used to threaten anyone in the building? Again... I don't claim to be an attorney, so you may be aware of specific laws being violated here.

Re-iterating for the 20th time, I think these guys are idiots for this stunt.

The presence of firearms is irrelevant?

Come on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those looking for the Government to get in there and shut these guys down, despite them not actually having damaged anything or hurt anyone yet.....

Did you support Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake's position to let protestors let off steam during the Baltimore Riots, or should the government have responded promptly with a direct confrontation to contain/neutralize the protests like the one used in St Louis?

Honest question.

I did not speak out against the Mayor, but where damage to persons and property is occurring, that has to be a consideration in determining the best strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using binoculars / monoculars is an act of aggression?

That looks like a bunch of guys walking around smiling. I don't think I saw a single firearm or act of aggression in any of those photos :confused:

Edited by [icon]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those looking for the Government to get in there and shut these guys down, despite them not actually having damaged anything or hurt anyone yet.....

Did you support Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake's position to let protestors let off steam during the Baltimore Riots, or should the government have responded promptly with a direct confrontation to contain/neutralize the protests like the one used in St Louis?

Honest question.

again

there were cops throughout that protest and riot, so it is a different situation

her wanting to let rioters break #### and tear #### up was stupid.

a riot by its nature is different from a planned takeover. The rioters were felons, they should have all been rounded up and thrown in the clink, and the riot should have been put down as quickly as possible.

If THIS situation is, as is being represented, not violent and not a threat of violence, it should also be put down as soon as possible and everyone involved should be charged with any crimes they have committed

how about you?

did you agree with her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have become a people capable of reading any event along partisan political divides. It is amazing to me how we can see our agendas in any scenario.

I have no opinion on the underlying case(s) against the Hammonds. I have found the Hammonds response, thus far, to this matter, to be responsible. I will be interested to see whether they follow through and do in fact surrender themselves to authorities to serve out the remainder of their jail term.

The militia folks, well they are looking, in my opinion, to redress grievances real or imagined. That is dangerous particularly when they have lost the discernment to ascertain the difference.

I find the daughter hot.

I like the looks of the building being occupied.

figures someone on your side would say that

I will need clarification. What side am I on, and say which of the 5 observations I made? I mean, if my side is aging frustrated heteros, obviously I would observe that the young lady is attractive. If my side is admirers of stone work, well then I might enjoy the rustic work in the building.
Hey man. Get with the program. If you don't pick a side, you can't be categorized. If you can't be categorized people from the other side can't make sweeping generalizations about you. If people can't make sweeping generalizations about people they disagree with the entire internet social structure could crumble. Do you want to be responsible for that?

Pick a damn side and stick to it.

Thank you for the perspective. I did not mean to advocate anarchy.

BTW, Fennis is good people. I am certain his clarification will be enlightening. If not enlightening, it will be funny because he is also one of the better wits around here and he may be getting ready to slap me out of my slumber.

Just a failed humor attempt.

FWIW, I was an early supporter in this thread of the Hammonds, but not so much the militia.

It didn't necessarily fail. I was obviously joking as well and DW read it that way.

The Hammonds got screwed by a vindictive prosecutor and that's definitely something to protest.

I'm fine with what these protestors are doing up until someone gets hurt. Nobody is going to be dumb enough to assault the compound so there is plenty of room to end the protest peacefully.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these guys get away with this without opposition, I'm going to take up residence in one of those Forest Ranger houses. I've always wanted a place in the woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have become a people capable of reading any event along partisan political divides. It is amazing to me how we can see our agendas in any scenario.

I have no opinion on the underlying case(s) against the Hammonds. I have found the Hammonds response, thus far, to this matter, to be responsible. I will be interested to see whether they follow through and do in fact surrender themselves to authorities to serve out the remainder of their jail term.

The militia folks, well they are looking, in my opinion, to redress grievances real or imagined. That is dangerous particularly when they have lost the discernment to ascertain the difference.

I find the daughter hot.

I like the looks of the building being occupied.

figures someone on your side would say that

I will need clarification. What side am I on, and say which of the 5 observations I made? I mean, if my side is aging frustrated heteros, obviously I would observe that the young lady is attractive. If my side is admirers of stone work, well then I might enjoy the rustic work in the building.
Hey man. Get with the program. If you don't pick a side, you can't be categorized. If you can't be categorized people from the other side can't make sweeping generalizations about you. If people can't make sweeping generalizations about people they disagree with the entire internet social structure could crumble. Do you want to be responsible for that?

Pick a damn side and stick to it.

Thank you for the perspective. I did not mean to advocate anarchy.

BTW, Fennis is good people. I am certain his clarification will be enlightening. If not enlightening, it will be funny because he is also one of the better wits around here and he may be getting ready to slap me out of my slumber.

Just a failed humor attempt.

FWIW, I was an early supporter in this thread of the Hammonds, but not so much the militia.

It didn't necessarily fail. I was obviously joking as well and DW read it that way.

The Hammonds got screwed by a vindictive prosecutor and that's definitely something to protest.

I'm fine with what these protestors are doing up until someone gets hurt. Nobody is going to be dumb enough to assault the compound so there is plenty of room to end the protest peacefully.

possibly, depends on their motives I guess. The county Sheriff says they are doing this "to overthrow the county and federal government". That doesnt sounds like a peaceful protest to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said they would defend themselves if attacked. Until that happens it's peaceful.

But how do you define "attack"? Some of these guys are looking for any excuse to "defend" themselves. Many of them don't recognize the authority of the federal government, so any attempt to arrest them (or even give them a parking ticket) could be considered to be an attack from their warped worldview.
You are making a lot of assumptions.
Their leader has made it clear that he does not recognize the jurisdiction of the federal government.

So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these guys get away with this without opposition, I'm going to take up residence in one of those Forest Ranger houses. I've always wanted a place in the woods.

What do you want to see happen to these guys? Obama is not exactly a shoot first type guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting BLM.gov document that appears to show significant mineral/mining potential in the area.

Not quite ready to don the :tinfoilhat:, but it is interesting to see the BLM so aggressively pursuing all the property in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting BLM.gov document that appears to show significant mineral/mining potential in the area.

Not quite ready to don the :tinfoilhat:, but it is interesting to see the BLM so aggressively pursuing all the property in the area.

does the federal government operate mines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

That's awesome. I've met people like that in Kentucky when visiting the GF's sister's extended family. Crazy folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these guys get away with this without opposition, I'm going to take up residence in one of those Forest Ranger houses. I've always wanted a place in the woods.

:goodposting:

that would rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol from facebooks

Nanette Senters

please explain why you are so special...why are you so deserving of treatment different from other ranchers in the state? what makes you think that the majority of taxpaying fee paying hardworking american citizens have any sympathy for your plight? of course none of us like it...we all know there is something broken about our system but really? u think you own that land? u do not... we are a blessed people just to live in this great country even with all of its problems... i certainly hope u have some gratitude for all the things you have...look around the world...look around this country at those who have far less and count your blessings...dont hurt anyone you fools

Remove
945483_957623377608111_11615755635751955
Remove
Alexander Striker Yup this are the same ones that don't care for others believes but there own
Remove
11221953_485054194997524_370934638060750
Remove
Koleen Oaktree the ones that are awake stand with them , those that dont , havent a clue as what this is really about ,
3 · 3 hrs
Remove
12108061_1686110904955374_28853744281816
Remove
Miguel Benavides III This isn't about you
1 · 3 hrs
Remove
12243409_143700229321367_574305989393844
Remove
Nanette Senters Koleen... U are one of those lunatics that thinks Obama is coming for your guns and is going to lock us all in FEMA camps if we don't comply all while secretly moving his towel head relatives into the whitehouse to rape our children on Lincoln's bed... I don't think you have been awake for the last decade
3 · 3 hrs

:wub: Nanette Senters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using binoculars / monoculars is an act of aggression?

That looks like a bunch of guys walking around smiling. I don't think I saw a single firearm or act of aggression in any of those photos :confused:

Did you expect them to be screaming and painting their face with war paint or something? What act of aggression would you expect when it is just them there?

And do you honestly think that a militia with an intent to fight this as long as needed is doing it without their guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these guys get away with this without opposition, I'm going to take up residence in one of those Forest Ranger houses. I've always wanted a place in the woods.

What do you want to see happen to these guys? Obama is not exactly a shoot first type guy.

Start with sending some Feds up, knock on the door and tell them they are trespassing and if they don't leave they will be removed by any legal means necessary....Wait a bit and follow through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sad that many Conservatives seem to be supporting these guys.

Taking over a federal building armed with guns and threatening violence if they are removed.

Doesn't get much more Anti-American than that.

Who is supporting them?

Lots of conservatives over at freerepublic:

"Hope we don't end up with another Branch Davidian massacre or Ruby Ridge assasination."

That won't happen. Other situations in other times. Since the recent Bundy stand-off, the American gun-owning populace will not allow it. The FEDs backed down because of trained snipers on Fedgov snipers and ground forces. It was the biggest win for Constitutional freedom loving folks of our time.

That's all it needs: Bring enough military/hunting trained snipers on site and what is the Fedgov going to do when they attempt to take your last god-given rights? Does anyone really think the National Guard soldier-wannabes really want to die and leave their children fatherless for some socialist political cause? It won't happen.

Keep buying guns and ammunition. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says why. If you don't understand the simplistic phrase in that Amendment, look in the debates, papers, publications, diaries, phrases of our Founding Fathers why every citizen should have the right to defend themselves. IT WAS NOT ABOUT HUNTING, as the liberals like to say. It was about having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government as King George III was imposing on the colonies, plus the right to defend yourself against evil.

Time to turn this Nation back to its original intent. Everyone thinks progress is always the way, but what has more progress done to the most benevolent, charitible, freedom fighting Union of the this rock? It has only decreased the original values that much of the World has copied for decades!

We need to begin again...

Bundy Ranch changed everything. ISIS know the US gov is a paper tiger and a house of cards. So do we.

Media calls these people terrorists, yet you have Black Fecal Lives Matter protesters taking over schools, and calling for cops to be murdered and that is considered Democracy

You looked through all of free republic and found one post supporting these guys? Your second two quotes do not support these guys, they are just making tangential quips

I see you conveniently ignored my post about the comments on FoxNews.com

They're sickening. These people think these guys are heroes standing up to Obama's tyrannical federal government.

Utterly clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those looking for the Government to get in there and shut these guys down, despite them not actually having damaged anything or hurt anyone yet.....

Did you support Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake's position to let protestors let off steam during the Baltimore Riots, or should the government have responded promptly with a direct confrontation to contain/neutralize the protests like the one used in St Louis?

Honest question.

again

there were cops throughout that protest and riot, so it is a different situation

her wanting to let rioters break #### and tear #### up was stupid.

a riot by its nature is different from a planned takeover. The rioters were felons, they should have all been rounded up and thrown in the clink, and the riot should have been put down as quickly as possible.

If THIS situation is, as is being represented, not violent and not a threat of violence, it should also be put down as soon as possible and everyone involved should be charged with any crimes they have committed

how about you?

did you agree with her?

I view the riots looting and burning businesses as a greater threat than these guys... for now. Actual violence and damage was occurring there. Right now this is a group of rednecks camping out in a comparatively abandoned building. Not saying it's right or legal. I'm saying tens of thousands of people burning cars/buildings, throwing rocks and shooting at cops, obstructing traffic and causing general mayhem and destruction are a much bigger problem that actually calls for expedited LEO intervention.

I strongly disagree with her stance to "give them space to destroy". She wants to volunteer space, take them all over to her house and hand out kerosene and sledgehammers :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

putting this here (didn't see it posted before). From the Bundy Ranch FB page:

**This is a Call to Action**

Dear Friends,

An update on the Hammond's and Harney County is well overdue. I hope all of you had a wonderful Christmas. I personally enjoyed the sweet spirit of the Lord as I contemplated His birth and what it means to all of us. I love the Lord and know he lives and guides us each day, if we allow Him to.

As most of you are aware I have spent many days in Harney County working with the Hammond’s and the good people of that area. I have gained a great love for them and seen what good people they are. Over the past few decades they have been experiencing a great change in their livelihoods and community dynamics.

Once they were a highly productive people with the highest incomes in the State of Oregon, well above the national average, now they rival as the poorest county in the state. Their average income has dramatically dropped $22,000 under the national average.

Once ranching and logging thrived and produced many jobs and opportunities, these industries were spawning a hopping economy with everybody in the county being the beneficiaries. Harney County's labor force is now at its lowest point since the 1960’s.

As Amy Hsuan from The Oregonian wrote: When times were good, logging trucks and recreational vehicles burned rubber down the pavement, now the roads are starved of vehicles. Shuttered businesses sit on their shoulders. There are no new jobs in sight. An old mill, formerly operated by Louisiana Pacific, sits idle under the weight of it’s collapsing roof. Next door, a giant shed once used by a mineral processor has sat rusting.

"People were leaving and they never came back," says Art Ayre, a state employment economist. Young families with children are becoming a rarity in a county with few family-waged jobs.
Commissioner Grasty keeps a database of kids who've graduated from Burns High School. Every now and again, he'll send them a letter, asking when they will return. He has yet to get a response.

So what happened to Harney County? Since the first pioneers until the 1970’s, the Harney Basin was a high producing area with a robust economy. After gaining almost complete control of the ranches and land user the U.S. Government took on a new approach to land use. They expanded the no use areas putting most of the ranchers and loggers out of business. The ones they allowed to remain, they regulated them to the point that many closed their doors.

As the wonderful Suzie Hammond wrote in 1990, (an article to the people); The grief and heartache caused these families as they were forced out of business or forced to began to build a new operation, will never be fully known. She went on to write; the economic impact was significant, not only to the local communities but also to Harney County as a whole.

Simply put, the federal government has adversely stolen the lands and resources from the people, destroyed thousands of jobs, and the economy of an entire county. Now anyone who has enough guts to stand against them, they annihilate through their own court systems. The Hammonds are a tragic symptom of a gross violation. The U.S. Government has forced the people from their rights and then claimed the people right for their own benefit and power.

The ranching and logging industries were only a start, since then these modern day conqueror’s (federal agencies) have moved onto the housing, banking, auto, manufacturing, financial and the list goes on and on and on. I do not need to say much more, it is time to change the tide before the people become too weak to stand. We are presently at a dividing point in history and must choose how the future of our children and our children’s children will lay out. I and many that stand with me are asking that you come to Harney County, be prepared, and be willing to make a stand.

It is time!

Ammon Bundy

CALL TO ACTION: All able body men and women come to Burns, Oregon on or before January 2nd. Come prepared and be willing to stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using binoculars / monoculars is an act of aggression?

That looks like a bunch of guys walking around smiling. I don't think I saw a single firearm or act of aggression in any of those photos :confused:

Did you expect them to be screaming and painting their face with war paint or something? What act of aggression would you expect when it is just them there?

:lol:

So those pictures don't look peaceful to you, then? Where was my commentary on those photos off base? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than OK with just letting these guys sit out there until they are bored and sick of smelling each other. But the Feds need to cut them off. Right now they are coming and going as they please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do I have to do exactly? Is that place heated? Any good restaurants nearby?

There's a town about 35 miles away.

Do you have a 40 below North Face jacket? Or maybe one of them fancy Canada Goose down jackets? Long underwear might be a good idea.

Don't worry about food, just bring your rifle and a thousand or so rounds of ammo. You can hunt for anything you need. Expect to be there years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go but i'm trying to get the bill run done.

Best way to get there? Fly to Portland and drive 280 miles?

TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sad that many Conservatives seem to be supporting these guys.

Taking over a federal building armed with guns and threatening violence if they are removed.

Doesn't get much more Anti-American than that.

Who is supporting them?

Lots of conservatives over at freerepublic:

"Hope we don't end up with another Branch Davidian massacre or Ruby Ridge assasination."

That won't happen. Other situations in other times. Since the recent Bundy stand-off, the American gun-owning populace will not allow it. The FEDs backed down because of trained snipers on Fedgov snipers and ground forces. It was the biggest win for Constitutional freedom loving folks of our time.

That's all it needs: Bring enough military/hunting trained snipers on site and what is the Fedgov going to do when they attempt to take your last god-given rights? Does anyone really think the National Guard soldier-wannabes really want to die and leave their children fatherless for some socialist political cause? It won't happen.

Keep buying guns and ammunition. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says why. If you don't understand the simplistic phrase in that Amendment, look in the debates, papers, publications, diaries, phrases of our Founding Fathers why every citizen should have the right to defend themselves. IT WAS NOT ABOUT HUNTING, as the liberals like to say. It was about having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government as King George III was imposing on the colonies, plus the right to defend yourself against evil.

Time to turn this Nation back to its original intent. Everyone thinks progress is always the way, but what has more progress done to the most benevolent, charitible, freedom fighting Union of the this rock? It has only decreased the original values that much of the World has copied for decades!

We need to begin again...

Bundy Ranch changed everything. ISIS know the US gov is a paper tiger and a house of cards. So do we.

Media calls these people terrorists, yet you have Black Fecal Lives Matter protesters taking over schools, and calling for cops to be murdered and that is considered Democracy

You looked through all of free republic and found one post supporting these guys? Your second two quotes do not support these guys, they are just making tangential quips

I see you conveniently ignored my post about the comments on FoxNews.com

They're sickening. These people think these guys are heroes standing up to Obama's tyrannical federal government.

Utterly clueless.

The great thing about these people is that they all suddenly feel less oppressed by the government whenever a Republican is in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drove right through there on the way back to CO after seeing the Dead in Eugene. As desolate as anywhere I've been. Think the high desert sw without the beauty, killer elk jerky, or Tuba City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have been fine if no publicity, but now that they are thumbing their noses at the government and we all know it the Feds have to make a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking over a federal building armed with a gun is most definitely illegal.

Actually it's only illegal, from a firearms perspective, if they take the weapons inside the building (Source : TITLE 18 > PART I CHAPTER 44 § 930) . Otherwise the firearms themselves are of no consequence in this example.

So what you're saying is that what they are doing is in fact illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
Seditious conspiracy

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

and they are doing it with the assistance of firearms, which ups the ante.

I never said it wasn't illegal.

I said the presence of firearms is irrelevant at this point. To my knowledge the weapons were not used in the "taking" of the property... where they fired or used to threaten anyone in the building? Again... I don't claim to be an attorney, so you may be aware of specific laws being violated here.

Re-iterating for the 20th time, I think these guys are idiots for this stunt.

So if they aren't using force to " prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof " then it should be no problem for law enforcement officers of the federal, state or local government to just walk up there and arrest them for their alleged crimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update for those that are local or wish to show up & bring supplies:

Needed:

FOIL

HYGIENE NEEDS/SHAMPOO/ ETC..ALL HYGEINE ACCESSORIES

SOAP

LAUNDRY AND DISH SOAP

TOWEL WASH CLOTHS

LOCKS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update for those that are local or wish to show up & bring supplies:

Needed:

FOIL

HYGIENE NEEDS/SHAMPOO/ ETC..ALL HYGEINE ACCESSORIES

SOAP

LAUNDRY AND DISH SOAP

TOWEL WASH CLOTHS

LOCKS

LUBE

RUBBERS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.