|
About time for these assholes to get squashed.
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Wooten posted:Already had a facebook friend claim that this whole thing is another false flag to make it easier to ban guns. why are you friends with idiots
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Jet Jaguar posted:They're also talking about seizing a firehouse sitting vacant for the season. Given that their numbers have been reported anywhere from 6 to 150, that could be interesting. When I was in eighth grade some friends and I threw pennies at a girl and called her a "penny whore." I bet this is like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hammond-v-united-states/ The statement of the case sections of the petition and response contain what appear to be reasonable synopses of the case. At least, they converge on most of the salient facts (other than whether the Hammonds were illegally hunting). Whatever sympathy anyone has for them over the severity of the sentence or seeming triviality of the offense should note they were explicitly warned to stop starting fires without coordinating with BLM in 1999, two years prior to the first fire for which they were charged. Whether they started a fire to cover up illegal hunting or not, the 2006 fire in which they started fired beneath wildland firefighters camped on a butte seems worth the five years. That's a really good way to get people killed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Waco is on point. These people seem to think there is nothing wrong with setting poo poo on fire. So, set them on fire.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Oh look they've been up to this same bullshit and threatening government agents for decades http://www.hcn.org/issues/20/582 im shocked
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:Are there any decent write ups on the history of federal land ownership and the political debate surrounding it? Cursory Google searches turn up pages of right-wing/libertarian rags basically taking the Bundy line. Google sagebrush rebellion and "wise use." These people are just modern iterations of that, with more guns and sovereign citizen bullshit stirred in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:Actually Oregon has open-carry so unless they start using those guns, yes it is. Guns are illegal in federal buildings, nice try though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because it's a useless shed in the middle of nowhere that no one cares about Can we dispose of this dumb bit of acquired consensus? It's an office. It's peoples' workplace. It's not some empty shed. The refuge doesn't manage itself. The people who work in that building manage it. An armed occupation of their workplace impedes their ability to do their jobs. Interference with agency function is a crime, conspiracy to interfere with agency function is another crime, and bringing firearms, setting up defensive positions, etc. are a bunch of other crimes. I don't know how people here are dumb enough to believe that somehow this armed takeover is magically not a crime until the moment they shoot a cop.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:
Whether it's terrorism or not I think is a fruitless semantic issue (though if anwar al awliki is a terrorist for saying bad words about America and recruiting people, so are they). They have clearly articulated an intent to instigate a shooting fight with the federal government and committed over acts in furtherance of it. At some point we have to take them at their word. They're a bunch of violent criminals, whether we want to call them terrorists or insurrectionists or dumb white trash or whatever. They don't have to fire shots before they're deemed violent. 'I've got these guns and they mean I can break laws and gently caress you oh and if you come stop me I'll shoot you' paired with breaking those laws is a violent act.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:well it literally is an empty shed until winter is over. That's also why the government hasn't bothered to surround the place yet. Except it's not, it was closed for New Years weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
If the sheriff is the ultimate authority shouldn't they go home since the sheriff told them to gently caress off?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
You can't have marijuana, medical or otherwise, in a national wildlife refuge regardless of the states law on the subject. Which is relevant because these guys are obviously conscientious law followers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
That place is chilly, not even cold. Overnight lows in the teens oh my god how will human life survive???
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:So one thing I haven't heard an explanation for, why does the U.S. gov own so much land in western states? And why are they seeking more? Because the federal government owned at all (give or take some homesteaders and indian reservations) prior to statehood, and it was not all gifted to the states upon admission to the union. Quite the opposite, what land the federal government retained, and what land was given to the state was spelled out in the statehood legislation in each case. Why does the federal government continue to hold a lot of land? Because a lot of it is environmentally valuable and worth preserving. National park system units and national wildlife refuges are, more or less by definition, areas of significant natural or cultural value and we as a nation have decided that we would rather not bulldoze over and log every single last acre of land. In the case of national forests and BLM units, the natural and cultural values are not always as high as the NPS or USFWS lands, however, they are also generally managed in a far more extractive manner. For instance, there are timber sales and associated logging in many (most?) national forests, and mining / petroleum extraction on a lot of BLM land. States are not capable of administering these lands on their own. In a good fiscal situation they have skeleton staffs in the state units, and as soon as budgets tank state parks are among the first entities on the chopping block. Contrary to the narrative the Bundys are pushing, the federal government is not excluding the public from these lands. Certainly, they exclude people from converting public lands to their exclusive personal economic use. That is really what the Bundys want. They want it to be theirs, not yours, and they want it for free, because ARE POCKET CONSTITUTION says so. But do you like to camp? Hunt? Fish? Do basically anything outdoors? Federal public lands are there for you. Compare that to the eastern U.S. where if you want to go hunting you often have to pay a private land owner to use their land. That sure doesn't sound like land that is free and available to me. Gov. Jay Hammond of Alaska said it best: federal public lands are locked open, not locked up. We are one of the few nations in the world that has taken the opportunity to preserve ecosystems intact, at least in the west. That is a good thing. Why is the federal government trying to acquire more? It basically isn't. There are small scale land purchases to enhance existing units, but the federal government is not really in the business of scooping up large tracts of land at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
prefect posted:Here's a lawyer explaining the sentencing: https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/ quote:
Probably the simplest and best explanation of why sending them back to prison is not somehow unjust.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Hard to even begin to have a dust bowl when you don't have any water to let you develop it in the first place. The only reason you see development in places like eastern Washington is because of ridiculously extensive irrigation from the Columbia River. Eastern Oregon, Nevada, and Utah etc. don't really have any sort of reliable water source for large scale agriculture. Which is of course the product of the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Pretty much all life west of the Mississippi River is the product of federal pork water projects.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
The refuge wildlife biologist probably would have something to say about around the clock 90dB shrill noise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/ wake up sheeple this is tyranny
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:If you're in position to be in that raid, you aren't allowed to act on thoughts like this or you are bad at your job and will be relieved of your duties hth. And I wouldn't think like that anyways, because the precedent that armed gangs aren't allowed to interrupt federal business, period, is an important one. Just adding on here, I worked a detail last August with one of the tactical teams that staffed the Bundy standoff. They were pissed. Not at the prospect of their lives being jeopardized over some cows, but because they were denied the opportunity to respond to an overt armed challenge to the rule of law in their jurisdiction. They were more than willing to take action - not mag dumping every dumb hick in sight, but confronting and arresting people who were actively obstructing federal business. We have superior resources and tactics. We are willing to use them, even though that does involve personal risk. Public lands law enforcement in the west usually involves some level of risk - I've lost four coworkers in the line of duty, in a plane crash and a landslide. We're willing to accept a relatively high risk profile. The issue here is not the sanctity of an office. That's important, but the real headline issue is the rule of law. The more reasons people have to believe that having a gun means the law doesn't apply to you, the more they will push limits. I am very worried that when I get off winter furlough and go back to my park I am going to check some guys fishing license alone and four hours (on a good day) from backup, and he's going to decide his shotgun means I have no authority. That puts me a very dangerous situation. It also means I view the threat environment in my workplace very differently. I really prefer to be ranger friendly when I contact people (most of whom are armed), chat, gain voluntary compliance with the law, and leave them feeling like my presence enhanced their visit and not entirely sure if they just talked to a cop. Events like this force me to put officer safety at the front of the list, and that makes my contacts with the public a lot less productive, because when someone thinks they're talking to an armed officer who views them as a threat, they tend to get defensive and resentful. What scares me is not the prospect that I might have to confront people who pull this poo poo at my office. I'm pretty willing to stand in front of our door and tell them to go elsewhere, and enforce that if need be. That's what I signed up to do. It's the prospect of there being an increasingly energized population of armed antigovernment types, and a whole lot of question marks coming from my agency's senior leadership.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
I agree, and I think the appropriate response is to order them to disperse, contain the situation, and arrest people when you have a substantial tactical advantage (e.g. As they trickle out one by one when socks mittens fail to appear, or at their home), and in a way that does not create a spectacle. It's just that nothing of the sort happened at Bundy, and that's the thing people remember. We absolutely do not want a Waco, or any firearm discharged on either side. But it's not a binary. It's not entirely clear cabinet level leadership understands that or is willing to stake their political futures on that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The FBI did take over a local school as an ops center, so it's possible something is in the works. Yeah we're as in the dark as anyone else at my level (other than generic warnings to be alert for similar issues in our area). It's still very possible this will play out differently. I just hope it represents a learning event if so, and we don't go back to being afraid of our shadows because some people acted like cowboys 20 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
If John Krakauer has taught me one thing it is that weird Mormon sects are hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Look at the fancy city-boy with his branded store-bought grain alcohol. Lol if you don't drink actual gasoline, just lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Best headline of 2016 less than one week in
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
I'm really interested in their thoughts on the supremacy clause.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Oh so this federal workplace actually has some function and is not just some comedy shack in the desert. What a huge and unforeseeable turn of events.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:More on all that: I hope one of these idiots walks around with a patch sewn over his rear end so the spirits or whatever can't get in through his butthole, like one of the lafferty brothers did.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
You guys have convinced me, there should be no consequences for this, everyone should just ignore it and hope it goes away. Gonna grab my gun and go claim the local library for myself. Don't you dare suggest anyone should do anything about it, that would be an irresponsible provocation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:it's really not hard to understand The manner the situation has been managed to this point suggests hope for number 2 is not great. There has not even been an explicit order for them to disperse, just wishy washy expressions of hope for a peaceful resolution. Their continued unimpeded presence there is strong validation of he notion that if you have a gun the rules are different for you. That's a really bad message to send everyone with a grievance against the government.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
Sweet so I can count you as being in favor of my plan to get my gun and take over the local library. That is actually a really dumb plan offered to demonstrate how dumb the "if you do anything at all about these people it is LITERALLY WACO" argument is but nope you actually thing it is an okay and legal thing to do. Burglary, theft, interference with agency function, conspiracy to commit those offenses, and using firearms in the furtherance of those offenses are crimes, hth. Yes it is in fact against the law to engage in an armed takeover of a federal building, strange but true.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Oh me oh my I can't imagine what crimes could possibly have been committed at the Bundy ranch in 2014. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111 Oh that's just some dumb misdemeanor! Oh there's a twenty year max for using a gun to impede federal law enforcement officers? Who could ever have imagined there was a fairly serious law against that?!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372 Oh there's a law against conspiring to threaten and intimidate federal officials out of doing their job? I'm shocked.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 Hey we found some truck keys, I guess we can use these government vehicles now right? There's no law against that is there? Oh there is? It's a felony to steal federal property in excess of $1,000? Stunning.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nXGfDlFsqkM
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
I demand to have proof Ammon Bundy was at the 2014 standoff and broke the law! Watches video of Ammon Bundy breaking the law at the 2014 standoff. I demand to see Ammon Bundy committing other crimes I deem sufficiently serious at the 2014 standoff! Give it up guy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah, i can see how this guy should have been on some kind of terrorist watchlist, what with him allegedly kicking a police dog and all Or I don't know, maybe he should have been arrested for committing multiple crimes on video, either at the scene (difficult given the crowd) or at any point in the last year and a half. But nope, if you have a publicly subsidized ranch, laws don't apply to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so if there are multiple videos of ammon bundy committing crimes on youtube, why hasn't he been arrested? because of the known bias the FBI has in allowing white christian militia to go unpunished? Hey congratulations you have correctly identified the reason so many people in this thread are disappointed with the federal response to these people. All I know is he's on video impeding federal officials in their lawful duties, disobeying lawful orders, kicking a police dog, and arguably assaulting law enforcement officers. Why he wasn't charged is beyond me. Personally I think it's because the political appointees in the department of interior are limpdicks who are worried that bad publicity will diminish their post-Obama employment opportunities and are hoping to slow roll this until it's someone else's problem. Which is loving garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
Says the guy who has wasted multiple pages of this thread insisting the armed insurgents have broken no law. Yes I'm sure you are just a patient advocate for the slow wheels of justice. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:can you quote the post where i said this? i won't apologize for making fun of people who decry police brutality in some instances and encourage it in others quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:yeah i'm talking about the guy who insists that ammon bundy was present and committing crimes at the 2014 bundy ranch standoff, and therefore claiming gross negligence and favorable treatment at the hands of the FBI, even though he doesn't have any proof that ammon was even at that standoff Hth
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 00:01
|
|