Not these assholes again: Bundy sons, Militia seize federal building

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Not these assholes again: Bundy sons, Militia seize federal building

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Grem posted:

32 pages of complaints

http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/image/upload/v1453933656/AmmonBundy1_kkivkn.pdf

The tiredest Yeehawdi

e: Just to be clear, this photo was used in the criminal complaint because the FBI have a sense of humor too.

Stultus Maximus fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Jan 28, 2016

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 02:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 04:14

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Jacobin posted:

Wait what? Are they literally smoking weed? its what it sounds like

Too high to die.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 04:36

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

theflyingorc posted:

I thought this, briefly, when I was 15.

The problem is that these people don't recognize what life would be like WITHOUT a government - they assume the world they were born into is the default state, and so they don't recognize how much of the good stuff in their life is the result of having a government.

In reality, if you had the option of "government or not", with an understanding of all that entails, you'd choose government every single time. Even authoritarian regimes are better than lawless societies.

I really would love for these people to get their wish. Sure, there you go, you no longer are a part of the system you didn't voluntarily opt into. So no use of any public services or protections. No roads, no utilities, no police, no courts. Someone steals your stuff, assaults you, kills you? Oh well. You didn't consent to have a relationship with the legal system. Not our problem. For all the BS they think they know about English common law and so on, they don't seem to get that they're trying to outlaw themselves.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 19:09

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

As a Millennial I posted:

From the leader of PPN:

Good luck dude.

This militiaman does not understand how civil disobedience works.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 19:57

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

RiotGearEpsilon posted:

If you're talking about Ferguson, I thought the OK went there specifically to square off with the police, not the locals. Do I rememeber wrongly?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-oath-keeper-who-wants-to-arm-black-lives-matter-20160103?page=2

quote:

Rather than wait for approval from the group, Andrews went public. On August 19th, he gave an interview to a reporter from Newsweek in which he expanded on the moral rationale behind the march, sounding � for a white guy from the suburbs of St. Louis � not unlike a fist-raising black nationalist.

"What I can tell you is we are going to march side by side with the black residents of Ferguson � armed," Andrews said. "The point of the march is to have every black child in America see law-abiding black citizens carrying weapons and not being attacked by the police."

A demonstration for the right to bear arms against abusive cops, in the very city that had become ground zero for police brutality, might seem like the type of antiauthoritarian display that typically excites the Oath Keepers' board of directors, but Rhodes was unimpressed. When he came back from Montana and saw the Newsweek article, he sent Andrews a pair of sternly-worded emails, acknowledging that the citizens of Ferguson had "a right to do what we did � secure life, liberty and property against looters, shooters, rapists, robbers and burners." But he also noted that he was "getting backlash from within the gun rights community" and was worried that a public protest would make it seem as if the Oath Keepers wanted local residents "to be armed to directly confront the cops."

Of course, being armed to directly confront authorities is precisely what the Oath Keepers had done at the Bundy ranch and Sugar Pine. In Rhodes' notes, Andrews said he sensed a racist double standard. A few days later, when Rhodes and other leaders conclusively rejected the idea of the march, tempers ran high and Andrews angrily hung up on Steve Homan during a conference call. "I asked him, 'How dark does your skin have to be before you don't have Second Amendment rights?'" Andrews says.

It was at that point that Andrews got an email from John Karriman, a former cop who runs the Oath Keepers' chapter in Missouri. Karriman wrote that the march had been scotched because the board "perceived it as pitting the Blacks against the police." He added that while it was still possible for Andrews, who had showed some promise as an Oath Keeper, to repair his relations with the national organization, that would only happen if he gave up his "abrasiveness" and quit "doing MLK impressions."

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 20:41

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

MariusLecter posted:

You calling Fox Mulder incompetent?

How many cases was he actually able to bring to trial?

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 22:32

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Grem posted:

Um, name one better?

NIST Police.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 22:53

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

theflyingorc posted:

I'm not an expert, but I think a massacre requires more than one person being shot.

Freedom, Liberty, Justice, and White America were also killed that day.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2016 18:08

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

SquadronROE posted:

More interesting than what happens to the rest of these people, and more interesting than the sad death of tarpman, is the fallout from this in the militia movement at large. These guys were literally trying to make a last stand and called on other militias to join up, but very few people showed up. All there was, was a lot of Internet grumbling and then the FBI took down most of them without even a fight.

I wonder if that's going to cause people to rethink things (unlikely).

Status of powder: drier than nun's crotch on the Atacama plateau.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2016 21:32

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Kazak_Hstan posted:

https://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/clo/5423869615.html

Anyone screenshot this before it went down?

# ¿ Jan 30, 2016 14:56

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Can someone please give me a summary of what all has happened since Tarp Man died? There's a thousand unread posts in this topic since it has blown up and I can't keep up at this point.

Most of the campers have evacuated and some have been arrested. Four holdouts are still on federal property.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2016 23:25

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Leofish posted:

Hey Bob, Supe had a straight job.

I think that Yokel Haram would make Superman head right to the jungle.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2016 21:10

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Pixelboy posted:

I may have been the only person to catch this.

Oh I'm afraid not

# ¿ Feb 4, 2016 00:40

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

ashpanash posted:

Reading material! Unsealed Indictment!

https://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2016-02/3585/91645/Bundy_Indictment_unsealed.pdf

I'm no law-talking guy but aren't there a bunch of other charges related to trespassing, destruction of government property, weapons violations, etc. that could be piled on?

# ¿ Feb 4, 2016 19:02

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

meristem posted:

Obligatory joke about a dildo-tarp-and-gun gift shop, insert here.

BRB, putting in an NEA grant request.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2016 14:30

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Anosmoman posted:

MacNab did a piece on it and the rabbit hole goes way deeper than that, I can't readily imagine what my reaction would be if an incoherent lunatic waddled into my office and dumped a stack of blood-smeared poorly capitalized legal documents on my desk. Even if the stamps were properly endorsed at a 45 degree angle.

I am somewhat ashamed to understand most of that, but I do have some questions.
Is "The Continental uNited States of America" a typo or is there meaning to it? Same with "eStates"
What's with "the SEE (SEA)"?

# ¿ Feb 10, 2016 15:47

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

e; wrong tab

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 03:01

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Winter Stormer posted:

Fiore: "There's a camera in my face right now"

What camera? Where is this?

https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/697617682124804097

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 04:09

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

happyhippy posted:

The woman outside will get a book deal out if this if she gets them to give up.

She's probably angling for Reid's Senate seat.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 04:40

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

THEY HAVE SOME SNACKS. REPEAT, THEY ARE WARM AND STILL HAVE SNACKS.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 17:04

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Is there a good video news feed? KGW is showing video of someone taking video of the news teams because they're useless.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 17:18

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

SedanChair posted:

LOL "eric holder bill ayers"

Bill Ayers fought the government and killed cops!

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 17:26

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

"They're evil and they won't let you go peacefully!"

Gavin is probably sweating like crazy now.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 17:36

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

"Make you you go to the bathroom before a long car trip!"

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 17:46

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

She's now discussing book deals.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 17:50

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Dammit can we get back to debating whether or not to go out in a hail of gunfire and get away from low-rent AM talk radio?

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 18:30

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Ahahahaha Krisan is interrupting the surrender to bullshit about Congress.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 18:42

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

evilweasel posted:

lol

"you know scripture, what happened when paul and cyrus went to prison?"

"uh...*crickets*"

Yeah, does she keep calling Silas "Cyrus"?

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 18:53

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

If only there were some example in American history of someone peacefully going to jail in protest of his taxes going to atrocities.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 19:07

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

A girl wants to see you again! She likes you!

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 19:34

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

sparatuvs posted:

What's happened in the last 2000 pages since last night

I thought they were surrendering at 8?

3 of them did, 1 did not and was nearly talked into suicide by two talk show hosts before the FBI negotiator got him on the phone and took ten minutes to give him a cookie to come out peacefully.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 20:45

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

For those who missed it, NPR has the whole morning stream up:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/11/466394039/listen-final-occupier-refusing-to-leave-oregon-wildlife-refuge

The "hallelujah" moment is at 3:13

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 21:09

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

fap fap SPLOOGE posted:

Wait Wait Don't Tell Me is going to be a hoot this weekend.

I have my doubts.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 21:35

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

That's probably even more dangerous though.

So we're back to Kylo Ren comparisons.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 01:58

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

go3 posted:

whats up with the guy on the right, did we ever hear anything from him?

He was on the live feed for about 10 seconds. He kept a really low profile. Well, as much as 1 out of 4 holdouts can.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 04:32

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

stubblyhead posted:

Sandy Anderson, one of 4 refuge holdouts, wasn't aware of federal orders to leave, lawyer says

Given the hours of voice recordings we all have, her lawyer doesn't have a lot to work with. Kind of feel sorry for him.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2016 02:30

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

SSNeoman posted:

This. People seem to mistake her for a hardened criminal, when in reality she's obviously more of a cheerleader than anything else. I know sovcits are unpredictable, like that kid pulling an AK to gun down those two officers, but if she wanted to go down swinging, she would have done so already. After getting owned this hard by the FBI she (along with the rest of her movement) the most she can do now is whine impotently on the internet. And I'd like to remind you that it's likely her fellow militants consider her a persona non grata.
Her missing the court date is almost guaranteed too

In short, let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Sandy Anderson knows what she's doing. She knows JACKSHIT what she's doing.

Why doesn't what you say apply to any one of them?

# ¿ Feb 21, 2016 04:06

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

SSNeoman posted:

Because the dangerous ones are already held without bail. Those who are of lesser threat were released on bail. This could be a miscalculation on the part of the FBI, but as I'm gonna assume that they know how to do their jobs.
Look how much the movement suddenly quieted down when they arrested everyone. Do you honestly think Sandy can get the ball rolling for another occupation? They couldn't get the True Patriots to band together after the arrest of the ringleaders what makes you think they would want to associate themselves with a woman who's out on bail?
Plus you saw the reasons she was granted bail. Is there any legal reason, that you can bring up in a court of law, why she should be denied bail? There's a large burden of proof for that and I doubt the FBI would bother. If she was the sort to climb up a clock tower with a rifle, I'm sure the FBI would have done something by now.

I'm not arguing a position here, I really want to know what the basis is for the claim that she's the follower and the other three are leaders who are dangerous.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2016 13:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 04:14

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Remember in the (closed) gun thread when I said you were too immature to talk about the subject without using cartoonish language and insults?

That's your opinion that it's not important. Probably the opinion of someone who lives in a cozy neighborhood in a suburb of a major city. To 20% of the population living in rural areas, guns are most definitely an immediate source of security, both physical security and security of their livelihood. For national security, there are many far-fetched scenarios we could talk about that are plots of movies or whatever, but that doesn't really affect the point of the 2nd amendment. And since the US constitution is the longest lasting constitution in the world, maybe there is some merit to it.

Like 10x more Americans die of heart disease or cigarette use so I think it's acceptable that we allow freedom even if it costs lives.

Citizens privately carrying firearms has guaranteed the security of our state exactly zero times in the last two hundred plus years, your argument is stupid and you are stupid.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2016 23:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Not these assholes again: Bundy sons, Militia seize federal building