OptimusShr posted:

quote:

So, it looks like we get to start the year with an armed showdown in Oregon. Awesome.

If you aren't familiar with the story, here are the nuts and bolts: A group of about 12 or 13 (originally reported as a small army of 150) armed citizens "seized" a building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon to protest the unfair imprisonment of two local ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond. The refuge is a bird sanctuary, and the seized building, situated in the middle of the wilderness about 30 miles from the nearest town, was empty when it was taken. A couple of the protesters are Bundys, who came up from Nevada but are not affiliated with the Hammonds in any way.

As it stands right now, as far as I know, the "militia" members are sitting in a vacant visitor's center in a bird sanctuary and law enforcement are somewhere on the peripheral trying to figure out what to do next. Many liberals on Twitter have been rooting for a violent end to this situation, but those of us with souls of course would prefer that nobody die over an armed occupation of a small, uninhabited structure out in the forests of eastern Oregon.

Now that we've established the basics, I'd like to pass along a few thoughts on the subject:

1) No matter how you feel about the armed protesters, let's not lose sight of the injustice that sparked all of this. The Hammonds have owned a large plot of land adjacent to this bird sanctuary for a few generations. The government has been trying to chase them off their property for decades to no avail. If you research the long and complicated backstory of this dispute, which I highly recommend, you'll find that they've long been the victims of bullying, harassment, and abuse by bureaucratic tyrants from both the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Finally the government sensed an opportunity when the Hammonds accidentally burned a portion of federal land on two occasions. In both instances they started the fire on the their own land, once to prevent the spread of invasive species, and once to control a wildfire that was threatening to destroy their home. Eventually -- like 5 tears later, actually -- they were arrested and charged with arson under the Anti-terrorism Act. Sentencing guidelines require at least FIVE YEARS in prison for anyone convicted as a "terrorist," but the judge said 5 years would be cruel and unusual for such a minor offense. They served a much shorter term and were released.

However, a field manager for the BLM decided they should do the full five years, because apparently pencil pushers at the Bureau of Land Management can make those kinds of decisions now. The bully filed an appeal, and next thing you know the Hammonds were re-sentenced, and must now report to prison for another 4 years. That seems awfully close to something called double jeopardy, but what do I know?

There's a lot more to this story, but suffice it to say that the feds have been trying to chase a family off of their own land so they can expand their habitat for birds and other woodland creatures. If that means sending a father and son to prison, so be it. Part of the sentence, coincidentally, requires that the Hammonds sell their land to the feds, if ever they decide to sell at all. Of course all of this legal trouble, and now 5 years in prison, can be quite costly, meaning the Hammonds might have no choice but to sell -- and guess who ends up with the land when that happens?

It's outrageous. Our government is run by a bunch of petty, power hungry dictators, and it's about time we all realize it.

2) That said, the Hammonds have nothing to do with this armed "protest," and from what I understand, they do not support it. These people are almost certain to do more harm than good for the cause of liberty, particularly considering Obama's plan to make a hard push for gun control during his last year in office. Now the president has a very convenient case study to demonstrate the terrible dangers of letting folks buy guns all willy-nilly. I'd have no problem with a sit-in or protest at a federal building in response to an injustice like this, but if you do it while armed, you lose automatically.

3) That said, liberals are full of it when they claim a "double standard" because these armed white protesters haven't all been killed yet. Liberals all over social media have been claiming that if blacks or Muslims had pulled something like this, the cops would have come in guns blazing from the start. That's nonsense, obviously. First of all, Muslims always take over inhabited buildings and kill everyone inside them. A slightly different situation, don't you think? Second, black folks in Baltimore set fire to entire city blocks, looted, threw Molotov cocktails, and torched cop cars, and the police sat back and watched it happen. The mayor even declared that the looters should be given "space to destroy." So, no, there is no white privilege here. We've seen blacks lay siege to populated cities while law enforcement stood to the side and twiddled their thumbs. If there's any double standard here, it's in the reverse.

4) Last point, back to the Hammonds again: where does the federal government derive the authority to take ownership of land and give it over to birds and deer? The constitution grants the feds the power to build forts and so on, but why does the federal government own the woods in eastern Oregon? If land needs to be "protected" so that birds have some privacy, which I'm not sure it does to begin with, then it should be the state in charge of that sort of thing.

quote:

Just a Shotgun


You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.


Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.


Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,

"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,

and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.

Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done

The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just remember - the reason the Japanese didn't invade the USA is because they knew that most

of the citizens were armed.

Picnic Princess posted:

quote:

I'm sick and tired of people comparing Ron Paul with Bernie Sanders. The only thing they have in common is that they are genuine in their beliefs and have an ability to reach young people. That is where the comparisons STOP! A strawberry taste totally different than a tomato even though they are both red fruits (yes a tomato is a fruit).

Ron Paul stood for freedom from the Federal Government, Bernie Sanders stands for the Federal Government taking care of you from cradle to grave.

Ron Paul wanted your education controlled by your state and local government, Bernie Sanders wants the Federal Government to control your education system.

Ron Paul warned us about our interventions overseas creating more problems, Bernie Sanders wants to go after the group known as ISIS that we created.

Ron Paul wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve and move back to sound money that is backed by gold and not the Federal Reserve's fabricated money backed by IOUs, Bernie Sanders thinks that the Big Banks have hijacked the Federal Reserve and he wants to fix it.

I just scratched the surface with War, Money, and Education. I could go on and on but I don't want to bore you, instead I would rather have you research socialism on Google and see what it has done to the countries where it has been implemented. Or better yet, talk to a Cuban or Vietnamese American about it. When you are done, ask them "why they are here"? P.S. avoid the throat punch.

~Mentally Emancipated

Admiral Joeslop posted:

Wanamingo posted:

Blind Pineapple posted:

IOSM posted:

My heart goes out to the Americans who fell pray to this heinous attack in Orlando. It is saddling to see innocent people in harms way and to witness such terrible things. That being said I find this imagine very offensive. Me personally I do not agree with the LBGT movement and community and what it stands for, but also I do NOT bare ill will to those who firmly believe in this cause. My differing opinion o the subject is not the cause of bigotry or homophobia, it is just that, a differing opinion. I don't agree with the life style and I most of all do not think less of anyone who supports this cause or is a part of this movement and community. My quarrel is NOT with the movement or community, but with the blatant disrespect and disregard for military service members and veterans by tarnishing our nations iconic history. It is a blatant slap in the face to those who served valiantly and honorably through World War II and those who willing gave up their lives for this great country and their fellow brothers and sisters in arms. This kind of disrespect is what angers me, and I dare with full confidents, those who are serving, have served and will serve our country when the time comes and to the families who have fathers, mothers, sons and daughters who have served and are currently serving or to those families who members have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line for duty.

Immolat1on posted:

Side note: why is everyone obsessed with getting Obama to call the guy a radical islamic terrorist?

A 45 year old man posted:

Thought you might like and relate to this one:
The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.

They like to refer to us as senior citizens, old fogies, geezers, and in some cases dinosaurs. Some of us are "Baby Boomers" getting ready to retire. Others have been retired for some time. We walk a little slower these days and our eyes and hearing are not what they once were. We worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and have grown old together.

Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill, and that is probably true. But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration.

In school we studied English, history, math, and science, which enabled us to lead America into the technological age. Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone party-lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you who don't know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank. Yes, we lived those days.

We are probably considered old fashioned and outdated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II, fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote The Pledge of Allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn't fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag.

We know the words to the “Star Spangled Banner" “America,” and “America the Beautiful” by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America .

Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.

It was mostly the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democratic Congress. You fell for the "Hope and Change" which in reality was nothing but "Hype and Lies." You youngsters have tasted socialism and seen evil face to face, and have found you don't like it after all. You make a lot of noise, but most are all too interested in their careers or "Climbing the Social Ladder" to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting. Many of those who fell for the "Great Lie" in 2008 are now having buyer's remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn't have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the 'Kool-Aid.' Now you're paying the price and complaining about it; no jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, and less freedom.

This is what you voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the Torch of Liberty, and you
traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house.

Well, don't worry youngsters, the Grey-Haired Brigade is here, and in 2016 we are going to take back our nation. We may drive a little slower than you would like, but we get where we're going, and in 2016 we're going to the polls by the millions.

This land does not belong to the man in the White House nor to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch. It belongs to "We the People," and "We the People" plan to reclaim our land and our freedom. We hope this time you will do a better job of preserving it and passing it along to our grandchildren. So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor our country, and thank God for the old geezers of the "Gray-Haired Brigade."

Footnote: This is spot on. I am another Gray-Haired Geezer signing on. I will circulate this to other Gray-Haired Geezers all over this once great county.

Can you feel the ground shaking??? It's not an earthquake, it is a STAMPEDE.

You and I are Members. Don't Delete.
Just Read and Pass it on!!
In God we STILL trust!

oldpainless posted: