Assholes making trouble in Oregon

[peach174]

Maybe they will get away with charging them with terrorism. The law was written poorly enough that they might make it stick, but I am sure that this will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court unless the Feds back down.

Which is the point that the protesters are trying to do.
They got them to back down before so we will see if the Feds back down again or if it goes to the Supreme Court.
Looks like they think it will have to go the Supreme Court and why they are saying they are there for long haul.

Do they have the right to shoot anyone who attempts to arrest them?

They didn't before why would they now?

 

[Dot Com]

Now I feel that the additional time given the Hammond's is wrong, and I hope that they win their freedom, and are compensated for the trouble. But that in no way makes up for what these dingbat people are doing down at the Refuge. One other point, that is a game refuge. If the assholes start shooting any of the animals or birds down there, they need to be given the maximum for poaching and destruction of government property. Consectutive terms, not concurrent.

The Hammonds were also charged w/ poaching as it was suspected that they set the illegal fires to cover it up.

 

[Dot Com]

I hate domestic terrorists. HATE!!! First they commit arson and get convicted and now they illegally occupy a fed bldg. knowing the consequences.

Totally Agree.

This is nothing more than an act of RW Terrorism. Feds should move in and arrest each and every one of asshole's.

AFTER giving them the beat down of their lives bravoactual

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, I re-read it, and there is no such sliver of redeeming technicality.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

This satisfies that criteria fully.

so all those various **** the police protests fit the bill as well

Are they committing "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State?

 

[bravoactual]

They can be called nothing short.

The occupation is being led by hard-core militia who adopted the Hammond cause as their own.

Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison. The Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison.


Ammon Bundy said the goal is to turn over federal land to local ranchers, loggers and miners. He said he met with 10 or so residents in Burns on Friday to try to recruit them, but they declined.

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

The sad thing is that if they were Muslims, they would be immediately labeled terrorists, and the building would have been stormed and the occupants shot dead by now. Instead, since its a bunch of white people, they are simply holding a 'peaceful protest' and are not terrorists at all.

True that.

This is just, a group of Armed Black Men just seized control of Federal Wildlife Management Office in Oregon.

Take the headline from there. The RWNJ would be calling it Terrorism with even blinking. Throw a few Muslims into the mix and Fox Lies would be covering 24/7.

Right Wing Terrorism plain and simple.

 

[bravoactual]

I hate domestic terrorists. HATE!!! First they commit arson and get convicted and now they illegally occupy a fed bldg. knowing the consequences.

Totally Agree.

This is nothing more than an act of RW Terrorism. Feds should move in and arrest each and every one of asshole's.

AFTER giving them the beat down of their lives bravoactual

All in the name of law and order.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Actually, I re-read it, and there is no such sliver of redeeming technicality.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

This satisfies that criteria fully.

so all those various **** the police protests fit the bill as well

Are they committing "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State?

indeed they have

how about the Ferguson protesters

certainly terrorism

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, really funny that these whackos don't consider threatoning the local sheriff with death, and bullying the local people in Burns with guns to be a form of terrorism. And they wonder why they could not get any locals to help them. I hope when they come up for trial on multiple charges that they have jurors from that county judging them.

If they go to trial for charges, then of course they would have jurors from that county.

 

[HappyJoy]

Maybe they will get away with charging them with terrorism. The law was written poorly enough that they might make it stick, but I am sure that this will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court unless the Feds back down.

Which is the point that the protesters are trying to do.
They got them to back down before so we will see if the Feds back down again or if it goes to the Supreme Court.
Looks like they think it will have to go the Supreme Court and why they are saying they are there for long haul.

Do they have the right to shoot anyone who attempts to arrest them?

They didn't before why would they now?

You're not answering the question. If they are arrested do they have the right to shoot back? It's a simple question.

 

[easyt65]

FLASHBACK: HOW DID THIS START?

Liberal 'Criminal' Senator Harry Reid made an economic deal to use public lands, one in which he stood to make a good deal of money. The problem was that a family, that had been grazing cattle on those public lands for about 100 years, was currently grazing cattle on the land. So Reid and the Dept of Land management ordered a US citizen, part of the public, who was using the public lands, as his family had done for almost 100 years or so, so that Senator Harry Reid could go through with his personal use of public lands to make more money. The family refused to do so. They filed numerous legal briefs / suits / documents...they were at an impasse, and the rancher refused to move his cattle.

SO, the Department of Land Management sent their own private ARMY to the lands. They threatened the rancher and his family. Their snipers reportedly placed their rifle crosshairs on the heads of the ranchers wife, sons, and daughters, demonstrating they were willing to kill American citizens to take control of PUBLIC lands so Harry Reid could make a personal profit. The Department of Land Management STOLE hundreds of the man's cows he had grazing on the land and slaughtered them. (Where's PETA or those other animal rights 'terrorists' when you need them?)

FINALLY a HUGE number of US Citizen Militia members flocked in to help the farmer. Their numbers ... and firepower... almost matched the Dept of Land management's own 'army'. (WHT TF does Land Management have an army, military vehicles, equipment, guns?) The stand-off was widely reported. The administration had learned it's lesson from the failed WACO disaster and did NOT want the killing of Bundy's wife and kids reported and / or a 'civil war' between a militia and the Dept of Land management, so they stepped down. They took their 'toys of war' and 'murderous snipers' and went home...allowing everything to dissolve. This, as everyone knew, was not over by far.

Wisely, one of Bundy's sons was arrested away from the ranch, where there was no serious confrontation .(Which is what they should have done to the leader of the Waco compound rather than wade in and kill innocents.) Now we have the Bundy family and more militia members supporting the family taking over government buildings in protest of what's going on.

Don't get me wrong - I believe that taking over these buildings is wrong, but the Govt pushed this family to the point where they feel they have no other option. They could go the legal right, to use the law to fight the law that is trying to (to some extent) screw them. They don't seem any way that going through the rigged legal system.

It started, however, with Harry Reid's personal deal and desire to use public lands for himself to make more money. Doesn't that greedy, self-serving millionaire POS have enough money? Does he really want 'blood', to kill, jail, or destroy a family in order to get more?!

The whole case, with the govt's abuse of power, the fact that agencies like the Dept of Land Management has it's own 'military', and how they are willing to destroy and kill families in the pursuit of their own personal gain, has proven WHT Americans need to own their own guns, WHY militia's like the one that came to the Bundy's rescue are needed. This was a definite case of the govt going out of control. People are pissed at cope for 'excessive use of force' when in this initial case our government illegally stole and slaughtered hundreds of privately owned cows because they were 'in the govt's way' and had snipers point their weapons at the heads of a rancher's wife and children's heads because they refused to surrender to the govt's will.

THAT should scare the hell out of a lot of people.

In the end, though, despite what has pushed things this far, the protestors and Bundy family will have to pay for breaking the law. I have to admit, though...in the time to come, I wonder if anyone will look back and see this as a critical, pivotal turning point, a time when instead of siding with the government we should not have all sided with this family in their opposition to a government that has become dictators, stripping more and more rights from citizens, and imposing THEIR will on the rest of us?!

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually, I re-read it, and there is no such sliver of redeeming technicality.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

This satisfies that criteria fully.

so all those various **** the police protests fit the bill as well

Are they committing "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State?

indeed they have

how about the Ferguson protesters

certainly terrorism

Are they trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?
Are they trying to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?
Are they trying to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually, I re-read it, and there is no such sliver of redeeming technicality.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

This satisfies that criteria fully.

so all those various **** the police protests fit the bill as well

Are they committing "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State?

indeed they have

how about the Ferguson protesters

certainly terrorism

Weapons or no weapons

Its all the same thing (when comparing to blacks)

 

[SwimExpert]

FLASHBACK: HOW DID THIS START?

Liberal 'Criminal' Senator Harry Reid made an economic deal to use public lands, one in which he stood to make a good deal of money. The problem was that a family, that had been grazing cattle on those public lands for about 100 years, was currently grazing cattle on the land. So Reid and the Dept of Land management ordered a US citizen, part of the public, who was using the public lands, as his family had done for almost 100 years or so, so that Senator Harry Reid could go through with his personal use of public lands to make more money. The family refused to do so. They filed numerous legal briefs / suits / documents...they were at an impasse, and the rancher refused to move his cattle.

SO, the Department of Land Management sent their own private ARMY to the lands. They threatened the rancher and his family. Their snipers reportedly placed their rifle crosshairs on the heads of the ranchers wife, sons, and daughters, demonstrating they were willing to kill American citizens to take control of PUBLIC lands so Harry Reid could make a personal profit. The Department of Land Management STOLE hundreds of the man's cows he had grazing on the land and slaughtered them. (Where's PETA or those other animal rights 'terrorists' when you need them?)

FINALLY a HUGE number of US Citizen Militia members flocked in to help the farmer. Their numbers ... and firepower... almost matched the Dept of Land management's own 'army'. (WHT TF does Land Management have an army, military vehicles, equipment, guns?) The stand-off was widely reported. The administration had learned it's lesson from the failed WACO disaster and did NOT want the killing of Bundy's wife and kids reported and / or a 'civil war' between a militia and the Dept of Land management, so they stepped down. They took their 'toys of war' and 'murderous snipers' and went home...allowing everything to dissolve. This, as everyone knew, was not over by far.

Wisely, one of Bundy's sons was arrested away from the ranch, where there was no serious confrontation .(Which is what they should have done to the leader of the Waco compound rather than wade in and kill innocents.) Now we have the Bundy family and more militia members supporting the family taking over government buildings in protest of what's going on.

Don't get me wrong - I believe that taking over these buildings is wrong, but the Govt pushed this family to the point where they feel they have no other option. They could go the legal right, to use the law to fight the law that is trying to (to some extent) screw them. They don't seem any way that going through the rigged legal system.

It started, however, with Harry Reid's personal deal and desire to use public lands for himself to make more money. Doesn't that greedy, self-serving millionaire POS have enough money? Does he really want 'blood', to kill, jail, or destroy a family in order to get more?!

The whole case, with the govt's abuse of power, the fact that agencies like the Dept of Land Management has it's own 'military', and how they are willing to destroy and kill families in the pursuit of their own personal gain, has proven WHT Americans need to own their own guns, WHY militia's like the one that came to the Bundy's rescue are needed. This was a definite case of the govt going out of control. People are pissed at cope for 'excessive use of force' when in this initial case our government illegally stole and slaughtered hundreds of privately owned cows because they were 'in the govt's way' and had snipers point their weapons at the heads of a rancher's wife and children's heads because they refused to surrender to the govt's will.

THAT should scare the hell out of a lot of people.

In the end, though, despite what has pushed things this far, the protestors and Bundy family will have to pay for breaking the law. I have to admit, though...in the time to come, I wonder if anyone will look back and see this as a critical, pivotal turning point, a time when instead of siding with the government we should not have all sided with this family in their opposition to a government that has become dictators, stripping more and more rights from citizens, and imposing THEIR will on the rest of us?!

*yawn*

No.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[jon_berzerk]

Actually, I re-read it, and there is no such sliver of redeeming technicality.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

This satisfies that criteria fully.

so all those various **** the police protests fit the bill as well

Are they committing "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State?

indeed they have

how about the Ferguson protesters

certainly terrorism

Weapons or no weapons

Its all the same thing (when comparing to blacks)

are you so nutz

that you believe that molotov cocktails are not weapons

besides all the gun fire and such

 

[HappyJoy]

If you really believe in the 2nd Amendment as an absolute right and consider yourself a Patriot then here's your chance to show it. You're been called up and now it's time to put up or shut up. Do you have the balls or do you just run your mouth????

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

Militia members occupy US building in Oregon after protest

Sounds like a bunch of whining white guys who want to be able to break the law with no consequences. And they are tying up the fbi when they should be trying to stop terrorists.

The Government has labeled the rancher as a terrorist. He did his time for that and the Government wants him to do a longer sentence. That is Government abuse.

Why is it OK for a bunch of whining Black guys (Black lives matter) who want to be able to break the law with no consequences, but not a bunch of whining white guys? as you put it.

Lets face it.
Our Government has become an abusive overreacting tyrant.

I dont like black lives matter either for the same reason. Our government is not a tyrant. The laws are clear and easy to follow. It's criminals who have the problem with the government. Don't break the law and you are fine. Go someplace with a real tyrant and learn.

Then what do you call what they just did?
The retried him on a new charge without a jury.

Actually, they weren't retried. They were sentenced, the feds appealed the sentencing, won that and the Supreme court refused to hear the Hammond's case. So, I don't see anything illegal happening to them in court. Whether the sentence fits the crime or not that can be debated. They set two fires, endangered others and now they are going back to prison for about 4 years.

I don't see how taking over a federal building while armed changes anything for the Hammonds who don't want them there.

 

[peach174]

Ore. ranchers at center of protest expected to report to prison

That report is inaccurate in several things.
1st they did the burn on their property with permission then it got out of hand and burned the Federal land.
2nd they retried them on another charge without a new trial or jury.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The libs are hankering and yearning for a janet reno bbq.

Naw....I'd like to see them come out wimpering and dirty and smelly from being without power and water for a while.

Im good with that.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's a good one. May be you should save it for an ant-gun thread.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Actually, I re-read it, and there is no such sliver of redeeming technicality.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

This satisfies that criteria fully.

so all those various **** the police protests fit the bill as well

Are they committing "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State?

indeed they have

how about the Ferguson protesters

certainly terrorism

Are they trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?
Are they trying to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?
Are they trying to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping?

Are they trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population?

yes

Are they trying to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?

yes indeed that was what it was about

Are they trying to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping?

you just added that in

they burned part of the town down which is of course mass destruction

so according to you yes they are terrorists